On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just trying to clean up some issues: > > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote: > > And: My two SMPs have together 103 + 101 = 204 tracks, so you > probably > > want to start with searching for releases, not tracks :) > > > > > > Please don't use poor quality data as a proof! > > I don't, really: Even if they were all done to your content, I'd still > advise you to search for releases, to relieve you of wading through > dozens of pages to find all releases... > > Like Brant pointed out elsewhere, the cat.no. is useful to help get all > translations. (For the SMP it is quite easy to search for "Matt" on > Bach's ArtistPage, but this is not so for Zauberflöte and others. We'll > have to wait for works here...) > > It is ironic to recall that adding the cat.no. to opera tracks was my > suggestion > (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OperaTrackStyle?action=recall&rev=1). When > I see it used, I really regret it :( I said that at a time I believed in > tagger scripts that could fix this according to user preferences. Quite :-) Ugly, but efficient. But at that time, works were still in the far future. > > If some label spent a fortune to have professional scholars and > > performers dig out and record unknown stuff from obscure composers, > then > > most likely it would also result in online references that would be > > helpful. > > > > > > > > > My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to mention the > BWVs > > for them (and I know I have Händel oratorios which do not mention > the > > HWVs - I recently checked some - yet this is *never* a problem). > > > > > > Well, you know that this is contrary to the CSG? > > > > Leaving out the cat.no. for oratorios is not contrary to the CSG, as > they're not part of work names. > > Isn't it also so that in older days, leaving out the workname was quite > acceptable for large choral works and operas? Were this considered a > capital offense back in 2004? I did not mean that the catalogue was perfect (but I may not have been perfectly clear on this). What I meant is that I consider the "work prefix" which is required by CSG as a way to retrieve all the tracks from a specific work. This functionality could also be used to make migrating to NGS easier. MB is a database and as such should offer a means to do this. In the (near) future, the works will be the perfect, rational, user-friendly way of doing it. But back at that time, I considered partly CSG as a bad way to do this. The catalogue being of course the shortest implementation, but Brian showed that the catalogue was not always reliable. > Ah, so it would apply only to the SMP? I hate exceptions. > > No, not only for the SMP. The problems with the information overload is > especially salient for the SMP, so what I wanted to discuss for now was > the passions. > > I do feel guilty for going against the official style guide. Please > consider it a crime of conscience... > But isn't Chris right here, all this will soon become meaningless? -- Frederic Da Vitoria
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
