On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hell...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I've been thinking a bit more about these the last week, so wanted to > give you some more positive feedback. > > Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM, symphonick wrote: > > 2010-03-27 11:22, Brian Schweitzer skrev: > > > * Bandleader Position Relationship Type > > > * Choirmaster Position Relationship Type > > > * Concertmaster Position Relationship Type > > > * Conductor Position Relationship Type > > > * Instrument Instructor Position Relationship Type > > > * Manager Position Relationship Type > > > * Music Director Position Relationship Type > > > * Road Crew Position Relationship Type > > > * Teacher Position Relationship Type > > > * Vocal Coach Position Relationship Type > > I like most all of these and think it is interesting data for MB, with a > clear exception for the "Road Crew Position" which sounds to me to be > far to much towards the trivia section. Manager I am also not so sure > about, but McLaren-Sex Pistols is probably not the only interesting > relationship, so if others want it, sure :) > > I also think I don't like the splitting into three different Teacher > Positions (TP), Instrument Instructor (IIP) and Vocal Coach (VCP). > > TP is for "musical education other than instrument or voice training". > (Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_education is a bit weird > btw, it's mostly about teaching kids.) > > IIP "links an artist to another artist who provided them with > instruction on how to play one or more instruments." (This sounds a > little like the pupil didn't know how to play the instrument and is > getting his/hers first instructions from the teacher.) > > Example: Alfred Brendel taught Paul Lewis, they are late and new > champions of Beethoven piano sonatas. It seems to me that both TP and > IIP is too narrowly construed for what I guess Brendel did for Lewis. > Yet I think one AR between them should be enough. > > For human beings, I think that TP without the restriction is just fine: > From knowing just a little about the artists that are linked, it will > be apparent what kind of learning that has been going on. Do you have > examples where this is not the case? > > Do you have examples of something interesting that can be done with > these three by keeping them apart (supposing the narrow-wording-problem > above could be fixed)? > I'll have to think about that and get back to you. Re: the wording problem, it boils down to there being only boolean attribute support in the AR system - there's no way to do and/or/nor wording ('if attribute A AND attribute B', 'if attribute A OR attribute B', or 'if attribute A NOR attribute B'). So if you wanted to say "Artist taught music (and {vocals}) (and {instrument})' you get wierd/non-grammatical link phrases if everything actually gets used - "Foo taught music and alto and choir and sax, flute, and piano to Bar" is the best case doable. But I've actually had music instructors who taught general music education, voice, and an instrument (piano, in 2 cases, sax in the other); each was separately taught, in different types of 'instructor roles', not all as the same concept. And esp re: vocal coaches, that role quite frequently goes beyond a mere 'instructor' or teacher type of position (see the interplays specific only to that AR and some of the other 9, which don't exist for the other 2 teacher-type ARs). > > > > > > ... > > > > > > There's 5 positions I know of which I've not tried to handle, as > they > > > all seem more like Location-Artist ARs to me, should we ever get > > > Locations... > > > Artist-in-residence > > > Conductor-in-residence > > > Composer-in-residence > > > Concert Producer > > > Music Supervisor > > > Googling conductor-in-residence readily gives plenty of artist-artist > relations, so I don't understand why you think Location-Artist is better. > > (And I am uncertain about the last two.) > The last two seem only barely musical to me, which was the other reason I felt they weren't needed. As for -in-residence, that was my thought initially, and I saw the same from Google. Then I looked through a lot of those Google hits (somewhere around 300 of them), and all but 3 or 4 really boiled down to "Foo is/was conductor/artist in residence to foundation/location Pez which is also the organization behind/location of orchestra/choir Bar". Hence why Foo-Pez and Pez-Bar ('location-artist' ARs) would both make more sense to me than a direct artist-artist AR. For those rare cases where it really is a direct artist-artist, those seemed safely enough cat-corners to leave out for the moment, both to avoid growing the proposal even more and to avoid that majority of location-artist ARs being entered as artist-artist ARs, since we're currently lacking both locations and those much more correct (imho) artist-location ARs. Brian
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
