Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: > > A few comments to jacobbrett >> >> > *Makes adding/editing ARs easier, faster and more streamlined:* >> > For example, at the moment, if a classical performance has 12 parts and >> 3 >> > performers (say a pianist, conductor and orchestra), the ARs need to be >> > added to every part (36 ARs). Approval and implementation of this RFC >> > would >> > give us the possibility to only have 3 ARs to enter or correct.The >> > sub-parts/movements could get the ARs through inheritance. >> > >> I think RFC-339 must be decided before citing this as a pro. > > > Whether or not RFC-339 passes, it's inevitable that some form of > inheritance will be implemented in Musicbrainz and when that time comes, > structural changes such as what's proposed here will benefit from it. > >> *Regarding partial recordings on releases* >> > There are often CDs which have partial recordings (for example most of >> the >> > tracks on this release which I'm currently editing: Les Grands >> Classiques >> > d'Edgar : Encore >> > >> Plus<http://musicbrainz.org/release/f8b78017-9b9a-48fa-8e9b-90310400a84b > > >). >> > The fact is that most of these "recorded parts" were actually recorded >> > along with the remaining parts and released on other albums. Such >> > recordings will simply be merged with other recordings >> > >> I disagree. There are obviously two distinct recordings, one of which is >> intentionally edited--it is not useful for users to have these two >> recordings muddled. > > > I think you misunderstood me, there are often instances where an entire > track is re-released on another release. It's usually because the release > just wants to include the most important or famous movements from bigger > classical works. There is no editing involved. These recordings should > definitely be merged since it's the same performance, same recording, same > performers, etc... > Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.
Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: > > *NOTE*: With RFC-341, I'm only proposing the relationship to link >> > recordings in a hierarchy similar to works. A lot of the advantages I >> > listed above are future benefits but they will and should be passed in >> > separate RFCs after this one has passed. >> > >> Then, I have no opinion on this RFC at this time. > > I don't understand what I said in my last paragraph or two to make you > say > you have no opinion. Did you wish I include more in this RFC? Please let > me > know how I can improve my proposal so that I can get approval. > > Sebastien > I haven't yet considered the RFC and its consequences as a whole (nor work parts); I was just knit-picking small points of your post--your above comment that they should be considered separate RFCs gave me no reason to veto this RFC. Hopefully, I'll get back to you soon with some relevant constructive criticism. :) -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-341-CSG-Recording-parts-Relations-tp4081503p4085453.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
