& IMO classifying works as "classical" / "non-classical" should be avoided at all costs. You'd have to spend a LOT of time defining "classical" first.
2013/10/4 Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <freso...@gmail.com> > Den 03-10-2013 23:43, jesus2099 skrev: > > oh my, why does each time i ask for simple non vocal type (in complement > of > > our simple vocal type), the discussion deviates towards complex and > > irresolvable stuff? :/ > > Because there are vocal Works that are not songs, which a "non vocal" > Work type would not match. (See my previous mail in the thread > (Message-ID: <524b290c.1060...@gmail.com>).) > > > i don’t see why this simple thing should wait for such high heights > stuff… > > ;) > > Or maybe you just haven't realised that it isn't simple? Go for the RFC > and see what happens. > > -- > Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/> > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- /symphonick
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
