On 6/9/2011 10:57 PM, monxton wrote:
Now I know nothing about metal, but I don't see why you say a short term
collaboration between Motorhead and Girlschool would not be a good
example of a collaboration.
I wouldn't; it absolutely *is* a collaboration. I'm not talking about
collaboration
On 10/06/2011 05:08, Nikki wrote:
monxton wrote:
You'll have noted Nikki's response where he says that the distinction
between collaboration and member-of-band has not changed with NGS.
Short-term or one-off projects are collaborations.
I'm not the same person as Nicolás. ;)
Excuse me,
Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
2011/6/7 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren lt;reosare...@gmail.comgt;:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
lt;davito...@gmail.comgt; wrote:
2011/6/7, Lukáš Lalinský lt;lalin...@gmail.comgt;:
I think that the guidelines regarding release/track titles should be
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:53 PM, monxton
musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org wrote:
On 10/06/2011 05:08, Nikki wrote:
monxton wrote:
You'll have noted Nikki's response where he says that the distinction
between collaboration and member-of-band has not changed with NGS.
Short-term or one-off
One possible issue with the workgroup concept is that happens when the
work doesn't have any subgroups?
The workgroup will need to behave and have the exact same attributes
and relationships for this work. Or do we create a single subgroup
within the workgroup. It's getting complicated
To be
One thing about this, I think it would be important to also be able to
assign an order to the parts so that the movements/parts are
displayed/listed in the correct order. While Symphony movements should
be easy to sort as they should all have I. II. III., etc, some other
work types (particularly
Kuno Woudt wrote:
Hello,
On 05/06/11 21:06, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
2011/6/5 Nicolás Tamargo de Egurenlt;reosare...@gmail.comgt;:
The problem is in interpreting the cover. What is the distinction
between an artist being mentioned in a comment on the sleeve and being
credited as an
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote:
One thing about this, I think it would be important to also be able to
assign an order to the parts so that the movements/parts are
displayed/listed in the correct order. While Symphony movements should
be easy to sort
Calvin Walton-2 wrote:
Now with infinitely more wiki page templates, and its very own RFC
number!
This proposal is to add or change two ARs:
* Official Homepage
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Kepstin/Official_Homepage_Relationship_Type_Proposal
A new Release Group →
What happens if a label changes the URL structure of their website? I'm
concerned this will eventually lead to a countless number of dead links, if
said changes aren't fixable by a simple script.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:21 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Calvin Walton-2 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Yin Izanami yind...@gmail.com wrote:
What happens if a label changes the URL structure of their website? I'm
concerned this will eventually lead to a countless number of dead links, if
said changes aren't fixable by a simple script.
The changes should at least
2011/6/10 Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca
One possible issue with the workgroup concept is that happens when the
work doesn't have any subgroups?
The workgroup will need to behave and have the exact same attributes
and relationships for this work. Or do we create a single subgroup
within
often short movements/scenes are joined together to one track on releases.
should we link them to the two or more apropriate works?
eg.:
Concerto for Piano, Violin, Cello, and Orchestra in C major, Op. 56
Triple Concerto: II. Largo / III. Rondo alla Polacca [1]
has its own work now and i would
2011/6/10, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote:
One thing about this, I think it would be important to also be able to
assign an order to the parts so that the movements/parts are
displayed/listed in the
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote:
often short movements/scenes are joined together to one track on releases.
should we link them to the two or more apropriate works?
eg.:
Concerto for Piano, Violin, Cello, and Orchestra in C major, Op. 56
Triple Concerto:
2011/6/10 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote:
often short movements/scenes are joined together to one track on
releases.
should we link them to the two or more apropriate works?
eg.:
Concerto for Piano,
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:16:38 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.com wrote:
This was already discussed a few months ago, I remember that someone
noted that numbering could be dificult to handle because of
overlapping splits, which happens for example in operas. I don't read
music, so
I agree it will be difficult, another possible headache is that there
are various variations of the same movement that of course need to
have the same number and be part of the same work. In regards to
Opera, I always hated the way they were separated and named on albums,
so when I was tagging my
There might not be numbers, but they were definitely composed with an
order in mind.
I absolutely don't want MB to add 1. 2. 3. in front of movements, but
somehow it would be best for the order to preserved
Sebastien
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:42 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On
2011/6/10, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca:
It would almost be best to not have the Opera parts as separate and
distinct works in the MB database and simply have them in the track
listings. Perhaps large parts of Opera could be in, such as Act I, Act
II, Act III, etc... Can anyone think why
Lemire, Sebastien wrote:
There might not be numbers, but they were definitely composed with an
order in mind.
I absolutely don't want MB to add 1. 2. 3. in front of movements, but
somehow it would be best for the order to preserved
I liked what Christopher Key proposed: Having a sort name
On 10/06/2011 08:24, Alex Mauer wrote:
I'm not talking about collaboration relationships here,
OK. Look in the corner of the room. See that big grey thing with the
flappy ears?
I'm talking about situations where it is appropriate to
use artist credits instead of creating separate artists
On 06/10/2011 11:38 AM, monxton wrote:
Now we have NGS, which is the happy state towards which the stopgap was
put in place. So, if all the editors did the right thing, then the
groups joined by a collaboration relationship should be precisely those
to be split using ARs, and those by a
The RFV period of this has passed with no objections and several +1s.
I have entered ticket #MBS-2701 to get this implemented[1].
Hopefully once the work part is there, guidelines can be created for
naming conventions on the works vs. their parts.
1.
Aren't the tracks in on a Opera release more an object convenience and that
it would be rather unwieldy to have 30-40 minute tracks on a CD rather than
anything else?
I think we can we assume that the composer never intended his opera to be
split in 85 different parts.
To be frank, I don't really
On 06/07/2011 09:15 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
Just a (fairly straightforward, I expect) update to limit the
collaboration relationship to cases where we can't use artist credits.
See
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Collaboration_Relationship_Type_update
(vs. the
2011/6/10 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:53:02 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/10, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca:
Perhaps large parts of Opera could be in, such as Act I, Act
II, Act III, etc... Can anyone think why we'd want the
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:30:58 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying or that you understood
Sebastien's suggestion (which was already made by someone else IIRC):
Don't
split an opera in smaller parts than acts if the composer did
2011/6/10 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:30:58 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying or that you understood
Sebastien's suggestion (which was already made by someone else IIRC):
Don't
split an opera
Proposal is to add 8cm CD as a subtype of CD in the medium format list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_CD_singlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_CD
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%E3%82%BB%E3%83%B3%E3%83%81CD
I'd prefer seeing 8cm CD if no one objects to this, since the format was
most
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 15:48 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote:
thanks Paul!
i still think the criteria for a remix becoming a work rather than a
recording need a bit more discussion. credits for additional lyrics or
compositions on such things are going to be the exception rather than
the rule. in
Yin Izanami wrote:
Proposal is to add 8cm CD as a subtype of CD in the medium format list.
Yay!! Definitely a +1.
I've already tagged over a thousand releases with 8cm cd -
http://musicbrainz.org/tag/8cm%20cd/release-group (the tags were
migrated to release groups in NGS)
I'd prefer seeing
monxton wrote:
Now we have NGS, which is the happy state towards which the stopgap was
put in place. So, if all the editors did the right thing, then the
groups joined by a collaboration relationship should be precisely those
to be split using ARs, and those by a member-of-band
all this arguing over collaboration credits. Say we have a collaboration of
Charles Aznavour and Frank Sinatra. Why can't the following artist credits:
- Charles Aznavour
- Frank Sinatra
- Charles Aznavour Frank Sinatra (if they've collaborated long enough or
if it's clear enough from the album
34 matches
Mail list logo
