Re: [mb-style] DVD in album titles
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:26:55 +0100, Orion wrote: Thanks for this very detailed examples. I feel that discussions here benefit a lot from concrete examples. So if you're still with me at this point, what I'm trying to get at is this: some DVDs could probably be analyzed automatically and entered in a way that would make them easy enough to be given an official status within MB. However many have features either in their layout or in the nature of their content that makes them resistant to a mechanical direct copying of their info into a DB format compared to what can be done with CDs. They need a higher order of human interpretation than what many may be comfortable calling official, but with the ambiguities present in the source itself that interpretation seems necessary in order to get anything entered at all. Calling them bootleg feels incorrect simply because the term is usually used in MB to refer to either pirated releases or band allowed, fan made recordings that aren't commercially released. In this case the situation is more along the lines of entering information about an official release as best as can be done. The database can't easily accomodate all the information about a DVD release, so changes have to be made to the data to get the database to take what it can handle. What I'm arguing is that those changes are just a more advanced form of the type of changes we make when entering an artist as Korn instead of KoЯn. To me your examples show that the problem really in not officiality or botleggicity :-) . It really is the inability of MB to store the data about completely legal live video DVDs. (A) It has been questioned wheter live concert videos belng to MB at all. But these arguments try to draw _objective_ boundaries as to what is MB-stuff and what is not MB-stuff. There is no such objective boundary. There can be no doubt that these videos are part of the fans' culture. This is a soft boundary but it is the only one which is relevant. I went to a concert yesterday and all those teenies made audio/video recordings with their mobile phones (there was one girl who shot an entire song in one sequence, I wonder what phone she has). Imagine these recodings in thirty years. Don't you think they might have the same status as the Jimi Hendrix live bootlegs have now? People are using the media that are most readily available to them. Actually, the whole concept of MusicBrainz is based on the fact that people choose to use the computer as a medium for music, whether this was intended by the marketers/labels or not. My conclusion is that we cannot exclude music from MB based on seemingly objective criteria like the chosen medium. We have to constantly adapt MB to the current cultural practice around music, or MB will quickly become an anarchonism. (B) So, how should we store this information in MB? Currently there is no proper way. I am not even sure whether NadelnderBambus will be able to properly deal with DVDs. We need to find an intermediary solution which represents what is on the _official_ DVD. Whether the process of representing these official video DVDs in MB includes some practices which are illegal in some countires of the world should be totally irrelevant to this question. This is a proposal for an official style ruling by the person DonRedman. I herby request vetoes. However, I would ask people who veto to put at least as much detail into their veto as Orion and me did. DonRedman PS: Note by the secretary: This is a test to see whether the 'request for veto' system works. -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] chorus master / orchestra types
Hello,
I've found a few more problems with the current AR types. (Again) :)
First of them is that I think link phrases has {additional} chorus master
performed by and performed {additional} chorus master sound a bit odd and
also I'm not sure why it's a subtype of the performer type. IMO, it should be
merged with the conducted by type. This can by done by adding an optional
attribute with two options Orchestra Choir.
Another problem is with the performing orchestra AR type. Is there any reason
why we have this as a four different types (also one of them has wrong name -
other should be other orchestra) and not just one with the orchestra type as
an attribute? I propose to remove the symphony orchestra, chamber orchestra
and other types, and add a new attribute to the performing orchestra type.
What do you think?
Here you can see it implemented on the test server:
http://test.musicbrainz.org/edit/relationships/link_types.html?type=album-artist
http://test.musicbrainz.org/edit/relationships/link_attrs.html
(Note that link phrases for the conductor type are wrong for now -
http://test.musicbrainz.org/trac/ticket/1065)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] chorus master / orchestra types
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:07:20 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Hello,
I've found a few more problems with the current AR types. (Again) :)
First of them is that I think link phrases has {additional} chorus
master performed by and performed {additional} chorus master sound a
bit odd and also I'm not sure why it's a subtype of the performer
type. IMO, it should be merged with the conducted by type. This can by
done by adding an optional attribute with two options Orchestra Choir.
Another problem is with the performing orchestra AR type. Is there any
reason why we have this as a four different types (also one of them has
wrong name - other should be other orchestra) and not just one with
the orchestra type as an attribute? I propose to remove the symphony
orchestra, chamber orchestra and other types, and add a new
attribute to the performing orchestra type.
What do you think?
I do not think I understood the first one, and the second one seems
absolutely obvious to me. IIRC it was even proposed before.
I will resurface on this earth someway around monday. Lukas, can you then
please remind me to write the beta editing stuff down and get your
arrangement enhancements through. At least daily :-)
DonRedman
--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation
around! :-)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] chorus master / orchestra types
Don Redman wrote: I do not think I understood the first one, and the second one seems absolutely obvious to me. IIRC it was even proposed before. I don't know, maybe it's just a problem of my English and I just don't know what exactly chorus master is. But I think chorus master == choir conductor, so it makes no sense to me to say that Artist performed chorus master on Album or Artist performed choir conductor on Album. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] chorus master / orchestra types
Don Redman wrote: I do not think I understood the first one, and the second one seems absolutely obvious to me. IIRC it was even proposed before. I don't know, maybe it's just a problem of my English and I just don't know what exactly chorus master is. But I think chorus master == choir conductor, so it makes no sense to me to say that Artist performed chorus master on Album or Artist performed choir conductor on Album. Your English is perfectly fine; it doesn't make since and as far as I know the chorus master is the conductor. -- Cristov (wolfsong) Behind every great fortune there is a crime. Honore de Balzac ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Phone boolegs (was DVD in album titles)
Don Redman wrote: (A) It has been questioned wheter live concert videos belng to MB at all. But these arguments try to draw _objective_ boundaries as to what is MB-stuff and what is not MB-stuff. There is no such objective boundary. There can be no doubt that these videos are part of the fans' culture. This is a soft boundary but it is the only one which is relevant. I went to a concert yesterday and all those teenies made audio/video recordings with their mobile phones (there was one girl who shot an entire song in one sequence, I wonder what phone she has). Imagine these recodings in thirty years. Don't you think they might have the same status as the Jimi Hendrix live bootlegs have now? People are using the media that are most readily available to them. Actually, the whole concept of MusicBrainz is based on the fact that people choose to use the computer as a medium for music, whether this was intended by the marketers/labels or not. I've wondered about these before actually - I've encountered phone recorded, low quality bootlegs of entire concerts showing up on fan sites within a few hours of a concert ending. Being able to store one song isn't uncommon, my phone holds a bit over an hour of recorded video although the audio codec it uses is so optimized for voice that it's worthless at recording anything with music playing. It's not uncommon to see fansites posting videos of individual songs after shows (recorded with band permission generally) - http://rockinjapan.com/2005/10/11/suicide-machines-destroy-shinjuku-acb/#comments for example has three videos up from a The Suicide Machines concert recorded with his phone (please don't all go grab them unless you're fans of TSM, I don't really want to destroy a friend's server) For people with phones that have just an audio recorder it's not a problem to do the whole concert. I have wondered in the past if these are worth adding, generally the quality is low even by the standards of bootlegs. They also generally disappear quickly from the fan scene once a retail DVD from that tour comes out, unlike with more traditional bootlegs where people seem to collect them pokemon style. These seem to be used more as a quick fix, something to hold fans by that couldn't make any shows from the tour until they can get an actual hit. But as quality and storage goes up on phones they're likely to reach a level of quality that might get the collectors actually keeping them. Basically what I'm wondering is at what point does a bootleg establish a high enough level of existance to warrant inclusion? ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] chorus master / orchestra types
Lukáš Lalinský schreef: Don Redman wrote: I do not think I understood the first one, and the second one seems absolutely obvious to me. IIRC it was even proposed before. I don't know, maybe it's just a problem of my English and I just don't know what exactly chorus master is. But I think chorus master == choir conductor, so it makes no sense to me to say that Artist performed chorus master on Album or Artist performed choir conductor on Album. Rewind 4 months: http://www.nabble.com/Arranging-%21%3D-orchestration-instrumentation-%2B-Chorus-master-confusion-t445236c2885.html#a1223680 :( ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] chorus master / orchestra types
That should've been http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=1216276framed=ycobrand=2885 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
