Re: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding this in IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Brian Gurtler]

theres no need for Robert call for and end of discussion yet at the same
time to continue calling me or anyone else involved in the discussion a
whiner. if he doesn't want those reactions he should keep the flame bait
to himself.
-Brian

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please post only if you have something to say. This is certainly nothing of
> interest, and documents why you are facing unwillingness if you request
> something.
>  
>   g0llum
> 
>> Behalf Of Brian Gurtler
>> Sent: Dienstag, 28. März 2006 05:59
>>
>> looks whose whining now..
> 
> 
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

RE: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding this in IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[g0llum]

Please post only if you have something to say. This is certainly nothing of
interest, and documents why you are facing unwillingness if you request
something.
 
  g0llum

> Behalf Of Brian Gurtler
> Sent: Dienstag, 28. März 2006 05:59
>
> looks whose whining now..


___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Brian Gurtler]

looks whose whining now..

Robert Kaye wrote:
> 
> On Mar 27, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Jan van Thiel wrote:
>> I think that if e.g. inhouseuk (sorry to (ab)use your name, just
>> giving an example), a moderator with a spotless record, had requested
>> these, they would've been added almost instantaneously.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> If a moderator with a "perfect record" asks to add something that
> clutters the DB, I'd balk too. But I think our moderators with perfect
> records have a good enough grasp to understand when something clutters
> up the DB and when something makes sense.
> 
>> I'm just deducing the current system doesn't work yet, because of
>> personal misunderstanding between people. Whether or not this involves
>> 'whining'.
> 
> Well, the system needs fine-tuning yes. And we're the process of working
> out the kinks.
> 
> The problem is that one person said, "Go" and another person took those
> instructions and went ahead and did what was asked. The original "Go"
> was premature, but I think it would be worse to flounder and go back and
> remove it again.
> 
> People make mistakes, we're all human.
> 
> However, I do appreciate your sentiments. We should aim to be fair to
> all of our users. Spotless record moderators and whiners all alike. :-)
> 
> -- 
> 
> --ruaok  Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot.
> 
> Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net
> 
> 
> ___
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> 
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

RE: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/decidingthisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[g0llum]

The hell with it! ;)

> > I'm just deducing the current system doesn't work yet, because of
> > personal misunderstanding between people. Whether or not 

I'd assign someone like luks who goes ahead and adds instruments after a
given amount of posts on the lists. You can take this as an indicator how
serious one/many person is/are, if they keep on hammering away at the topic.
It was the disregard of the issue, and personal animosities which caused the
people in charge to be fed up by the issue (Egg/Chicken problem anyone?).
The idea of 5 documented uses is not bad, but it is still over-engineered I
think... and I have to say, that zout was right IMO in his assessment of the
situation. 

> clutters the DB, I'd balk too. But I think our moderators with  

This is not fair. We probably have a fair amount of instruments in the tree,
which are used in a minor music genre (number of releases compared to e.g.
pop music or whatever) and might/or might not be used for a lot of albums
actually entered in MB (some instruments I've never heard of) - vs. a
household appliance used as an instrument on several albums :)

> The problem is that one person said, "Go" and another person took  
> those instructions and went ahead and did what was asked. The  

Not only one, but several persons put forward documented uses of it. 

  g0llum

PS. I'd take the job of the instrument secretary, but I don't know if I am
qualified (given my collaboration on the vac issue with GURT), and if this
involves lots of my preciou' time. 

PPS. Since everything that ever could be said in that thread has already
been said, I'll be quiet from now on.

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Robert Kaye]

On Mar 27, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Jan van Thiel wrote:

I think that if e.g. inhouseuk (sorry to (ab)use your name, just
giving an example), a moderator with a spotless record, had requested
these, they would've been added almost instantaneously.


I disagree.

If a moderator with a "perfect record" asks to add something that  
clutters the DB, I'd balk too. But I think our moderators with  
perfect records have a good enough grasp to understand when something  
clutters up the DB and when something makes sense.



I'm just deducing the current system doesn't work yet, because of
personal misunderstanding between people. Whether or not this involves
'whining'.


Well, the system needs fine-tuning yes. And we're the process of  
working out the kinks.


The problem is that one person said, "Go" and another person took  
those instructions and went ahead and did what was asked. The  
original "Go" was premature, but I think it would be worse to  
flounder and go back and remove it again.


People make mistakes, we're all human.

However, I do appreciate your sentiments. We should aim to be fair to  
all of our users. Spotless record moderators and whiners all alike. :-)


--

--ruaok  Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot.

Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net


___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Jan van Thiel]

On 3/27/06, Robert Kaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, what is done is done, and at least
> we don't have to listen to the incessant whining about adding the
> damned vacuum cleaner. Let's move on.

I don't agree. Brian has been asking about this for a *long* time.
Maybe not in the best way, but with arguments and examples.

I think that if e.g. inhouseuk (sorry to (ab)use your name, just
giving an example), a moderator with a spotless record, had requested
these, they would've been added almost instantaneously. With respect
to this, I think Brian needed to 'whine' to get this instrument added.

I'm just deducing the current system doesn't work yet, because of
personal misunderstanding between people. Whether or not this involves
'whining'.

Hope this comment helped.

zout
--
Jan van Thiel

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] change 'Recording Engineer' to 'Recorded By'

[Don Redman]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:30:21 +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote:

So we can either go by how exactly artists are credited in the liner  
notes, or we could go by what they really did. I'd say find the happy  
medium. ;)


Anyways, let me summarize the opinions:

Steve thinks "recorded by" would be too ambigous and could be seen as  
describing the performer.

MudCrow seems to disagree there.

Don thinks this is a good simplification of the term.
Chris agrees because he thinks that's how most liner notes list it.

Cristov and Steve both think it should be the same as "engineered by",  
correct?

Thomas and Chris would differentiate there.

My two cents: I agree with Chris. You can never know an artist so well  
to know who did what in the production phase, the only thing you hold in  
your hands is the booklet. And we can't require people learning lots of  
details about the production process of music just for entering  
relationships. We should keep it as simple as possible and that is by  
going after what most liner notes say.


Right the discussion has dribbled away. I think there is a majority of  
oppinions (but no complete consensus) for changing this to "recorded by".


Does anyone want to issue a veto, saying that this should not be changed,  
because it makes MusicBrainz a worse place than it is now?


If so, please speak up within the next 24 hours, or remain silent for...  
well for some time.


Simon: If there is no veto, you can change the text (please make sure the  
description is informative). If it gets a veto, I will pass this on to  
Robert.


  DonRedman, the secretary strikes back! :-)

--
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: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Brian Gurtler]

incessant whining?
and you call Me confrontational..

Robert Kaye wrote:
> 
> On Mar 27, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Don Redman wrote:
>> Well, then I'd say we should add this now and let Brian add the
>> appropriate Relationships.
>>
>> I mean if we finally have a rule, we should use it :-)
> 
> Yes, but
> 
> Luks went ahead and added the vacuum cleaner. Fine. However, in the
> future I want to see documented proof of the five uses on an album
> BEFORE we add the instrument. But, what is done is done, and at least we
> don't have to listen to the incessant whining about adding the damned
> vacuum cleaner. Let's move on.
> 
>> -- 
> 
> --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot.
> 
> Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net
> 
> ___
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> 
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Robert Kaye]

On Mar 27, 2006, at 5:24 AM, Don Redman wrote:

And I am strongly opposed to removing your RelType editor privileges.


Agreed. So far all Luks' actions were following valid bugs or 
instructions from the style secretary.



--


--ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its 
idiot.


Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Robert Kaye]

On Mar 27, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Don Redman wrote:
Well, then I'd say we should add this now and let Brian add the 
appropriate Relationships.


I mean if we finally have a rule, we should use it :-)


Yes, but

Luks went ahead and added the vacuum cleaner. Fine. However, in the 
future I want to see documented proof of the five uses on an album 
BEFORE we add the instrument. But, what is done is done, and at least 
we don't have to listen to the incessant whining about adding the 
damned vacuum cleaner. Let's move on.



--


--ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its 
idiot.


Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Don Redman]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:31:39 +0200, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:

Ok, I've added this and http://test.musicbrainz.org/trac/ticket/1228 to  
the instrument tree.


Some people will probably disagree, so please tell me, I'll ask someone  
to remove my link editor privs and won't do it anymore.


What?

This is a valid addition. I am a Harmonica player myself and can prove that

 a) There is a notable difference between the chromatic and the diatonic  
Hamonica that most Blues afficionados can recognise. The difference is  
about as important as the difference between the Trumpet and the Clairon  
(the former has valves the latter does not).


 b) There are _much_ more than five albums on which the chromatic  
Harmonica is played [1].


And I am strongly opposed to removing your RelType editor privileges.

And you should add the Diatonic Harmonica which is played by even more  
people, too


  DonRedman


[1] all or  
  
but also stuff like  
.


--
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: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)

[Don Redman]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:34:18 +0200, Brian Gurtler wrote:


Stefan Kestenholz wrote:


brian: Is it true that this artist performed the vacuum cleaner on many
occasions, and this is documented in bootlegs/released recordings? if  
that is the case, then we should add it.


yes it's true.
i am not making this stuff up. :)
i have been in the process of trying to compile a full list of times
that Jon Fishman alone has used the vacuum as an instrument out of all
Phish live bootleg recordings. Phish also offer hundreds of official
recordings (actual CDs as well as download only releases) and out of
those I'd say it's safe to say that one or more [1] contains Fishman
playing the vac.. putting our total of "albums" with a vac at over 5.

[1] see 8/11/04
http://www.phish.com/fromtheroad/detail.php?year=2004&month=8
which is available on livephish.com


Well, then I'd say we should add this now and let Brian add the  
appropriate Relationships.


I mean if we finally have a rule, we should use it :-)

  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] Orchestras and choirs on rock albums

[Chris Bransden]

we have the same issue in discogs. i guess this is similar to the idea
raised @ 
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-March/001790.html

we kinda need the same thing, but as a track/album relationship -
[artist] performs {instrument} on [album/track] as member of [artist]

gets a bit long-winded, though.

On 23/03/06, Simon Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have run into AR linking problems when trying to add all information from 
> the liner notes of some rock/metal albums.
>
> Amongst those it's cool when you use orchestras or choirs on some songs to 
> sound as bombastic as possible. Though mostly they cannot afford using a 
> complete orchestra which is known under a name like London Philharmonic 
> Orchestra or whatever.
>
> So two things I have observed they do instead:
>
> 1. Aquire some (unknown) musicians and a conductor, give them a name related 
> to the band and then list them.
> Examples:
>
> Kamelot's "The Black Halo" [1] lists a "Kamelot Choir" among the guest 
> musicians. I added it as a new artist and linked the musicians. [2]
>
> Stratovarius' "Elements, Part 1" [3] says:
> "Orchestra and choir arranged and produced by Laine & Niemi
> Joensuu City Orchestra and Stratovarius Singers conducted by Riku Niemi"
> and then lists some participating musicians like leader, chorus master, ...
>
> Sonata Arctica's "Winterheart's Guild" [4] says in the liner notes:
> "Footballstadion Choirs" by FC Sonata
>
> So that should just show what I mean by "give them a name related to the 
> band".
>
> 2. Simply list the complete orchestra without giving a simply grouping entity 
> name.
> Nightwish's "Once" [5] needs one complete page of the booklet for that. If I 
> would link them all to the album I would end up with 100 relationships for it 
> I guess.
>
> My questions are:
> Any ideas how this could be handled in general?
> Is it ok to create artists like "Kamelot Choir" that just represent a group 
> of people used for one or two albums?
> We don't link "members" of orchestras because they change too often. But on 
> the other hand it would be nice to show who conducted an orchestra on a 
> certain album, who played violin etc. The picture isn't clear in my mind yet 
> but I'm thinking about some kind of grouping entity that is not a full artist 
> but makes it possible to link members of orchestras in one group to an album. 
> Not only for well known orchestras and choirs but also for invented ones like 
> the "Kamelot Choir". Any ideas in that direction?
>
> Simon (Shepard)
>
> 
> [1] http://musicbrainz.org/album/e89d6ceb-fc8e-44fb-9f55-de8732b31841.html
> [2] http://musicbrainz.org/artist/f6c2d82a-51e9-4244-9ad1-2c9b160a0844.html
> [3] http://musicbrainz.org/album/a7cf721f-1154-463a-89dc-5d4284038182.html
> [4] http://musicbrainz.org/album/5a323542-6431-48c2-89ed-f0cef6f17b85.html
> [5] http://musicbrainz.org/album/d8b43e13-a1be-47c0-8cea-cb42ac9fb5e5.html
> ___
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style