[mb-style] jazz/classical style question
Hello Here is a tricky one: This album http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=507178 is a jazz version of a classical work. Should the CSG be applied (artist=composer, work full title for each track,...)? -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] jazz/classical style question
Ok, so putting it under Jacques Loussier is fine. But what about the track names? 2006/5/2, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, this is one of the cases for which the new releaseartist feature was introduced. Tracks to the composers with as much detail as you deem necessary, and release under the jazz artist. --keschte Here is a tricky one: This album http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=507178 is a jazz version of a classical work. Should the CSG be applied (artist=composer, work full title for each track,...)? -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] jazz/classical style question
Ok, so putting it under Jacques Loussier is fine. But what about the track names? ... Tracks to the composers with as much detail as you deem necessary And I thought I wrote a short, and precise e-mail before ;) Enter the track names such that it is clear which work was performed? If your question was about using classical styleguideline, yes definitely (even if it's only for consistency and that the tracks turn up in the database search) --keschte ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] jazz/classical style question
Well, the problem here is what one would mean by necessary. Variation 1 seems to me a little too terse, but I wanted other users opinions before posting a note to the original modder. Thanks. 2006/5/2, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ok, so putting it under Jacques Loussier is fine. But what about the track names? ... Tracks to the composers with as much detail as you deem necessary And I thought I wrote a short, and precise e-mail before ;) Enter the track names such that it is clear which work was performed? If your question was about using classical styleguideline, yes definitely (even if it's only for consistency and that the tracks turn up in the database search) --keschte -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
New AR time!
artist {additionally} {guest} wrote {lyrics:lyrics for}OR{music:
music for} album or track
technical question: how to handle lyrics and music attributes? i've
pseudocoded it up there but i'm not sure how it would all work.
perhaps there needs to be 2 seperate subtypes to this relationship?
would be nice to avoid that if possible...
everything else should be addressed on the wiki page.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/WriterRelationshipType
http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/1423
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
Chris Bransden wrote:
New AR time!
artist {additionally} {guest} wrote {lyrics:lyrics for}OR{music:
music for} album or track
To me the writer of the music was always the composer.
Simon (Shepard)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
the fact that they are very often credited seperately ie 'written and
composed by X' on liners should be reason enough. i tried to explain
the differences in more detail on the wiki page - hope that helps.
On 02/05/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
New AR time!
artist {additionally} {guest} wrote {lyrics:lyrics for}OR{music:
music for} album or track
To me the writer of the music was always the composer.
Simon (Shepard)
___
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: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
the fact that they are very often credited seperately ie 'written and
composed by X' on liners should be reason enough. i tried to explain
the differences in more detail on the wiki page - hope that helps.
Would that not mean that the lyrics (written) and music (composed) was written
by X?
//[bnw]
On 02/05/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
New AR time!
artist {additionally} {guest} wrote {lyrics:lyrics for}OR{music:
music for} album or track
To me the writer of the music was always the composer.
Simon (Shepard)
___
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
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] AR philosophy
Hi, I have some questions about linking philosophy which I think need to be generally clearified because if every moderator follows their own concepts then we don't have consistent data. 1. Link performers to releases: a) always, including members of bands b) only if they are guest performers / are the line-up for a project or solo-album of an artist. 2. Link artists to releases when they performed on / wrote / engineered / otherwise worked on: a) all tracks / the whole release b) the majority of tracks c) one track and more. 3. For different releases of one album, link all artists to: a) all of them b) the original releases only (including special editions being released at the same time as regular editions) c) the regular original release only. - How do we link special editions to regular editions if they were released on the same day? 4. Link artists to tracks they worked on: a) always b) only if there isn't a relationship of the same type between artist and release already. Spoiler warning! ;) My own approach at the moment is: 1. b) 2. a) 3. d) := the release I own ;) 4. b) but I am unsure and tend to other approaches from time to time. Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
no. as shown on the wiki, writing is just a less involved subset of composing.
composition is like a midway point between writing and arranging.
not my words, but:
Writing is creating the most basic form - anything from the melody
idea, to the tune as a whole. Composing is like building the song from
the tune, deciding what instrument plays which bit, creating
basslines, deciding speed, etc. Arranged by is slightly less than that
- putting together all the bits and pieces of a song once it's already
been built.
Writer - Architect
Composer - Builder
Arranger - Painter Decorator
On 02/05/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the fact that they are very often credited seperately ie 'written and
composed by X' on liners should be reason enough. i tried to explain
the differences in more detail on the wiki page - hope that helps.
Would that not mean that the lyrics (written) and music (composed) was written
by X?
//[bnw]
On 02/05/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
New AR time!
artist {additionally} {guest} wrote {lyrics:lyrics for}OR{music:
music for} album or track
To me the writer of the music was always the composer.
Simon (Shepard)
___
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
___
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: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
Chris Bransden wrote:
On 28/04/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
derGraph wrote:
I would still favour
artist {additionally} {co-}{executive }produced album or track,
but I'm not sure whether the space after executive is valid, or if it
can be replaced with {executive:executive }.
Yes, with {executive:executive } it is possible. Additional
co-executive producer, hehe. Whoever finds that in some liner notes
will receive 5 bars of finest chocolate from me!
I think now we outlined nearly every possible solution. Could everyone
please tell what they prefer? I want to see this closed...
i prefer artist {additionally} {co-}{executive:executive }produced
album or track but like i said, i'm not particularly bothered about
their being a potential impossible combination (additional
co-executive producer), and i think it's better to have that 'risk'
and keep all attribs in the same place.
Ok, I can agree here. We can always regulate combinations by style guidelines
on the relationship type page.
Request for veto!
Simon (Shepard)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
Chris Bransden wrote:
i prefer artist {additionally} {co-}{executive:executive }produced
album or track but like i said, i'm not particularly bothered about
their being a potential impossible combination (additional
co-executive producer), and i think it's better to have that 'risk'
and keep all attribs in the same place.
I agree that all attributes should be kept with the minimum of different
ARs. And I still consider executive an attribute, as much as guest
is an attribute. (I know some people didn't get the point here: I don't
consider guest and executive equal!)
I wouldn't care about impossible combinations as well, since the voting
system and voting practices usually help finding such faulty moderations
even before they're applied. Also it should be fairly simple to query
for such a combination.
derGraph
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] AR philosophy
On 02/05/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have some questions about linking philosophy which I think need to be generally clearified because if every moderator follows their own concepts then we don't have consistent data. 1. Link performers to releases: a) always, including members of bands b) only if they are guest performers / are the line-up for a project or solo-album of an artist. a) IMO. at discogs we had a similar discussion, but although sometimes it could be considered redundant (AR for ringo starr doing drums on a beatles track, for example), it's generally useful. however people should NEVER put an AR in unless they are SURE that this guy performed role X on this track (ie liner note, confirmed source, etc) - it's a waste of everyones time if someone puts in assumed ARs (eg 'producer, written by' relationships for dance music producers that aren't actually written on the sleeves in question). 2. Link artists to releases when they performed on / wrote / engineered / otherwise worked on: a) all tracks / the whole release b) the majority of tracks c) one track and more. see my track ranges ticket @ http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/1422 - i posted this to mb-users as well today :) i think we need track ranges ASAP! album credit ARs are pretty meaningless without it. 3. For different releases of one album, link all artists to: a) all of them b) the original releases only (including special editions being released at the same time as regular editions) c) the regular original release only. - How do we link special editions to regular editions if they were released on the same day? IMO a) until there is some kind of way of linking data of the releases (more than just an AR). personally i'll add relationships to the one i own, which may not be the 'original' release, but i think it's very wrong to add ARs to releases you don't physically own as you can't be sure of a lot of things - an identicle track list doesn't neccesarily mean an identicle release. 4. Link artists to tracks they worked on: a) always b) only if there isn't a relationship of the same type between artist and release already. a) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
I understand, but there will be times when the user will not be able
to choose (because he will not have the info). What do you suggest,
then?
2006/5/2, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
To show what I mean, take a look at:
http://musicbrainz.org/showrel.html?id=815type=artist
- the composed by relationships for the classical covers are bullshit.
lennon *wrote* these songs, but a composed by credit in the context of
a classical recording implies that he composed them for an entire
symphony orchestra (ie, wrote the string, brass, etc, parts), which is
obviously not the case.
he could potentially be credited with 'composer' in the context of a
beatles album, as it's true he 'composed' (err, with mccartney, and
not all songs, but go along with me on this) the songs, but this
credit is a 'written by' one in the context of a classical recording,
or cover, because it is (typically) the tune being covered, not the
composition (ie defined instrument, vocal parts, bass lines, etc).
composed by = written by + arranged by
(again there's a degree of overlap between all 3 but i believe this is
typically the case)
On 02/05/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no. as shown on the wiki, writing is just a less involved subset of composing.
composition is like a midway point between writing and arranging.
not my words, but:
Writing is creating the most basic form - anything from the melody
idea, to the tune as a whole. Composing is like building the song from
the tune, deciding what instrument plays which bit, creating
basslines, deciding speed, etc. Arranged by is slightly less than that
- putting together all the bits and pieces of a song once it's already
been built.
Writer - Architect
Composer - Builder
Arranger - Painter Decorator
On 02/05/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the fact that they are very often credited seperately ie 'written and
composed by X' on liners should be reason enough. i tried to explain
the differences in more detail on the wiki page - hope that helps.
Would that not mean that the lyrics (written) and music (composed) was
written
by X?
//[bnw]
On 02/05/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
New AR time!
artist {additionally} {guest} wrote {lyrics:lyrics for}OR{music:
music for} album or track
To me the writer of the music was always the composer.
Simon (Shepard)
___
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
___
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
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] AR philosophy
From: Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussionmusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [mb-style] AR philosophy Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:32:36 +0200 Hi, I have some questions about linking philosophy which I think need to be generally clearified because if every moderator follows their own concepts then we don't have consistent data. 1. Link performers to releases: a) always, including members of bands b) only if they are guest performers / are the line-up for a project or solo-album of an artist. a) If I have a release that credits all the members and guests with specific roles, then I'll add an AR for for each member/guest credited. If a release has no credits, then I won't add any. The exception to this is artists only credited with a first name or initials that I dont recognise, an example is The Birthday Party credit Pierre on two releases, I have no idea who Pierre is. So adding an AR link for Pierre IMO is worthless as I have no way of verfiying which Pierre he may be or if it's even the same Pierre on both releases. 2. Link artists to releases when they performed on / wrote / engineered / otherwise worked on: a) all tracks / the whole release b) the majority of tracks c) one track and more. d) only the tracks they are credited as having worked on. Which can be very time consuming and tedious adding track level ARs, but I think it's incorrect to credit an artist as working on a whole release if they didnt actually work on every single track. 3. For different releases of one album, link all artists to: a) all of them b) the original releases only (including special editions being released at the same time as regular editions) c) the regular original release only. - How do we link special editions to regular editions if they were released on the same day? d) Only the release I actually own or can verfiy from a trusted source 4. Link artists to tracks they worked on: a) always b) only if there isn't a relationship of the same type between artist and release already. b) Mud Spoiler warning! ;) My own approach at the moment is: 1. b) 2. a) 3. d) := the release I own ;) 4. b) but I am unsure and tend to other approaches from time to time. Simon (Shepard) ___ 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: [mb-style] AR philosophy
mud crow wrote: 2. Link artists to releases when they performed on / wrote / engineered / otherwise worked on: a) all tracks / the whole release b) the majority of tracks c) one track and more. d) only the tracks they are credited as having worked on. Which can be very time consuming and tedious adding track level ARs, but I think it's incorrect to credit an artist as working on a whole release if they didnt actually work on every single track. That would be a) then. Re-read the phrase. :) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand, but there will be times when the user will not be able to choose (because he will not have the info). What do you suggest, then? IMO people shouldn't be adding ARs if they don't have the sleeve or some kind of factual info to go on. as well as being innacurrate it's kinda pointless to add ARs you *think* may be right, no? i can understand people want to link the beatles to these orchestra covers albums (for example) but for that case CoverRelationshipType is available for a more general relationship. as a possibly relevent aside: 'written by' is quite important as credits go, as it has many legal implications. this is why it's important to get 'right' IMO. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
As I said before, I understand, but what about sleeves where all you get is a name or a couple of names, with no mention of what they precisely did. Usually, you can guess who wrote the lyrics and who did something with the music, but that is about all. Or sometimes, you get something like music: xxx, lyrics: yyy). I can see how yyy should be entered, but what about xxx? 2006/5/2, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand, but there will be times when the user will not be able to choose (because he will not have the info). What do you suggest, then? IMO people shouldn't be adding ARs if they don't have the sleeve or some kind of factual info to go on. as well as being innacurrate it's kinda pointless to add ARs you *think* may be right, no? i can understand people want to link the beatles to these orchestra covers albums (for example) but for that case CoverRelationshipType is available for a more general relationship. as a possibly relevent aside: 'written by' is quite important as credits go, as it has many legal implications. this is why it's important to get 'right' IMO. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
in contemporary music, the name in brackets is the 'written by' credit - you should give all names in brackets that credit, and not specifiy who wrote the lyrics/music/etc, if it is not given. if it's music: xxx, lyrics: yyy, they would be music written by xxx, lyrics written by yyy. for contemporary music, only use 'composed by' when explicitly stated. On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said before, I understand, but what about sleeves where all you get is a name or a couple of names, with no mention of what they precisely did. Usually, you can guess who wrote the lyrics and who did something with the music, but that is about all. Or sometimes, you get something like music: xxx, lyrics: yyy). I can see how yyy should be entered, but what about xxx? 2006/5/2, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand, but there will be times when the user will not be able to choose (because he will not have the info). What do you suggest, then? IMO people shouldn't be adding ARs if they don't have the sleeve or some kind of factual info to go on. as well as being innacurrate it's kinda pointless to add ARs you *think* may be right, no? i can understand people want to link the beatles to these orchestra covers albums (for example) but for that case CoverRelationshipType is available for a more general relationship. as a possibly relevent aside: 'written by' is quite important as credits go, as it has many legal implications. this is why it's important to get 'right' IMO. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ 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: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
We are digging much too deelply here. A composer writes music. A lyricist writes words. If a person does both they should be credited with each AR. Since we already have both, there is no need to add yet another AR. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 14:51:22 +0100 in contemporary music, the name in brackets is the 'written by' credit - you should give all names in brackets that credit, and not specifiy who wrote the lyrics/music/etc, if it is not given. if it's music: xxx, lyrics: yyy, they would be music written by xxx, lyrics written by yyy. for contemporary music, only use 'composed by' when explicitly stated. On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said before, I understand, but what about sleeves where all you get is a name or a couple of names, with no mention of what they precisely did. Usually, you can guess who wrote the lyrics and who did something with the music, but that is about all. Or sometimes, you get something like music: xxx, lyrics: yyy). I can see how yyy should be entered, but what about xxx? 2006/5/2, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand, but there will be times when the user will not be able to choose (because he will not have the info). What do you suggest, then? IMO people shouldn't be adding ARs if they don't have the sleeve or some kind of factual info to go on. as well as being innacurrate it's kinda pointless to add ARs you *think* may be right, no? i can understand people want to link the beatles to these orchestra covers albums (for example) but for that case CoverRelationshipType is available for a more general relationship. as a possibly relevent aside: 'written by' is quite important as credits go, as it has many legal implications. this is why it's important to get 'right' IMO. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
Precisely what I was getting at. Chris, I fear that we will enter falsely precise data in the database this way. When it is not written on the sleeve, nothing proves that the writer didn't actually compose. And when it is written, we are not sure the guy who wrote the sleeve made the same distinction you do between composer and writer. So we would be introducing a complexity in MB, for a distinction that probably few users care about, and with a data quality that would be at best questionable... 2006/5/2, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We are digging much too deelply here. A composer writes music. A lyricist writes words. If a person does both they should be credited with each AR. Since we already have both, there is no need to add yet another AR. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 14:51:22 +0100 in contemporary music, the name in brackets is the 'written by' credit - you should give all names in brackets that credit, and not specifiy who wrote the lyrics/music/etc, if it is not given. if it's music: xxx, lyrics: yyy, they would be music written by xxx, lyrics written by yyy. for contemporary music, only use 'composed by' when explicitly stated. On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said before, I understand, but what about sleeves where all you get is a name or a couple of names, with no mention of what they precisely did. Usually, you can guess who wrote the lyrics and who did something with the music, but that is about all. Or sometimes, you get something like music: xxx, lyrics: yyy). I can see how yyy should be entered, but what about xxx? 2006/5/2, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand, but there will be times when the user will not be able to choose (because he will not have the info). What do you suggest, then? IMO people shouldn't be adding ARs if they don't have the sleeve or some kind of factual info to go on. as well as being innacurrate it's kinda pointless to add ARs you *think* may be right, no? i can understand people want to link the beatles to these orchestra covers albums (for example) but for that case CoverRelationshipType is available for a more general relationship. as a possibly relevent aside: 'written by' is quite important as credits go, as it has many legal implications. this is why it's important to get 'right' IMO. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
On 02/05/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are digging much too deelply here. A composer writes music. A lyricist writes words. If a person does both they should be credited with each AR. Since we already have both, there is no need to add yet another AR. but how can you decide? making ARs should require little user thought - we're just transposing liner notes to DB relationships, for the most part. did lennon compose (To make up the constituent parts of) this version of 'all you needs is love' [1]? no. he wrote (along with mccartney) the original 'all you need is love', and someone else arranged it for a full orchestra (actually the original had some orchestration, which, by the by wasn't done by the beatles [2]). 'composing' is a specific role, and not a catch-all for all music creation. [1] http://musicbrainz.org/showtrack.html?trackid=3440099 [2] http://www.experience-sampling.org/GG/albums/octopus.html (resending because something triggered a spam filter for some reason) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
On 02/05/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes composing is a specific roll as I described but how it get's credited as a whole other matter and crediting in no way changes the role. Since All You Need Is Love was written by both McCartney and Lennon, they each should have a composer and lyricst AR associated. Whoever did the arrangement would have an AR for that role. but if you got a credit on a classical covers album saying written by Lennon McCartney, how would you represent it? it's not a composed by credit - they didn't compose that track for an orchestra, the composed it for bass, guitars, drums and vocals. they WROTE the tune, no matter what context it is performed. 'composed by' is only relevent in the original context. I would say your definitions are imprecise as well. There are numerous examples of composers who didn't do any arranging whatsoever. For instance many jazz composer only wrote charts with a melody and rough cord changes. The musicians were expected to arrange on the fly. like i said, there are grey areas, just as there are with most credits (producer would be a prime example!). Also, although I'm not sure if you're implying or thinking it but it's absolutely incorrect to classify composers differently by genre. Just because we tend to call pop composers songwriters doesn't make them any less composers. It's just that terms like written by are more often used on popular genres. absolutely. i have contemporary releases with composed by, and some without. it's a valid role in all genres, it's just so is written by. we can't use composed by for 'music written by' as it simply doesn't work for all circumstances, and is being abused all over the shop. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you misunderstood. What I meant, is this: you said: if it's music: xxx, lyrics: yyy, they would be music written by xxx But here, you are supposing something. I can understand when you ask for being able to record what is on the sleeve, but written is not on the sleeve in my example, and I believe my example is very frequent. There is no reason to say that written is better than coimposed. And I definitely don't like assumptions. I'd be happier with a third possibility, something meaning I don't know because the sleeve data didn't say. that would be ideal, but a name in brackets would be the writer on a contemporary release - for copyright reasons it's almost always there. what i'm saying is, in contemporary music, 'writer' is the catch-all credit, not 'composer'. by saying 'written by' you can't be wrong. but if an artist is going to put some random name in brackets after their song (who didn't write), then there's not much i can do, though i really think this would be rare, and normally would be obvious if you knew the artist. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
It makes no difference. Think of the arguement the other way. Numerous classical works are later arranged with different instrumentation. That doesn't change anything about the role the composer played in the creation of the piece, it only changes the arrangement. The composition is unchanged, the role the composer played in the pieces creation is unchanged and therefore the credit is unchanged. To put it in modern terms the copyright still holds for the new arrangement. The composer is still the original writer and it can't be copyrighted again by the arrange simply because they changed the instrumentation. I don't see how composer or producer are grey areas and you just said they are specific roles which is a contradiction. Written by is synonymous for composer and or composer/lyricist. It does not imply some new role. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:12:37 +0100 On 02/05/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes composing is a specific roll as I described but how it get's credited as a whole other matter and crediting in no way changes the role. Since All You Need Is Love was written by both McCartney and Lennon, they each should have a composer and lyricst AR associated. Whoever did the arrangement would have an AR for that role. but if you got a credit on a classical covers album saying written by Lennon McCartney, how would you represent it? it's not a composed by credit - they didn't compose that track for an orchestra, the composed it for bass, guitars, drums and vocals. they WROTE the tune, no matter what context it is performed. 'composed by' is only relevent in the original context. I would say your definitions are imprecise as well. There are numerous examples of composers who didn't do any arranging whatsoever. For instance many jazz composer only wrote charts with a melody and rough cord changes. The musicians were expected to arrange on the fly. like i said, there are grey areas, just as there are with most credits (producer would be a prime example!). Also, although I'm not sure if you're implying or thinking it but it's absolutely incorrect to classify composers differently by genre. Just because we tend to call pop composers songwriters doesn't make them any less composers. It's just that terms like written by are more often used on popular genres. absolutely. i have contemporary releases with composed by, and some without. it's a valid role in all genres, it's just so is written by. we can't use composed by for 'music written by' as it simply doesn't work for all circumstances, and is being abused all over the shop. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
those closer we reflect liners, those more factual and useful the database becomes. i'm tired of discogs shitting on us in this regard :( I agree that we should be entering the credits as they are listed on the liner notes, not what we interpret the credit to be. If its says music written by that's exactly what we should be crediting it as, not guessing that it may mean something else. Same goes for recorded, engineered and every other credit. We spend far too much time argueing over ARs and what they mean. The problem is that not every release uses the sames terminology for the same role. So either we guess (which is wrong) or we create a more flexible AR system that allows credits to be entered exactly as they appear on the liner notes. You could argue that this will mean we will have loads of incorrect ARs, but we have loads of incorrect ARs now, because people are trying to guess when matching the actual liner notes with the limited ARs we have. And we do have a voting system to catch anything that is obviously wrong. oh, and discogs isn't that great itself, I could pick holes in almost every punk release they have listed there :p At least we get new submissions entered without waiting 3 months for someone to vote no on some petty error. Mud ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
My point is if it says writer and no seperate credit is given for lyrics, enter a composer and lyricist AR. There's no need to add a new relationship that means exactly the same thing as existing ones. You acheive the same thing. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:26:18 +0100 On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you misunderstood. What I meant, is this: you said: if it's music: xxx, lyrics: yyy, they would be music written by xxx But here, you are supposing something. I can understand when you ask for being able to record what is on the sleeve, but written is not on the sleeve in my example, and I believe my example is very frequent. There is no reason to say that written is better than coimposed. And I definitely don't like assumptions. I'd be happier with a third possibility, something meaning I don't know because the sleeve data didn't say. that would be ideal, but a name in brackets would be the writer on a contemporary release - for copyright reasons it's almost always there. what i'm saying is, in contemporary music, 'writer' is the catch-all credit, not 'composer'. by saying 'written by' you can't be wrong. but if an artist is going to put some random name in brackets after their song (who didn't write), then there's not much i can do, though i really think this would be rare, and normally would be obvious if you knew the artist. ___ 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: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
Why should we create different ARs that say exactly the same thing because different credits are used across different releases. That's not scalable and AFAIK isn't the point of AR or MB in general. The wiki docs that correspond to the relationship should detail the circumstances and the variations under which a particular AR should be used. Otherwise we just end up creating more and more ARs that have no common denominator. The StyleGuide is meant to clarify the information in the database. Creating new ARs should only be done as a last resort when no options exist. If one exists we should clarify it's usage. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:41:35 +0100 those closer we reflect liners, those more factual and useful the database becomes. i'm tired of discogs shitting on us in this regard :( I agree that we should be entering the credits as they are listed on the liner notes, not what we interpret the credit to be. If its says music written by that's exactly what we should be crediting it as, not guessing that it may mean something else. Same goes for recorded, engineered and every other credit. We spend far too much time argueing over ARs and what they mean. The problem is that not every release uses the sames terminology for the same role. So either we guess (which is wrong) or we create a more flexible AR system that allows credits to be entered exactly as they appear on the liner notes. You could argue that this will mean we will have loads of incorrect ARs, but we have loads of incorrect ARs now, because people are trying to guess when matching the actual liner notes with the limited ARs we have. And we do have a voting system to catch anything that is obviously wrong. oh, and discogs isn't that great itself, I could pick holes in almost every punk release they have listed there :p At least we get new submissions entered without waiting 3 months for someone to vote no on some petty error. Mud ___ 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: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
I thought the point was to create an accurate music database. Guessing that a credit for written means the same as composed, or a credit for recorded means the same as engineered is not collecting accurate data. If someone is credited as being an assistant co-producer, I want to see them credited as such, not have the credit changed to whatever we think that may mean. I would rather see multiple ARs which say the same thing, then have what we have now, which is limited ARs which are not accurate. I find it very frustrating to add ARs, especially for production and having no idea what AR I should use as none match the actual credits given. I usually resort to adding info in an annotation, which then makes the whole point of ARs redundant. I disagree that new AR's should be added as a last resort, we should be trying to create some way of expanding ARs and making the data more usable and more accurate, not restricting it. Mud From: Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussionmusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org CC: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 08:51:40 -0700 Why should we create different ARs that say exactly the same thing because different credits are used across different releases. That's not scalable and AFAIK isn't the point of AR or MB in general. The wiki docs that correspond to the relationship should detail the circumstances and the variations under which a particular AR should be used. Otherwise we just end up creating more and more ARs that have no common denominator. The StyleGuide is meant to clarify the information in the database. Creating new ARs should only be done as a last resort when no options exist. If one exists we should clarify it's usage. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:41:35 +0100 those closer we reflect liners, those more factual and useful the database becomes. i'm tired of discogs shitting on us in this regard :( I agree that we should be entering the credits as they are listed on the liner notes, not what we interpret the credit to be. If its says music written by that's exactly what we should be crediting it as, not guessing that it may mean something else. Same goes for recorded, engineered and every other credit. We spend far too much time argueing over ARs and what they mean. The problem is that not every release uses the sames terminology for the same role. So either we guess (which is wrong) or we create a more flexible AR system that allows credits to be entered exactly as they appear on the liner notes. You could argue that this will mean we will have loads of incorrect ARs, but we have loads of incorrect ARs now, because people are trying to guess when matching the actual liner notes with the limited ARs we have. And we do have a voting system to catch anything that is obviously wrong. oh, and discogs isn't that great itself, I could pick holes in almost every punk release they have listed there :p At least we get new submissions entered without waiting 3 months for someone to vote no on some petty error. Mud ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
The same thing can be achieved by clarifying what the AR relationships mean. We already consolidate instruments for instance that have multiple common names (i.e English Horn and Cor Angelis). Why do we need multiple relationships to describe the same role? Accuracy is achieved by clarity not by throwing more definitions into the mix. If we correctly identify other examples and terms in the description of the AR, we acheive that clarity. If we have multiple terms people will still have to decypher if they are using the appropriate one. We already have a lot of questions surrounding how to use AR as the AR Philosphy thread points out. So I would say that before we go adding things, we should be clear about what we already have. Another reason for this is internationalization. While English has a glutten of synonyms, do they translate acorss languages? Probably not. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:25:56 +0100 I thought the point was to create an accurate music database. Guessing that a credit for written means the same as composed, or a credit for recorded means the same as engineered is not collecting accurate data. If someone is credited as being an assistant co-producer, I want to see them credited as such, not have the credit changed to whatever we think that may mean. I would rather see multiple ARs which say the same thing, then have what we have now, which is limited ARs which are not accurate. I find it very frustrating to add ARs, especially for production and having no idea what AR I should use as none match the actual credits given. I usually resort to adding info in an annotation, which then makes the whole point of ARs redundant. I disagree that new AR's should be added as a last resort, we should be trying to create some way of expanding ARs and making the data more usable and more accurate, not restricting it. Mud From: Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussionmusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org CC: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 08:51:40 -0700 Why should we create different ARs that say exactly the same thing because different credits are used across different releases. That's not scalable and AFAIK isn't the point of AR or MB in general. The wiki docs that correspond to the relationship should detail the circumstances and the variations under which a particular AR should be used. Otherwise we just end up creating more and more ARs that have no common denominator. The StyleGuide is meant to clarify the information in the database. Creating new ARs should only be done as a last resort when no options exist. If one exists we should clarify it's usage. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:41:35 +0100 those closer we reflect liners, those more factual and useful the database becomes. i'm tired of discogs shitting on us in this regard :( I agree that we should be entering the credits as they are listed on the liner notes, not what we interpret the credit to be. If its says music written by that's exactly what we should be crediting it as, not guessing that it may mean something else. Same goes for recorded, engineered and every other credit. We spend far too much time argueing over ARs and what they mean. The problem is that not every release uses the sames terminology for the same role. So either we guess (which is wrong) or we create a more flexible AR system that allows credits to be entered exactly as they appear on the liner notes. You could argue that this will mean we will have loads of incorrect ARs, but we have loads of incorrect ARs now, because people are trying to guess when matching the actual liner notes with the limited ARs we have. And we do have a voting system to catch anything that is obviously wrong. oh, and discogs isn't that great itself, I could pick holes in almost every punk release they have listed there :p At least we get new submissions entered without waiting 3 months for someone to vote no on some petty error. Mud ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Re: [mb-style] AR philosophy
Simon Reinhardt wrote: Hi, I have some questions about linking philosophy which I think need to be generally clearified because if every moderator follows their own concepts then we don't have consistent data. 1. Link performers to releases: a) always, including members of bands it'd be cool if MBs system worked where you apply the artists to the album, and then when doing track ARs, it would produce a drop down list from artists ARed to the album for selection to that track. or even if it were the other direction where you add artists tracks ARs to get them to appear on the albums relationship list. either way, the work should only have to be done once. the system should do the work of track/album AR consitancy for us. i don't like the idea of it somehow parsing the album AR data from the band data (i think i read an RFE for that in trac) as this information and their roles are not always consistent. b) only if they are guest performers / are the line-up for a project or solo-album of an artist. 2. Link artists to releases when they performed on / wrote / engineered / otherwise worked on: a) all tracks / the whole release b) the majority of tracks c) one track and more. 3. For different releases of one album, link all artists to: a) all of them b) the original releases only (including special editions being released at the same time as regular editions) c) the regular original release only. - How do we link special editions to regular editions if they were released on the same day? 4. Link artists to tracks they worked on: a) always b) only if there isn't a relationship of the same type between artist and release already. Spoiler warning! ;) My own approach at the moment is: 1. b) 2. a) 3. d) := the release I own ;) 4. b) but I am unsure and tend to other approaches from time to time. Simon (Shepard) ___ 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: [mb-style] Classical Style Guide: Using Bach's work no. as prefix or suffix
On 4/29/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/4/22, Adam Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 4/12/06, Nathan Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How long are the scenes compared to the acts?(i've been to many operas, but never really looked at the act/scene structure etc.) we could just have works exist at the scene level and not really worry about the rest for now? this would be analogous to not worry for now where the development begins in a symphony... Depends on the work.I've seen many acts in one scene, an up to 18 scenes in one act (note: German is not my forte): Così fan tutte, Zweiter Aufzug Achtzehnte Szene: Fortunato I'uom che prende - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ok but the scene divisions are fixed right?so our DB could just have scene structure and ignore the other subdivisions...Not sure... If we want to help users inputing their albums, I think we should keep track of all existing divisions, on hope another albumwill cut the scenes at the same points. i dunno--whatever scheme we use, i'd be worried about mistaken auto-fills... no one wants a bunch of bad track names cluttering the database. at any rate, we know it will ahve to be handled differently than the actual parts of the work itself--so i think we could go ahead and design something that doesn't work for these scene divisions, and worry about enhancing that afterwards... hmm... well teh titles are usually direct quotes from the libretto?if so, then eventually the whole libretto could be in the DB, and there would be an 'autocomplete' that would finish what you're typing based on the libretto. This would be awesome and extraordinarily difficult to automate I think.If you could do this though, you could puff also find the correct range in the libretto for all tracks and automagically load that libretto fragment as lyrics into the id3 tag puff. No typing. this would be very hard without music recognition--i've seen the length of a sonata vary by as much as 4 minutes because of different tempo choices.in operas the 'cumulative error' would be even larger. Well there's a lot of info that makes sense to enter 'while you're at it' when entering composer's works lists--it would take much more time overall if we enter a quick n' dirty version of the data and then have to go back to enter details when the db can take it True, but on the flip-side, it's bad to create new fields, have someone painstakingly fill them in, and then decide the schema is bad and have to remove them. We just did that very thing at work today.Guess who did the painstaking filling in sigh... yes i agree--we need to get this right the first time.We could start filling from the existing tracks. For example findnames used by a certain number of different albums. we can tweak the use of the data later, but we need a structure to enter all the data the first time around. anyway, mapping a track onto a PAIR of movements would fill in the track title for you, and would probably be easier than looking at list of all possible gluing-togethers of movements... (even in a 4 movement symphony there'd be like 10 possibiltiies... in a 6 movement suite... 6+5+4+3+2+1 = 21 possibilities!?) True, in fact Messiaen's Catalogue d'oiseaux ( 2.5 hours of sheer aural torture) has 13 movements, for (13^2 + 13)/2 = 91 possible names.Actually 90 since all 13 movements fused would point directly to the parent, but I doubt you'd ever get that far.Movement merging has been rare in my experiences. I apologize for drinking and posting. so anyway, we'll avoid this kind of explosion by disallowing having various subgroups count as work entities... -Nate --Frederic Da Vitoria___Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.orghttp://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: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
Very interesting links - cool. Could we add Contains samples from as Album - Album Album - Track / Track - Album relationships?Example: My Kingdom by The Future Sound of London http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=86339 http://www.discogs.com/release/2516 (see the notes there) On 5/2/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Updated on test now:http://test.musicbrainz.org/edit/relationships/link_types.html?type=album-artist http://test.musicbrainz.org/edit/relationships/link_types.html?type=artist-trackhttp://test.musicbrainz.org/showrel.html?id=421276type=album ___Musicbrainz-style mailing listMusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style-- .: NOP AND NIL :..: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
