Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
Not sure if this is meant with A.K.A. AR but some AR is needed to link different artist entries: For example the UK band System 7, cause Apple Computer owns the rights for this name, the band has to perform release in the USA as 777.Also the german techno act Der Dritte Raum has released in the US as The Third Room (just a translation of the original german name). -- .: NOP AND NIL :..: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:55:07AM +0200, Schika wrote: For example the UK band System 7, cause Apple Computer owns the rights for this name, the band has to perform release in the USA as 777. Also the german techno act Der Dritte Raum has released in the US as The Third Room (just a translation of the original german name). In all the cases I'm aware of, they're aliases. For example, Puffy (known as Puffy AmiYumi in America), Suede (known as The London Suede in America), t.A.T.u. (originally known as Тату in Russia) and, of course, Yazoo (known as Yaz in America). --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
yeah i saw that but it hurt my head thinking about it :) i'm not so sure that splitting up artists in this way (AKA link or not) is the way to go. on the tagging front, considering that most (?) MP3 software (or people's file structures) operate on an X:\Artist\Release\Song.mp3 heriarchy, unifying artists in the way we do currently is beneficial. eg, the back catalogue of 'A Silver Mt. Zion' would be near impossible to select on iTunes if we listed all AKAs as seperate artists, rather than aliases ( http://musicbrainz.org/showaliases.html?artistid=39340 ). also, what would be the difference between AKAs and performance names? 'Aphex Twin', 'AFX', etc, are performance names of 'Richard D. James' - would there also be AKA links between all these as well? secondly, what would be the correct usage of the alias function, if we had an AKA? for typos? slight varyations? and finally, would this mean we duplicate albums that were released under one name, then repressed once the artist changed their name? cheers, chris / gecks On 24/05/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think a new a.k.a. AR is needed. I actually raised this a few weeks ago with no comment[1]. Cristov (wolfsong) [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-May/002619.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote: http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652 I agree with the 'yes' voters here - the same track can be 'x (feat. y)', 'y (feat. x)', or 'x y', on different releases. eg, a guest artist is typically billed as (feat.) on a release on which their contribution is restricted to 1 track! the single of 'sisters are doin' it for themselves' would bill Aretha higher because in the context of that single she gets a higher billing. however i don't think that should impact the artist attributed to that track in all contexts. I'm glad you brought this up in the mailing list. There is no point in changing who it is credited to according to the release that a work appeared on. The work is identical whether it appears on a Single, Eurythmics an AF album or a VA compilation. The people who receive the royalties are the same in each instance. As I stated previouly on IRC this is an identical situation to the Queen David Bowie release of Under Pressure. On the album in question, in the liner notes it is shown as a duet, on the liner notes of Respect: The Very Best of AF it is also shown as a duet. What is a duet if it is not a collaboration? http://www.annie-lennox.com/sisters2.htm Tina Turner was first choice for the collaboration but she turned the Eurythmics down because the song was apparently too feminist in content. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B02VD3/ ... and a rocking collaboration with Eurythmics, Sisters Are Doin' It for Themselves, that she completely takes over. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89106,00.html Lennox came to the party looking a helluvalot happier than she does in the pictures. She's over her big divorce, which is what the album is about, and she's been touring all over the world. Is there anyone she wants to duet with? (She has one famous hit collaboration, with Aretha Franklin, on Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves.) I don't think so, she said in her heavy brogue. I'm happy singing solo I think. From the Grammy awards: http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1986/grammys.htm BEST RB VOCAL PERFORMANCE BY A DUO OR GROUP - other nominees: Ashford Simpson - Solid Eurythmics Aretha Franklin - Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves Hall Oates, David Ruffin Eddie Kendrick - The Way You Do The Things You Do / My Girl The Pointer Sisters - Contact You'll notice in the Grammys, it wasn't just Eurthymics or Aretha Franklin nominated for the award, it was both! If that doesn't prove it is a collaboration, what does? Steve (inhouseuk) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote: IMO sg5 was a problem because you HAD to make everything an X (feat. Y), regardless of how it was actually billed. This is obviously crap, but it seems now we're going the opposite way and making everything a collaboration! what i want to know is: are you saying that we should: a) reflect reality (ie, we decide what's a colloboration and what isn't, not the sleeves) b) reflect what a song is billed as on its first releasei c) not use feat. x at all i say: d) use what's on the sleeve as it's (normally) contextually appropriate I say a) Go by known fact. Otherwise in this particular instance and many others, the only release that would be under the collaboration artist would be the single. This makes SG5DR completely pointless and we're back to the mess of .feat, one way on the release by one artist and the opposite way for when the same work is released by the other equally billed artist. When in actual fact they are exactly the same work and should be titled and credited identically. Oh! and don't forget the thousands of Performed AR's SG5DR came about from the need to normalise the data a little better, are people now saying that we should go back to the old .feat mechanism? Steve (inhouseuk) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: RFV: [mb-style] Soundtracks
2006/5/24, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 22 May 2006 23:53:34 +0200, Lars Aronsson wrote: Alexander Dupuy wrote: I'm afraid that I agree with mudcrow on this; there are a number of reasons that it makes sense for the composer to be credited as the primary artist for soundtracks in most cases (with an exception for non-classical music included To a newcomer like me, it seems absurd that the archaic notion of primary artist (i.e. the artist column of the album and track tables) wasn't removed when AdvancedRelationships were introduced in April 2005. Was this a deliberate decision, and was the reason documented? Or was it just forgotten by mistake? Is it too late to do it now? The main reason is of course historical. MB has grown slowly, AR have been added _on_top_ of the old unchanged database, and many clients expect a single 'archaic' artist field. The development of MB is very heritage aware and backwards compatible, because MusicBrainz is much more than just the database. It is a pretty huge system made up of many different parts that should all be taken into account. Yes, and I am not complaining about this. Part of why is MB is what it currently is (and why it can become what I dream it will) is because it started by trying to address the popular mp3 tagging problem. This attracted users which in turn input the data which is currently here. So I recognize the mp3 heritage and I welcome it and I wouldn't want it to disappear. But to take a musicological analogy, archaic music probably started with percussion instruments. We still use these instruments. But rythmic indication is now only a part of how we consider music, often a minor part, and this is how it should be. Artist was a fundamental field in the mp3 period (which we are still pretty much in) but if we want to evolve to a full-fledged music database, we will have to relegate the Artist to it's true place: a mp3 field. Period. And if (when?) mp3 disappears (who knows what will happen 10 years from now?) the Artist will may very well have no meaning anymore. One example for this is the Aspect Model of NadelnderBambus: There are different aspects of the data and different clients or users expect different ones. We have identified the What is is and the What it is called aspect as two that we want to retain. What you suggest only deals with the What it is aspect. I believe the Primary Aritst is the current way of serving the What it is called aspect. It does so very pooly --agreed -- but it cannot simply be dropped. Not in the current database schema. But the NextGenerationSchema seems to take this direction (though I am not sure I understand the limits of all the relations there). The table l_album_artist would grow from 17K rows to 408K rows and the l_artist_track would grow from 55K rows to 4.7M rows. In the plaintext database dump, these tables average 45 bytes per row, and a little less (5 integers and 2 dates) in the binary database. The amounts of data are quite manageable. A second reason is performance. I do not know the technical details (and I know this is disputed) but Robert said that AR are not powerful enough for the database to rely mainly on them, and that there will always be powerful and relatively fixed Core Relationships and flexible but less powerful AdvancedRelationships. I didn't check for specifics (I don't see how ARs are implemented in the current schema, I even have a feeling they are not in http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DatabaseSchema/FullSize), but I can guess why Robert says this. But we don't Artist need the Artist as a Core Relationship, we can use Composer and Performer, for example. Where would IMDb be if it had tried to use Artist instead of actors and directors :-D Note that in the end, IMDb is able to say that someone directed a film and played in another, but the two roles are always clearly indicated. Never does IMDb use such a fuzzy concept as Artist. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On 25/05/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote: IMO sg5 was a problem because you HAD to make everything an X (feat. Y), regardless of how it was actually billed. This is obviously crap, but it seems now we're going the opposite way and making everything a collaboration! what i want to know is: are you saying that we should: a) reflect reality (ie, we decide what's a colloboration and what isn't, not the sleeves) b) reflect what a song is billed as on its first releasei c) not use feat. x at all i say: d) use what's on the sleeve as it's (normally) contextually appropriate I say a) Go by known fact. but that's just it - what is the known fact? what defines 'feat.' and what defines collaborations? once we appreciate that a single will more likely use X Y, and an album X (feat. Y), then this is a definition we have to make. and what if an artist isn't even billed on a release, yet their contribution is more than or equal to the billed artist? Otherwise in this particular instance and many others, the only release that would be under the collaboration artist would be the single. This makes SG5DR completely pointless and we're back to the mess of .feat, one way on the release by one artist and the opposite way for when the same work is released by the other equally billed artist. well yeah - aretha is a guest on an eurythmics album, but not on a aretha franklin compilation. and on the single they get equal billing - it depends on the context IMO. When in actual fact they are exactly the same work and should be titled and credited identically. Oh! and don't forget the thousands of Performed AR's SG5DR came about from the need to normalise the data a little better, are people now saying that we should go back to the old .feat mechanism? no definitely not - i don't think we should force feat. when it's not written (eg under the old system i had to change collaboration albums to X feat. Y, where who was x and who was y was entirely arbitrary), but i don't think we should get rid of it alltogether. like i said, what makes a feat. and what makes a collab? how can you define this? ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] CodeOfConduct with respect to bogus accounts
It seems we really need to clamp down on the creating of bogus accounts used for voting. Creating an account http://musicbrainz.org/user/view.html?uid=229805 purely for the purpose of forcing mod http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652 through in the last hour is not the way the voting system is supposed to work. Something definately needs to be added to the CodeOfConduct and IMO these incidents should be investigated. If such behaviour continues, I hate to think what damage will happen to the data. Steve (inhouseuk) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On 25/05/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those are already defined in the styleguides. yep @ http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/FeaturingArtistStyle - A collaboration should only be created for primary artists who contributed equally to the track/release. http://www.inhouse.co.uk/misc/sisters.jpg = aretha franklin on vocals, but the eurythmics wrote the song, made the music, and of course annie lennox also sang (and played keyboards!) :) so according to the rules, this should be a feat. however, i don't go by those rules, because unless each artist has an almost symettrical involvement, you're hardly ever going to get a collaboration. so if aretha wrote, and was also responsible for the creation of 50% of the music (how do you work that out anyway??), then this would be a collab under that definition. nuts! ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:29:17PM +0100, Steve Wyles wrote: Those are already defined in the styleguides. Obviously not defined clearly enough or we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's fine talking about primary artists and secondary artists, but there's no reference to work from, the terms primary and secondary are completely subjective. I think, really, that both of you are right. There's no way to draw a definite line between A B and A feat. B and from the evidence given, I'd say this one falls in the grey area between the two. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] CodeOfConduct with respect to bogus accounts
Sadly, I'm of the opinion that the Code of Conduct, while a great practice, and perfectly wonderful, is only binding when in fact all parties are held by the code of conduct. I think we have a method of handling this already, though it would be easier if we had a report of these accounts have been created in the last 28 days these accounts are only voters (I would like that anyways, because I feel more voters should be looked into for auto-editors). This has three benefits. It tells us accounts created and shows us how many people are coming to MB everyday (for those curious). We can be a little nicer and a little more watchful. We can then notice those that are voters, which is something I feel mb needs. We can help people to realize why to vote no, for those that always vote yes... and lastly we will be more capable of spotting those people voting on their own votes. Also it is not much of a system change, and I think when it's kept in check, it works really well. Nyght aka Beth -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Wyles Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:58 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: [mb-style] CodeOfConduct with respect to bogus accounts It seems we really need to clamp down on the creating of bogus accounts used for voting. Creating an account http://musicbrainz.org/user/view.html?uid=229805 purely for the purpose of forcing mod http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652 through in the last hour is not the way the voting system is supposed to work. Something definately needs to be added to the CodeOfConduct and IMO these incidents should be investigated. If such behaviour continues, I hate to think what damage will happen to the data. Steve (inhouseuk) ___ 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] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
Errr I'm not sure if MP3 software really matters. None of what I'm talking about impacts tagging without TaggerScript. AKA ARs would only link to a performance name (the original) and not to each other or back to Real Name ARs. The Alias field should be renamed to something like Spelling Variants or something along those lines. It's function is still absolutely valid. I would say yes to the last one. There are several ways to spin this and all of them use terms (artist intent, what's on the cover, user expectation) I think are vastly abused and overused but in this case I think they are valid. I will however avoid a long explanantion since I'm sure that any interested party would understand what I mean here; if not I'll be happy to explain. :-) Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:48:17 +0100 yeah i saw that but it hurt my head thinking about it :) i'm not so sure that splitting up artists in this way (AKA link or not) is the way to go. on the tagging front, considering that most (?) MP3 software (or people's file structures) operate on an X:\Artist\Release\Song.mp3 heriarchy, unifying artists in the way we do currently is beneficial. eg, the back catalogue of 'A Silver Mt. Zion' would be near impossible to select on iTunes if we listed all AKAs as seperate artists, rather than aliases ( http://musicbrainz.org/showaliases.html?artistid=39340 ). also, what would be the difference between AKAs and performance names? 'Aphex Twin', 'AFX', etc, are performance names of 'Richard D. James' - would there also be AKA links between all these as well? secondly, what would be the correct usage of the alias function, if we had an AKA? for typos? slight varyations? and finally, would this mean we duplicate albums that were released under one name, then repressed once the artist changed their name? cheers, chris / gecks On 24/05/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think a new a.k.a. AR is needed. I actually raised this a few weeks ago with no comment[1]. Cristov (wolfsong) [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-May/002619.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
The problem is were still trapped in linguistic semantics of terms like featuring, and, with, appears, etc. All of these terms imply some sort of cooperative effort. What needs to be decided is do we care what these words individually mean and apply the SG differently to them? Or do we bundle them together and apply a single rule? I for one don't see much point in declaring a guest artis on a single track a collaboration but I would rather we decieded to make this an all or nothing affair or make that portion of the schema change a priority. Frankly this issue has torn at us again and again and simply can not be resolved by discussion. Either we implement a rule that can be applied across the board, beg the development team to give this highest priority or just keep spinning our wheels in endless discussion. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:48:12 +0100 (BST) On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote: http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652 I agree with the 'yes' voters here - the same track can be 'x (feat. y)', 'y (feat. x)', or 'x y', on different releases. eg, a guest artist is typically billed as (feat.) on a release on which their contribution is restricted to 1 track! the single of 'sisters are doin' it for themselves' would bill Aretha higher because in the context of that single she gets a higher billing. however i don't think that should impact the artist attributed to that track in all contexts. I'm glad you brought this up in the mailing list. There is no point in changing who it is credited to according to the release that a work appeared on. The work is identical whether it appears on a Single, Eurythmics an AF album or a VA compilation. The people who receive the royalties are the same in each instance. As I stated previouly on IRC this is an identical situation to the Queen David Bowie release of Under Pressure. On the album in question, in the liner notes it is shown as a duet, on the liner notes of Respect: The Very Best of AF it is also shown as a duet. What is a duet if it is not a collaboration? http://www.annie-lennox.com/sisters2.htm Tina Turner was first choice for the collaboration but she turned the Eurythmics down because the song was apparently too feminist in content. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B02VD3/ ... and a rocking collaboration with Eurythmics, Sisters Are Doin' It for Themselves, that she completely takes over. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89106,00.html Lennox came to the party looking a helluvalot happier than she does in the pictures. She's over her big divorce, which is what the album is about, and she's been touring all over the world. Is there anyone she wants to duet with? (She has one famous hit collaboration, with Aretha Franklin, on Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves.) I don't think so, she said in her heavy brogue. I'm happy singing solo I think. From the Grammy awards: http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1986/grammys.htm BEST RB VOCAL PERFORMANCE BY A DUO OR GROUP - other nominees: Ashford Simpson - Solid Eurythmics Aretha Franklin - Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves Hall Oates, David Ruffin Eddie Kendrick - The Way You Do The Things You Do / My Girl The Pointer Sisters - Contact You'll notice in the Grammys, it wasn't just Eurthymics or Aretha Franklin nominated for the award, it was both! If that doesn't prove it is a collaboration, what does? Steve (inhouseuk) ___ 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] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On 5/25/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think, really, that both of you are right. There's no way to draw a definite line between A B and A feat. B and from the evidence given, I'd say this one falls in the grey area between the two. It's not the existance of a grey area that's the problem. It's the fact that if you fall on one side of an arbitrarily drawn line within this grey area then you're a 'collaboration' and if you fall on the other you're a 'feat.' and that depending on what side of the line you fall on, the database stores the information in totally different ways. I'd suggest moving the line far to one side in the interests of consistency. One basic fact is key to this and hopefully everyone can agree once it's been pointed out: * there is no basis or rationale for continuing to normalise track titles to include (feat. X) Go dig out your albums and you'll find that very few actually use that format. They might say 'with' or 'duet with' or 'vocals by' or 'ft.' You'll notice as well that as many times the feat or whatever appears attached to the artist as it does to the song (particularly on VA compilations and singles). The only valid reason to do this was to allow a script to extract this information at a later date and store it in the database. This has already happened. I believe that script has actually been written and run. We now have ARs, which not only allow you to store such info, it lets you do so with incredibly fine grained detail. (An unvalid reason might be to make your record collection titles 'neater') We also have the changes brought in as a response to SG5 which allow X feat. Y (or X vs. Y or X meets the Ys uptown or anything else) to be the artist on the single, VA compilations or soundtracks as well as the greatest hits albums of *both* collaborating artists without the side effect of changing the single artist albums to be a VA album. This also means track entries by crazy one-hit wonder dance artists called X feat. Y no longer need to be mutilated to fit in with a now redundant rule, that actually tried to solve a different problem in the first place. All the above means we have enough information stored in the database now to take track title by X vs. Y appearing on X's greatest hits album and transform it, at time of tagging, to track title (feat. Y) by X. Or even track title (feat. A, B and C). Not only that you could use ft. or anything else the user wanted to specify. Anyone who wants their albums tagged like that can have it, it's just a simple matter of programming. So I would suggest alway putting the info in the artist field unless it is incredibly minor (trumpet solo by X, featuring the St. Paul's Choir) in which case just leave it as it is written on the cover and mark it with an appropriate AR. With reference to Aretha and Eurythmics, if it is really felt that the contribution of Aretha to this song is not enough for her to be awarded the full MusicBrainz ampersand then Eurythmics with Aretha Franklin seems just as good a name for a collaboration to me. This will of course lead to the creation of many of the dreaded bogus artists, the prevention of which sometimes seems like our prime directive, the 0th Law of MusicBrainz. Seems worth it to have useful, consistent and correct data, to me at least. cheers, dave ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] omitting major?
Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? I'd say: let's keep it. -- Jan (zout) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] CodeOfConduct with respect to bogus accounts
After a little discussion on IRC, I think the enhancement I have proposed in http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/1536 will eliminate most of the issues we are seeing from these new accounts. Extra reporting would be nice, however, some of those reports might be seen to be 'big brotherish' or snooping on users. Steve (inhouseuk) On Thu, 25 May 2006, Beth wrote: Sadly, I'm of the opinion that the Code of Conduct, while a great practice, and perfectly wonderful, is only binding when in fact all parties are held by the code of conduct. I think we have a method of handling this already, though it would be easier if we had a report of these accounts have been created in the last 28 days these accounts are only voters (I would like that anyways, because I feel more voters should be looked into for auto-editors). This has three benefits. It tells us accounts created and shows us how many people are coming to MB everyday (for those curious). We can be a little nicer and a little more watchful. We can then notice those that are voters, which is something I feel mb needs. We can help people to realize why to vote no, for those that always vote yes... and lastly we will be more capable of spotting those people voting on their own votes. Also it is not much of a system change, and I think when it's kept in check, it works really well. Nyght aka Beth -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Wyles Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:58 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: [mb-style] CodeOfConduct with respect to bogus accounts It seems we really need to clamp down on the creating of bogus accounts used for voting. Creating an account http://musicbrainz.org/user/view.html?uid=229805 purely for the purpose of forcing mod http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652 through in the last hour is not the way the voting system is supposed to work. Something definately needs to be added to the CodeOfConduct and IMO these incidents should be investigated. If such behaviour continues, I hate to think what damage will happen to the data. Steve (inhouseuk) ___ 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] omitting major?
2006/5/25, Jan van Thiel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? I'd say: let's keep it. Oops, once again my question was not precise enough :-( So here it is: Is major mandatory or optionnal? For the reasons above, my position is: Mandatory Jan, I understand that your position is: Mandatory too. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Editor in title
About mod 4878815, I have always thought that specifying performers in the title was mainly done to distinguish between different releases of the same work. Some editors don't mention the performers at all. In this case, I suggest mentioning the editor in the title would be better than nothing. For this we'd need a way to distinguish editor from performer, something like editor:. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:59:15PM +0100, david scotson wrote: This will of course lead to the creation of many of the dreaded bogus artists, the prevention of which sometimes seems like our prime directive, the 0th Law of MusicBrainz. Seems worth it to have useful, consistent and correct data, to me at least. Except using separate artists for every single featuring artist can be a complete mess. If an artist changes their name slightly, we have to edit numerous artists (unless now we only enter exactly what's on the cover, same person/band or not, which still doesn't deal with capitalisation and sortname changes) and has the potential for many misspellings to occur because the artist's name in the collaboration's name isn't linked to the collaborating artist's name. That's hardly consistency. I would be much less opposed to all these hundreds of collaboration artists if that weren't a problem. I'd also like a way of searching without getting a page full of collaborations but I guess I'm out of luck there. Technically it would be possible if we had a collaboration type as well as person and group, but the Lucene search still can't send you to a direct match. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
From what I know this usually is only done when space is very limited. Liners rarely ever omit these values, but I have a poster of all classical music that uses this notation, for example (it has the names of maybe 4k works squeezed on it in like 8pt font). I don't think we're that concerned about space. Of course, I think Gershwin's Concerto in F is an exception, because of artist intent. There are others like this too, but very few. -Nate --- Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Jan van Thiel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? I'd say: let's keep it. Oops, once again my question was not precise enough :-( So here it is: Is major mandatory or optionnal? For the reasons above, my position is: Mandatory Jan, I understand that your position is: Mandatory too. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
2006/5/25, Nathan Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From what I know this usually is only done when space is very limited. Liners rarely ever omit these values, but I have a poster of all classical music that uses this notation, for example (it has the names of maybe 4k works squeezed on it in like 8pt font). I don't think we're that concerned about space. Of course, I think Gershwin's Concerto in F is an exception, because of artist intent. There are others like this too, but very few. Ah, Artist intent... -Nate --- Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Jan van Thiel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? I'd say: let's keep it. Oops, once again my question was not precise enough :-( So here it is: Is major mandatory or optionnal? For the reasons above, my position is: Mandatory Jan, I understand that your position is: Mandatory too. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On 25/05/06, david scotson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One basic fact is key to this and hopefully everyone can agree once it's been pointed out: * there is no basis or rationale for continuing to normalise track titles to include (feat. X) Go dig out your albums and you'll find that very few actually use that format. They might say 'with' or 'duet with' or 'vocals by' or 'ft.' You'll notice as well that as many times the feat or whatever appears attached to the artist as it does to the song (particularly on VA compilations and singles). The only valid reason to do this was to allow a script to extract this information at a later date and store it in the database. This has already happened. I believe that script has actually been written and run. We now have ARs, which not only allow you to store such info, it lets you do so with incredibly fine grained detail. (An unvalid reason might be to make your record collection titles 'neater') ARs stores all information in the same place. ANY performing artist who is not a normal member of the main artist is a 'guest'. There absolutely needs to be a way of defining billed guest artists (ie, those appended to the tracklist/cover of a release, not those in liner notes/small print), outside of the usual producer/engineer/tea boy ARs, and as such the best place for this is the title or artist field, along side the relevent AR for that artist to give specific role info. perhaps a solution would be to add a checkbox for all AR relationships for 'featuring', such that it makes that AR 'special' which entails that it is highlighted on the album page, and appended to the track/artist title (ie as (feat. x) or perhaps even the full AR string) when that file is tagged? hmm i really like that idea actually! We also have the changes brought in as a response to SG5 which allow X feat. Y (or X vs. Y or X meets the Ys uptown or anything else) to be the artist on the single, VA compilations or soundtracks as well as the greatest hits albums of *both* collaborating artists without the side effect of changing the single artist albums to be a VA album. This also means track entries by crazy one-hit wonder dance artists called X feat. Y no longer need to be mutilated to fit in with a now redundant rule, that actually tried to solve a different problem in the first place. agree. All the above means we have enough information stored in the database now to take track title by X vs. Y appearing on X's greatest hits album and transform it, at time of tagging, to track title (feat. Y) by X. Or even track title (feat. A, B and C). Not only that you could use ft. or anything else the user wanted to specify. Anyone who wants their albums tagged like that can have it, it's just a simple matter of programming. So I would suggest alway putting the info in the artist field unless it is incredibly minor (trumpet solo by X, featuring the St. Paul's Choir) in which case just leave it as it is written on the cover and mark it with an appropriate AR. IMO anything deemed worthy by the cover, is worthy to go into the title/artist. i find a lot of people adding (feat. x) and collabs on stuff that was never billed as such, just because they are interested in the x in question. there is a difference between someone appearing on a track, and being *featured* on a track. With reference to Aretha and Eurythmics, if it is really felt that the contribution of Aretha to this song is not enough for her to be awarded the full MusicBrainz ampersand then Eurythmics with Aretha Franklin seems just as good a name for a collaboration to me. my position is still that it can be a different setup depending on the context :) i don't think we should be unifying the track titles/artist names for the same track, because it serves no real purpose. people with the single would want it tagged as X Y, people with X's album would want it X (feat. Y), and Y's album Y (feat. X). generally i think if we stick with the cover the most relevent title will be shown. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 07:45:39PM +0100, Chris Bransden wrote: such that it makes that AR 'special' which entails that it is highlighted on the album page The next server release already shows track relationships on the album page. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
i know, but that wouldn't help this situation because it shows ALL ARs on that track. I agree with showign them all, but we need to highlight featuring ARs somehow. On 25/05/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 07:45:39PM +0100, Chris Bransden wrote: such that it makes that AR 'special' which entails that it is highlighted on the album page The next server release already shows track relationships on the album page. --Nikki ___ 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] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
No I'd rather have the ability to link multipe artists to a track/release but since doing so involves a fair amount of development some sort of consistency is better than none and proposing we go back to X (feat. Y) will only start a bigger debate (although in the short term it's far more sensible IMO until we can actually link multiple artists). Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:52:11 +0100 On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:19:56AM -0700, Cristov Russell wrote: Yes but the problem is that the Alias field is not solely used for literal aliases; it's also (and possibly more commonly) used for misspellings. That is why I suggest we rename the Alias field and us AR for true aliases. So you'd rather see two artists with slightly different names with half of their albums duplicated? I'd rather see Alex's proposal for stating what the alias is than splitting one artist into more than one artist because they legally couldn't use a particular name in one country. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
Screw artist intent, they're dead! (For the most part) I hope you all were able to appreciate my sarcasm, because I think the difference between a purposeful capital F (F) to symbolize F major can easily be rewritten as F major because we are getting the same point across as the artist - and that is that the key is F major. Umm to summarize my wandering thoughts: I think the artist intended it be read as F major if they use a capital F so there's no harm in changing the written form of the title to portray the same intent using MB's guidelines. On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Nathan Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From what I know this usually is only done when space is very limited. Liners rarely ever omit these values, but I have a poster of all classical music that uses this notation, for example (it has the names of maybe 4k works squeezed on it in like 8pt font). I don't think we're that concerned about space. Of course, I think Gershwin's Concerto in F is an exception, because of artist intent. There are others like this too, but very few. Ah, Artist intent... -Nate --- Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Jan van Thiel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? I'd say: let's keep it. Oops, once again my question was not precise enough :-( So here it is: Is major mandatory or optionnal? For the reasons above, my position is: Mandatory Jan, I understand that your position is: Mandatory too. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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 -- -Aaron ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the ClassicalStyleGuide is already specifying this: 'Always use the expanded form and lowercase including a hyphen for German.' I'm under the impression that 'expanded form' means that both minor and major should always be included. Age ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
lol. Well I can certainly understand the drive towards a standard, but I have a problem when our style goes against a vast majority of references to the work. I don't claim to understand Gershwin's intent, but I think he may have been aiming for a title with a ring to it: Concerto in F sounds quite a bit different than Piano Concerto in F major, which is what our style would force. Most of the time it's referenced with the abbreviated version, which I kind of view as a common name: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%22concerto+in+f%22+gershwinsourceid=mozilla-searchstart=0start=0ie=utf-8oe=utf-8client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Not that I really care too much, but I do think in this case our stylized name would be wrong. Except these esoteric examples, we should always expand imo. -Nate --- Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Screw artist intent, they're dead! (For the most part) I hope you all were able to appreciate my sarcasm, because I think the difference between a purposeful capital F (F) to symbolize F major can easily be rewritten as F major because we are getting the same point across as the artist - and that is that the key is F major. Umm to summarize my wandering thoughts: I think the artist intended it be read as F major if they use a capital F so there's no harm in changing the written form of the title to portray the same intent using MB's guidelines. On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Nathan Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From what I know this usually is only done when space is very limited. Liners rarely ever omit these values, but I have a poster of all classical music that uses this notation, for example (it has the names of maybe 4k works squeezed on it in like 8pt font). I don't think we're that concerned about space. Of course, I think Gershwin's Concerto in F is an exception, because of artist intent. There are others like this too, but very few. Ah, Artist intent... -Nate --- Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Jan van Thiel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? I'd say: let's keep it. Oops, once again my question was not precise enough :-( So here it is: Is major mandatory or optionnal? For the reasons above, my position is: Mandatory Jan, I understand that your position is: Mandatory too. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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 -- -Aaron ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
I really don't think it has anything to do with flare. Gershwin was an American composer. I mentioned this major/minor thing before in reference to case (ie F for major and f minor) and most everyone disagreed; notably none of them Americans. I studied music theory and composition and probably the reason I thought this was common is it's probably just something American composers adopted in the last few centuries. I've seen this many times in jazz charts and there are many variations including with and without major/minor attached and with different cases (ie F Major/f minor or F major/f minor. It all ends up translating the same to someone who reads music but from a SG perspective I would say we stick to a standard. Artist intent is a misnomer here since the majority of these composers are dead and what's putting on the cover is left to somebody at the label. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nathan Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] omitting major? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:46:09 -0700 (PDT) lol. Well I can certainly understand the drive towards a standard, but I have a problem when our style goes against a vast majority of references to the work. I don't claim to understand Gershwin's intent, but I think he may have been aiming for a title with a ring to it: Concerto in F sounds quite a bit different than Piano Concerto in F major, which is what our style would force. Most of the time it's referenced with the abbreviated version, which I kind of view as a common name: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%22concerto+in+f%22+gershwinsourceid=mozilla-searchstart=0start=0ie=utf-8oe=utf-8client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Not that I really care too much, but I do think in this case our stylized name would be wrong. Except these esoteric examples, we should always expand imo. -Nate --- Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Screw artist intent, they're dead! (For the most part) I hope you all were able to appreciate my sarcasm, because I think the difference between a purposeful capital F (F) to symbolize F major can easily be rewritten as F major because we are getting the same point across as the artist - and that is that the key is F major. Umm to summarize my wandering thoughts: I think the artist intended it be read as F major if they use a capital F so there's no harm in changing the written form of the title to portray the same intent using MB's guidelines. On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Nathan Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From what I know this usually is only done when space is very limited. Liners rarely ever omit these values, but I have a poster of all classical music that uses this notation, for example (it has the names of maybe 4k works squeezed on it in like 8pt font). I don't think we're that concerned about space. Of course, I think Gershwin's Concerto in F is an exception, because of artist intent. There are others like this too, but very few. Ah, Artist intent... -Nate --- Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Jan van Thiel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? I'd say: let's keep it. Oops, once again my question was not precise enough :-( So here it is: Is major mandatory or optionnal? For the reasons above, my position is: Mandatory Jan, I understand that your position is: Mandatory too. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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 -- -Aaron
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: 2006/5/25, Age Bosma [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the ClassicalStyleGuide is already specifying this: 'Always use the expanded form and lowercase including a hyphen for German.' I'm under the impression that 'expanded form' means that both minor and major should always be included. Age Well, maybe for an native english-speaking user, but for me it could mean use minor rather than min or m and major rather than maj or M. I agree that 'major' and 'minor' should always be included to reduce errors and to prevent any misinterpretation. I started this discussion because of the same reasons on ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion [1] a while ago as well but didn't get any response yet. It's in the 'Additional 'Chord: minor and major' clarification' section: [quote] The 'Chord' section in the style guide states 'Always use the expanded form and lowercase'. I think this requires an additional clarification by means of text and/or examples. In a recent edit I used just 'C' because that was displayed on the album cover, leaving out 'major'. Unless you happen to know that there are different ways to write the chords and that 'expanded form' means including e.g. 'major', people will probably tend to make the same mistake again. Something in the lines of: * Always use the expanded form with the 'first thingy' in upper-case and always including the 'second thingy' in lower-case. Examples: - 'Violin Concerto in D minor Op. 47' - 'Sonata in C major' not 'Sonata in C' - 'Sonata in C minor' not 'Sonata in c' [/quote] I did some more research and I believe the 'first thingy' is called 'octave' and the 'second thingy' is called 'scale degree'. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Yours, Age [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
