Re: [mb-style] RFC: Dealing with translations and transliterations
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:23:00AM +0200, derGraph wrote: So could anyone please summarize this? Is there more than a request for a transliteration AR (which by the proposed guidelines doesn't create clusters) and a comment on a roadmap? Basically, yes. The overall thread so far has been that: * We should create a transliteration/translation relationship so that we have the ability to link 'virtual' releases together. * We should have an 'official' and 'unofficial' attribute because some transliterations/translations are officially released, and therefore deserve separate entries. * We can avoid the majority of relationship clusters by linking to the official release in the artist's native language (presumably in their usual country of release). Expanding on the last point, there will still be some cases where clusters would be possible, but focusing on those is silly. We currently have thousands of transliterations which are lacking a relationship because a handful of examples (which, in some cases, are just theoretical) are tricky to handle. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Dealing with translations and transliterations
Nikki wrote: Basically, yes. The overall thread so far has been that: Some points to add: Dustin exhaustively tried to state why we *should* allow virtual duplicates - which I think was unnecessary because everyone who still wants to argue against that is a bit out of reality. ;) Also it was said that we might want to make use of this relationship for displaying duplicate releases together with the official ones (?) and let all changes to one of the releases (except the titles) reflect on the other ones automatically. I'd like to see more concrete plans for that. * We can avoid the majority of relationship clusters by linking to the official release in the artist's native language (presumably in their usual country of release). This point is a bit hazy to me. What about cases where the official release of a Japanese band is in English/Latin and someone creates a virtual Japanese/Kana duplicate? Artist's native language is problematic in my eyes. Of course you could say the English/Latin one is the official release and therefore everything links there. But what if there are several official ones of which none can be seen as most native? This might sound theoretically but I think identifying the main release can be problematic. Expanding on the last point, there will still be some cases where clusters would be possible, but focusing on those is silly. We currently have thousands of transliterations which are lacking a relationship because a handful of examples (which, in some cases, are just theoretical) are tricky to handle. I would like to hear more about those tricky examples. :) I guess they have been discussed to death before... sorry, didn't read the other threads. Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
On 6/14/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that the following discussion arose from this: Schika had examples of liner notes which differentiate between a mixer and a mix engineer. Do we need that separated? well i think you have to be careful as the example (system 7) might mean DJMix when they say Mixed By and Mixed By where they say Mix Engineer. if anyone can find an example where that's definitely not the case then it's probably worth adding seperately. It's definetly not a DJ-Mix here. The mentioned track On the Seventh Night with that credits appears on the album 777 (Label: Big Life Records / Weird and Unconventional Records - Catalog #: BFLLP1) http://www.discogs.com/release/19794 (is the entry matching the Catalog #) Also not DJMixed ... Same group another album Point 3 - Fire Album (Label: Big Life Records / Butterfly Records - Catalog #: BFLLA11): B1 - Mysterious Traveller: Produced by Derrick May Steve Hillage. Engineered Additional Production by Greg Hunter. Keyboards Programming by Derrick May. Guitars by Steve Hillage. Additional Keyboards by Miquette Giraudy. Mixed by Steve Hillage Miquette Giraudy. Mix Engineered by Matt Rowland. A2 has also credits for Mixed by and Mix Engineered by http://www.discogs.com/release/89959 (is the entry matching the Catalog #) Maybe someone has the CD versions which probably have more detailed credits, as the vinyls I currently holding in my hands. Sorry that I currently bring up examples from only one band - cause I've tried to enter the credits for their records some time ago and figured out that ARs are missing. I'm sure that I will come accross more of such credits - if I have the time to enter a whole set again. Of course since we don't have freetext crediting like Discogs we can only render liner notes to a certain extent and I'd normally say try to find those types which are nearest to what they really did - but since in most of the cases we can't know what they really did, we can only go with the liner notes for those smaller roles and therefore I also prefer to see it as close to the liner notes as possible. That does not apply for all AR types though - in some cases you *can* know what the credited persons really did. For example liner notes for rock albums mostly say guitars by ..., bass by ... where they mean electric guitar and electric bass guitar. Of course it's not wrong to let it as guitars as those are generalisations. i agree. i'd still like to have free-text qualifiers (pipe dream...), for the occasions when a new AR isn't appropriate, but it's still nice to show the written credit as well as the actual role - eg http://www.discogs.com/release/535757 (look at some of those convoluted track credits!) The mentioned free-text field would be awesome for such rare credits - instead of adding more to the current list. BTW great example. :) -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Dealing with translations and transliterations
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 02:01:29PM +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote: This point is a bit hazy to me. Feel free to rephrase it. What about cases where the official release of a Japanese band is in English/Latin and someone creates a virtual Japanese/Kana duplicate? Then the Japanese/Kana version isn't an official track listing and thus doesn't count in the versions we can choose from! But what if there are several official ones of which none can be seen as most native? Example? Last time the discussion died because people brought up theoretical problems which, as I said, doesn't do anything for the *real* cases we have. Anyway, these are only guidelines. We can't possibly cater for every single case. If someone comes along and finds it hard to apply the guideline to the data, they're free to work out what *does* work (and that applies to all of the guidelines). I'm merely giving something which works for nearly all the cases we have already. I would like to hear more about those tricky examples. :) The only one I'm really at all familiar with is China Dolls [1]. They're a duo from Thailand, one is half Chinese, one is half Taiwanese. They have official releases in Thai, Chinese and Japanese. If two of these happen to share the same songs in the same order, there would be two official versions which the transliterations and translations could link to. It's all theoretical because I don't even know if two releases share the exact same songs in the same order. We only have 4 distinct albums (plus 1 transliteration) for them anyway, so all the possible transliterations and translations are just some sort of straw man or something. --Nikki 1 http://musicbrainz.org/artist/db695488-b587-4349-8aa1-da3ab8a5f0ff.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: new renamed to AR type
derGraph wrote:
Simon Reinhardt wrote:
I must admit it was a bit hot when I wrote that and after it I
thought: hmmm.. that's all bullshit. I think you're right, one
general type probably won't work. I have a real life example for you:
I just thought about other real-life examples when I had another idea:
we might have a renamed AR with a split option like
[artist] {split:split and thereafter} renamed to [artist]
Yet, I wouldn't know a reverse phrase right now,
Maybe something like
[artist] renamed {split:after a split} to [artist]?
Sorry, grammar, but what else could I do? ;-)
What do you think?
It's definitly not a renaming. Could one say Shaaman is a successor
of Angra?
Since there is only one band member in both bands, I wouldn't say so.
I would suggest to use this AR only if larger parts of the older band
were also band members after the name change and vice versa. If only one
or two band members founded or joined a new band, i.e. there were larger
lineup changes, MemberOfBandRelationshipType should be enough to
(indirectly) link the bands.
--
derGraph
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Dealing with translations and transliterations
Nikki wrote: Expanding on the last point, there will still be some cases where clusters would be possible, but focusing on those is silly. We currently have thousands of transliterations which are lacking a relationship because a handful of examples (which, in some cases, are just theoretical) are tricky to handle. If it works for the majority of cases, or maybe even for all but very few, I'd say we should go ahead! -- derGraph PS: Thanks for the summary! ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Net Releases
First of all let me make it clear that I am not talking about music released through iTunes, Napster or similar, which invariably are commercial releases, available in most retail stores, being released on the net. What I would like to get a consensus of opinion on is those releases which are intended for release on the net and will only ever be released in this format. There is a school of thought which says that by virtue of the fact that it is released on the web, then it is a worldwide release and, therefore, available to everyone who has access to the internet. Another school of thought is that it is released in the country in which the record label or host server is situated. Using this argument, if the host label is in the USA, then that release is USA. If elsewhere, then that country takes precedence. Now, I am not trying to appear facetious, but using this argument, we could have a long string of release dates, such as: Release Date: USA 1.1.2006 UK 1.1.2006 Germany 1.1.2006 France 1.1.2006 Japan 1.1.2006 And all would be correct under present guidelines. However, my argument is that if a piece of music is released on the internet, then the intention is that it is equally available to all users of the internet, and that to me means worldwide, notwithstanding the fact that the originator may be USA or UK based. That is irrelevant. Indeed, the fact that the label is based in a specific country can be referred to in an annotation. With the advent of more and more music being released only on the internet, we need to formulate a policy to deal with them and not leave it to chance. May I have your thoughts on this please? Joan BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Whittaker;Joan FN:Joan Whittaker EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20060617T001658Z END:VCARD ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
Whatever the artist/label/distributor of the release says should be used. If they state it should be Germany, Europe or Worldwide then we have to respect that. They are the owners of the rights and they decide how their data has to be. -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +0200, Schika wrote: Whatever the artist/label/distributor of the release says should be used. If they state it should be Germany, Europe or Worldwide then we have to respect that. They are the owners of the rights and they decide how their data has to be. What about all the ones which don't say? --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
On 6/17/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +0200, Schika wrote: Whatever the artist/label/distributor of the release says should be used. If they state it should be Germany, Europe or Worldwide then we have to respect that. They are the owners of the rights and they decide how their data has to be. What about all the ones which don't say? --Nikki If a label is known, then the country where it's based (if it's known). If a label is known but not where it's based - or nothing at all is currently known - Unknown Country. -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Net Releases
So virtually it appears as if you feel [worldwide] should be deleted altogether? Or only used when the band says Everywhere else? (which I've seen one band that says that. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schika Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:30 PM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/17/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +0200, Schika wrote: Whatever the artist/label/distributor of the release says should be used. If they state it should be Germany, Europe or Worldwide then we have to respect that. They are the owners of the rights and they decide how their data has to be. What about all the ones which don't say? --Nikki If a label is known, then the country where it's based (if it's known). If a label is known but not where it's based - or nothing at all is currently known - Unknown Country. -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ 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] Net Releases
On 6/17/06, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So virtually it appears as if you feel [worldwide] should be deleted altogether? Or only used when the band says Everywhere else? (which I've seen one band that says that. No, I'm against a deletion of [Worldwide]. I say that [Worldwide] should be used when it is mentioned that it is a worldwide release. I've seen that also from artists/bands/labels/distributors. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
