Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
On 6/17/06, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently we handle on media releases as to the point of distribution. It was released in the US UK and Germany Japan Speaking of the markets that these releases were distributed in. Do we all realy handle this way? The following is taken from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseCountryStyle : 'Note that the ReleaseCountry of an album is not necessarily the country in which it was produced. The label itself will typically be more relevant. eg, a release on Foo Records UK that has Made in Austria printed on it, will likely be a UK release.' Is telling the homebase of the label matters. Otherwise you wouldn't have multitude of release countries for one release. There are much possibilities and examples around for multiple release Dates/Countries - if the country of origin OR the country of distribution has to be entered in our Country field. Why would net releases be handled any differently? exactly. -- .: 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
I didn't say Made in I said distributed in. Therefore you're losing all relevance where the release was distributed in favor of where the label originated? We seem to have read that page totally differently. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schika Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:46 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/17/06, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently we handle on media releases as to the point of distribution. It was released in the US UK and Germany Japan Speaking of the markets that these releases were distributed in. Do we all realy handle this way? The following is taken from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseCountryStyle : 'Note that the ReleaseCountry of an album is not necessarily the country in which it was produced. The label itself will typically be more relevant. eg, a release on Foo Records UK that has Made in Austria printed on it, will likely be a UK release.' Is telling the homebase of the label matters. Otherwise you wouldn't have multitude of release countries for one release. There are much possibilities and examples around for multiple release Dates/Countries - if the country of origin OR the country of distribution has to be entered in our Country field. Why would net releases be handled any differently? exactly. -- .: 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
Released in... = distributed in (in my opinion) The ReleaseCountry is the country in which an Release was sold from a certain ReleaseDate on -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Beth Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:50 AM To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' Subject: RE: [mb-style] Net Releases I didn't say Made in I said distributed in. Therefore you're losing all relevance where the release was distributed in favor of where the label originated? We seem to have read that page totally differently. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schika Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:46 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/17/06, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently we handle on media releases as to the point of distribution. It was released in the US UK and Germany Japan Speaking of the markets that these releases were distributed in. Do we all realy handle this way? The following is taken from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseCountryStyle : 'Note that the ReleaseCountry of an album is not necessarily the country in which it was produced. The label itself will typically be more relevant. eg, a release on Foo Records UK that has Made in Austria printed on it, will likely be a UK release.' Is telling the homebase of the label matters. Otherwise you wouldn't have multitude of release countries for one release. There are much possibilities and examples around for multiple release Dates/Countries - if the country of origin OR the country of distribution has to be entered in our Country field. Why would net releases be handled any differently? exactly. -- .: 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:46:06AM +0200, Schika wrote: point of distribution. in which it was produced Production and distibution are not the same thing. The label itself will typically be more relevant. eg, a release on Foo Records UK that has Made in Austria printed on it, will likely be a UK release.' Is telling the homebase of the label matters. It tells of the distribution matter too. I have CDs produced in the EU distributed in the UK by a UK label. --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
On 6/16/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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) Examples? Maybe like this one: An official release comes in both languages. I've had one with an cover and inlay you can turn - one side with titles and credits in Russian/Cyrillic and the other side with everything in English/Latin. That CD was (mabe still is) in local stores - here in germany - with the english version outside and the russian version outside available (same label and cat number for sure). Another one had both versions on the back cover like this way: 1 - Japanese Track Title - [duration] - English Track Title - 1 -- .: NOP AND NIL :..: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] (album version)
This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says If the release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the album version. I think this is completely wrong. A single does not necessarily have to include an album version and to me, the 'default' version on a single is the *single* version, given that it's, well, a single. Also, an album also does not necessarily have to include all songs from a single, so there may not even *be* an album version in existence. A single also need not include a single version, and if it does, it doesn't necessarily have to be labelled as such. By removing '(album version)', we're making it completely ambiguous. Is it an unlabelled single version? Is it an album version? Is it a mistakenly unlabelled remix, edit or live version? We're also being inconsistent, LiveTrackStyle says tracks should not contain (live) as the release status is live. Surely, by this logic, we should not remove (album version) from singles and remove (single version) instead. I personally don't like removing any of the version information from singles, they can and do contain so many different versions (single, album, live, radio edit, etc.) that you can't really say any particular version is the default. So why should album version be assumed to be the default version for singles and not live albums? --Nikki P.S. Won't we have to go back and add (album version) back to all the singles once we have NGS? ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 09:33:02AM +0200, Schika wrote: And sorry that I directly copied the text without cutting out the - in our discussion irrelevant part 'that has Made in Austria printed on it, ' - so that everyone could read: 'The label itself will typically be more relevant. eg, a release on Foo Records UK [...] will likely be a UK release.' But that doesn't say The label should be used, it merely says that between label and 'made in', the label's country is more likely to have been the release country. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Net Releases
Agreed nikki, but I do feel to totally go with where the label is located instead of where the product was distributed is a very bad practice. If you don't know, great, use the label. There are too many releases that you specifically go for the uk/japan/(your favorite example here) version because it had another song on it. That isn't referring to the label's home base, that's referring to the distribution market the release went out in. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nikki Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:38 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 09:33:02AM +0200, Schika wrote: And sorry that I directly copied the text without cutting out the - in our discussion irrelevant part 'that has Made in Austria printed on it, ' - so that everyone could read: 'The label itself will typically be more relevant. eg, a release on Foo Records UK [...] will likely be a UK release.' But that doesn't say The label should be used, it merely says that between label and 'made in', the label's country is more likely to have been the release country. I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. --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] (album version)
What she said. Really. I can't phrase it any better than what Nikki did, but those are words straight out of my heart as well. It's so totally arbitrary that it sickens me, and we're losing information over it all the time which will be if not impossible, take lots and lots and lots of work to get back. Can't we just nuke the stupid (album version) rule once and for all? Please? //[bnw] Citerar Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says If the release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the album version. I think this is completely wrong. A single does not necessarily have to include an album version and to me, the 'default' version on a single is the *single* version, given that it's, well, a single. Also, an album also does not necessarily have to include all songs from a single, so there may not even *be* an album version in existence. A single also need not include a single version, and if it does, it doesn't necessarily have to be labelled as such. By removing '(album version)', we're making it completely ambiguous. Is it an unlabelled single version? Is it an album version? Is it a mistakenly unlabelled remix, edit or live version? We're also being inconsistent, LiveTrackStyle says tracks should not contain (live) as the release status is live. Surely, by this logic, we should not remove (album version) from singles and remove (single version) instead. I personally don't like removing any of the version information from singles, they can and do contain so many different versions (single, album, live, radio edit, etc.) that you can't really say any particular version is the default. So why should album version be assumed to be the default version for singles and not live albums? --Nikki P.S. Won't we have to go back and add (album version) back to all the singles once we have NGS? ___ 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] (album version)
On 6/18/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What she said. Really. I can't phrase it any better than what Nikki did, but those are words straight out of my heart as well. It's so totally arbitrary that it sickens me, and we're losing information over it all the time which will be if not impossible, take lots and lots and lots of work to get back. Can't we just nuke the stupid (album version) rule once and for all? Please? What they said. Please! -- Jan van Thiel (zout) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] (album version)
All support dropping the getting rid of (album version) too. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Nikki wrote: By removing '(album version)', we're making it completely ambiguous. I disagree. For my own use, if the track on the single is the same version as that on the album, it gets no version info because it is *the same track*. When I search for this track I see that it appears in two places: the album and the single. Of course, I can also see version information for other *mixes* of the same track but my concern is how many times this exact track appears in my collection. Take this example: The Album Track The Album Track (album version) What's different about these? Nothing except they appear on two different items. They are both The Album Track. (album version) is extraneous because there is nothing different about these tracks. What about compilations? Should we append all tracks there with (album version)? The item to note here is where the track appears: album, compilation, live, single, EP. If it's the same track as the one that's on the album, woot! There's no reason to note it otherwise. Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Agree completely. Michelle (dirtyboots) This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says If the release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the album version. I think this is completely wrong. A single does not necessarily have to include an album version and to me, the 'default' version on a single is the *single* version, given that it's, well, a single. _ realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] (album version)
We have earliest version of... not sure if it could be used in this same instance though. I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal collection, which ARs don't cover. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Tholén Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:28 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version) You'll never git reid of the fact that same tracks have different names in different contexts. For example live tracks will have the same effect. To sort out which tracks are exactly the same you need somethin else. Anis the same track as-AR (Do we already have one of those?) And I don't really see (album version) as stating that it is the same verion as on an album, I see it as recording the title under which this particular track is present on this particular release. //[bnw] Nikki wrote: By removing '(album version)', we're making it completely ambiguous. I disagree. For my own use, if the track on the single is the same version as that on the album, it gets no version info because it is *the same track*. When I search for this track I see that it appears in two places: the album and the single. Of course, I can also see version information for other *mixes* of the same track but my concern is how many times this exact track appears in my collection. Take this example: The Album Track The Album Track (album version) What's different about these? Nothing except they appear on two different items. They are both The Album Track. (album version) is extraneous because there is nothing different about these tracks. What about compilations? Should we append all tracks there with (album version)? The item to note here is where the track appears: album, compilation, live, single, EP. If it's the same track as the one that's on the album, woot! There's no reason to note it otherwise. Paula (spacefish) ___ 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] (album version)
I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal collection, which ARs don't cover. I don't really understand how or what, but I suppose it's a tagger issue then? //[bnw] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Tholén Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:28 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version) You'll never git reid of the fact that same tracks have different names in different contexts. For example live tracks will have the same effect. To sort out which tracks are exactly the same you need somethin else. Anis the same track as-AR (Do we already have one of those?) And I don't really see (album version) as stating that it is the same verion as on an album, I see it as recording the title under which this particular track is present on this particular release. //[bnw] Nikki wrote: By removing '(album version)', we're making it completely ambiguous. I disagree. For my own use, if the track on the single is the same version as that on the album, it gets no version info because it is *the same track*. When I search for this track I see that it appears in two places: the album and the single. Of course, I can also see version information for other *mixes* of the same track but my concern is how many times this exact track appears in my collection. Take this example: The Album Track The Album Track (album version) What's different about these? Nothing except they appear on two different items. They are both The Album Track. (album version) is extraneous because there is nothing different about these tracks. What about compilations? Should we append all tracks there with (album version)? The item to note here is where the track appears: album, compilation, live, single, EP. If it's the same track as the one that's on the album, woot! There's no reason to note it otherwise. Paula (spacefish) ___ 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] (album version)
On 6/18/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal collection, which ARs don't cover. I don't really understand how or what, but I suppose it's a tagger issue then? //[bnw] No, I guess that Paula don't want to see the exactly same track (everything is simular, track lenght, version, sound ...) appearing one time as Title and another time as Title (album version). -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Thomas Tholén wrote: And I don't really see (album version) as stating that it is the same verion as on an album, I see it as recording the title under which this particular track is present on this particular release. But just as (feat. artist B) is not part of the track title, neither is (album version). The problem with MB is that there is no separate field for version information and there really ought to be. And live tracks are always noted by the fact that they either appear on a live item or are appended with (version information) on non-live items. I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal collection, which ARs don't cover. I don't really understand how or what, but I suppose it's a tagger issue then? I was referring to my own database, correct. (Yes, I'm that obsessive. :) ) Although I don't use MB for tagging, I do refer to it for general tagging purposes, but only as a guideline. (I am waiting for Picard beta 0.8 for the MBID-only tagging option) In the simplest terms this becomes a tagging issue, I suppose, though not my primary concern. Paula (spacefish ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Schika wrote: On 6/18/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal collection, which ARs don't cover. I don't really understand how or what, but I suppose it's a tagger issue then? //[bnw] No, I guess that Paula don't want to see the exactly same track (everything is simular, track lenght, version, sound ...) appearing one time as Title and another time as Title (album version). Exactly. :) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On 6/18/06, Paula Callesøe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But just as (feat. artist B) is not part of the track title, neither is (album version). The problem with MB is that there is no separate field for version information and there really ought to be. I like the idea of a seperate field for version information. -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
I really don't want *identical* tracks to have different Titles. If the track was *originally* released on an album then the *identical* song on a Single release should have an *identical* title to the original Album release. Adding (album version) makes these songs completely different (when comparing titles, which is what most players Last.fm do). I think it is easily assumed that any track on a Single release without any special attributes (live)/(acoustic)/(demo)/(remix)/(edit) is a song which has been previously recorded or is not live/acoustic/a demo/remixed/edited version of the orginal. I think this is obvious because Albums are the primary releases of ~99% of artists and a Single usually highlights a specific song from an existing album. I just think the original release is the most important, so its seems ridiculous to have an identical song released on a single and have it titled with (album version). Just think about a Single that has 3 or 4 songs from an existing album - which is not overly rare. We will have a single with titles: St. Anger (edit), St. Anger (album version), The Unnamed Feeling (album version), Some Kind of Monster (album version), Frantic (album version), St. Anger (live). Wouldn't that seem crazy? If the songs exist identically on an Album already, I think they should be titled identically. A (single version) is an edited version of an original song so I definitely will argue that it should not drop its attributes to look like the original. Ugh... -Aaron (cooperaa) On 6/18/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says If the release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the album version. I think this is completely wrong. A single does not necessarily have to include an album version and to me, the 'default' version on a single is the *single* version, given that it's, well, a single. Also, an album also does not necessarily have to include all songs from a single, so there may not even *be* an album version in existence. A single also need not include a single version, and if it does, it doesn't necessarily have to be labelled as such. By removing '(album version)', we're making it completely ambiguous. Is it an unlabelled single version? Is it an album version? Is it a mistakenly unlabelled remix, edit or live version? We're also being inconsistent, LiveTrackStyle says tracks should not contain (live) as the release status is live. Surely, by this logic, we should not remove (album version) from singles and remove (single version) instead. I personally don't like removing any of the version information from singles, they can and do contain so many different versions (single, album, live, radio edit, etc.) that you can't really say any particular version is the default. So why should album version be assumed to be the default version for singles and not live albums? --Nikki P.S. Won't we have to go back and add (album version) back to all the singles once we have NGS? ___ 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] (album version)
By my reading of the rules (and in my opinion, too), the rule for (album version) is: (1) _usually_ tracks are released as album tracks. The _usual_ situation is that some tracks from the album are released on singles too. It's true that some tracks are released initially on singles, or only on singles, or some artist may release only singles. This doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of songs are released as album tracks. This means that the title of a song is the title it appears with on the album. (2) It's reasonable to expect (though here I'm sure there are disagreements) that a song have a single name (by a song I mean the exact same song, not remixes, edits, etc.), no matter where it appears. So at least some people (me included, I'd expect a lot others) want to have that song tagged the same, no matter where it is in the collection. The only way to do that _with our current taggers_ is to have the same title, meaning we must remove the album version _note_ on singles. This means we may need to add single version to an edited track on a single that isn't marked like that on the cover. Sometimes this track may be the first released. But it can be very confusing to do it otherwise. By the way, we do have the http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameTrackRelationshipType to clarify the identical tracks. We can use http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OtherVersionRelationshipType or, more likely, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/RemixRelationshipType for separating other versions, including single versions. If we're careful about that, we don't really loose any information. We may be able to add more options in the future, but until then—and it will be a while—I think the current system is the best we can do. -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 05:30:02AM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote: I really don't want *identical* tracks to have different Titles. If the track was *originally* released on an album then the *identical* song on a Single release should have an *identical* title to the original Album release. Adding (album version) makes these songs completely different (when comparing titles, which is what most players Last.fm do). And removing (live) makes players think two completely different versions are the same. Does that not bother you? Players also can't distinguish between Some Title (an album) and Some Title (a single), but we don't change our style guidelines to change this so that people can tag their files easier because that info is stored in the release type. What about when a live track features on an album and a live release? The album will have Some Track (live) but the live release will have Some Track. Those are the same track with two different names too! I think it is easily assumed that any track on a Single release without any special attributes (live)/(acoustic)/(demo)/(remix)/(edit) is a song which has been previously recorded or is not live/acoustic/a demo/remixed/edited version of the orginal. I think this is obvious because Albums are the primary releases of ~99% of artists and a Single usually highlights a specific song from an existing album. So what happens if the single version is unlabelled? Do we invent a version for it and remove (album version) which is on the cover? Aren't people usually throwing hissy fits because we deviate from the cover too much? I could find plenty of single versions which came before the album. Why don't we take those to be the default version (as they're the originally released version), remove (single version) and add (album version) to the album which was released later? It's just a Western(?) assumption that album = default (which isn't the case in Japan, for example). I don't like assuming things because you then have to tell people what assumptions to make (like I said, my assumption would be that the single contains a single version). In this case, you're asking people to assume all unlabelled tracks are album versions, yet because of how things are, many unlabelled tracks are really some other version with missing information. For example, http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=3917259 where two versions exist. One has the album version (unlabelled) and one has the live version. Someone then assumed that the unlabelled one must be a mistake and tried to merge them because the version info has been lost. I just think the original release is the most important, so its seems ridiculous to have an identical song released on a single and have it titled with (album version). Just think about a Single that has 3 or 4 songs from an existing album - which is not overly rare. We will have a single with titles: St. Anger (edit), St. Anger (album version), The Unnamed Feeling (album version), Some Kind of Monster (album version), Frantic (album version), St. Anger (live). Wouldn't that seem crazy? If that's what they put on the cover, then why is it crazy? I don't think it's ridiculous to have contextual information. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
I agree totally with removing the album version rule. To answer a few points raised. Identical tracks should always (in theory) all be identically titled, but in reality this will never happen. A live track will have (live) added to the title if its released as a track on a studio recorded release, the same with a demo track. Now I would expect a track that appears on an album to be the album version, and I would expect the same track appearing on a single to be the single version (unless otherwise titled). But if a track appears on a release and is titled track (album version) then it should be titled as such no matter what it is released on. Albums are NOT the primary release of every artist, there are a lot of dance/techno artists in MB who have never released an album, yet have a huge discography listed, so suggesting that an album version is the original/primary version is incorrect. And the single version is not always an edited version of the album version. Using the single Lift by 808 State as an example This single has been released in multiple versions and include the following versions of the track Lift: Lift Lift (7 mix) Lift (12 mix) Lift (Justin Strauss remix) Lift (Metro mix) Lift (Lift Up dub) Lift (7 version) Lift (Heavy mix) Lift (LP version) Now if we start removing (LP version) from the last track listed, how are supposed to differenciate between the original Lift and the LP version? Removing version info from any of these tracks could lead to the wrong PUID be attached to the wrong version, making PUID identification worthless. Also I don't see that how a media player sorts files should have any impact on how we record data, we are meant to be building an accurate database of music, not creating user friendly playlists for mp3 players. Mudcrow ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Net Releases
Itunes does have different stores. I don't know if that matters. It's not something that seems to be known though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bogdan Butnaru Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 3:58 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases I just read through this entire thread, and I still couldn't figure out something: why is the basic reason we have a release country? I thought the reason was simply that to document initial availability (which is why we don't record import dates)-of course, any record can be bought by anyone, anywhere, with enought effort-, and to disambiguate between different releases with the same name, that may differ in tracklist, mastering and other characteristics. I suppose if we were interested in label/artist country we would add fields directly for that. I think the fact that we do use the label's country for a release when we have no more info is that it just is the same with the record's release country virtually every time (barring exports and other distribution details). I'd say (supposing the above are correct) that applying the same rules to net releases would mean they are worldwide releases almost every time. I have seen things released on the net that are NOT available everywhere: for example, I've seen some things on iTunes that were not sold in France (in that particular case, it was an episode of some show, I think, but I'm sure it's possible for songs too). In that case, that would be a US release. If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? -- Bogdan Butnaru - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. - O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On 6/18/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (2) It's reasonable to expect (though here I'm sure there are disagreements) that a song have a single name (by a song I mean the exact same song, not remixes, edits, etc.), no matter where it appears. So at least some people (me included, I'd expect a lot others) want to have that song tagged the same, no matter where it is in the collection. The only way to do that _with our current taggers_ is to have the same title, meaning we must remove the album version _note_ on singles. It also means putting (live) onto live albums. Do you support adding that to every single track of a live album for consistency? If we decided to, sure why not? Then we would know the live songs are (live), but it isn't super critical because in most cases, the live recording is of the original recording. One exception to this is when a band plays only a portion of the original recording, like Metallica only playing the first half of Master of Puppets. In this case, most people call the song Master of Puppets (jam/excerpt/etc) or even a fan-given name of the Master of Puppets/Welcome Home (Sanitarium) medley... which is escaping me at the moment. By the way, we do have the http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameTrackRelationshipType to clarify the identical tracks. See, we can link identical tracks together, so we don't need the name to be the same as we can already store the fact they're identical. This argument is used in other places, so why can't it apply here? It just seems to be a load of whining about My tags! They're not the same! which applies to other things too but those aren't changed to make tagging easier because we simply state MusicBrainz isn't just for tagging. At this time linking tracks has no practical application and seems useless to me. I do hope that we will be able to use this information in the ARs some day, but I don't want to have to go through all of Metallica's bootlegs and say X is a live recording of Y just to have that relationship - I don't think anyone wants to! It's obvious that MusicBrainz isn't just for tagging because we wouldn't be storing all this information in relationships if it were. Picard 0.8, I believe, will be when the tagger script is implemented, so then people will be able to automatically strip (album version) if they want, but you can't automatically add (album version) because there's no context. If the album version is not the original recording, then by all means - append (album version). In the St. Anger single there is an edited version of the track and the original/album version. The cover may say (album version) but as you said above, we can say X is the original recording of Y and drop the (album version) from the title. I suppose if we REALLY wanted to make things confusing we could also drop the (edited version) information and throw that into an AR as well! Yipes! Regards, -- -Aaron ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] (album version)
Well, I will say I don't mind if every live is tagged (live) or is annotated (live). I do feel there is a big benefit in having all the songs of similar nature named the same thing. It does fit more with the schema of universal naming I have heard mentioned before. But, I think it should be done the whole way we're not supposed to change the database structure specifically for tagging purposes and we're as well not supposed to change it for lastfm. That said, I think we should look at this in a broad fashion, and decide how we're going to handle the extra title information throughout the db. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Cooper Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 4:47 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version) mudcrow, if there is an original version of the song Lift then the point I was trying to make was that it should be called simply Lift and any other remixes or other versions should have the extra attributes appended. If the (LP version) is a different version from the original then cool, call it the (LP version). I disagree with your concluding remarks: Also I don't see that how a media player sorts files should have any impact on how we record data, we are meant to be building an accurate database of music, not creating user friendly playlists for mp3 players. One of MB's primary uses is for tagging music. If you don't believe me, read this: http://blog.musicbrainz.org/archives/2006/05/future_directio.html In response to Nikki: And removing (live) makes players think two completely different versions are the same. Does that not bother you? Players also can't distinguish between Some Title (an album) and Some Title (a single), but we don't change our style guidelines to change this so that people can tag their files easier because that info is stored in the release type. I am more than happy having live recordings of songs titled the same as the original recording. In fact, it works out great on Last.fm because the stats grow for a specific song whether I play a bootleg recording or the original. I don't care where the song comes from (whether it be an Album or a Single or a Compilation), I am arguing that *identical* songs should be *identically* titled. I think most people would agree with that dream. Even for artists who primarily release singles, I still think that all subsequent *identical* songs should be titled like the original. If that happens to be from a Single release, I don't think it makes a difference. What about when a live track features on an album and a live release? The album will have Some Track (live) but the live release will have Some Track. Those are the same track with two different names too! This is unfortunate, but there isn't much we can do to differentiate the live tracks from the rest of the studio recordings. Anyways, that's all I've got for now... Regards, -Aaron On 6/18/06, mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree totally with removing the album version rule. To answer a few points raised. Identical tracks should always (in theory) all be identically titled, but in reality this will never happen. A live track will have (live) added to the title if its released as a track on a studio recorded release, the same with a demo track. Now I would expect a track that appears on an album to be the album version, and I would expect the same track appearing on a single to be the single version (unless otherwise titled). But if a track appears on a release and is titled track (album version) then it should be titled as such no matter what it is released on. Albums are NOT the primary release of every artist, there are a lot of dance/techno artists in MB who have never released an album, yet have a huge discography listed, so suggesting that an album version is the original/primary version is incorrect. And the single version is not always an edited version of the album version. Using the single Lift by 808 State as an example This single has been released in multiple versions and include the following versions of the track Lift: Lift Lift (7 mix) Lift (12 mix) Lift (Justin Strauss remix) Lift (Metro mix) Lift (Lift Up dub) Lift (7 version) Lift (Heavy mix) Lift (LP version) Now if we start removing (LP version) from the last track listed, how are supposed to differenciate between the original Lift and the LP version? Removing version info from any of these tracks could lead to the wrong PUID be attached to the wrong version, making PUID identification worthless. Also I don't see that how a media player sorts files should have any impact on how we record data, we are meant to be building an accurate database of music, not creating user friendly playlists for mp3 players. Mudcrow ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 06:46:47AM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote: I am more than happy having live recordings of songs titled the same as the original recording. In fact, it works out great on Last.fm because the stats grow for a specific song whether I play a bootleg recording or the original. [...] This is unfortunate, but there isn't much we can do to differentiate the live tracks from the rest of the studio recordings. Where's the consistency in this approach? You want identical tracks to have identical names, except for when it benefits you? Why, other than your Last.fm stats, should Some Title and Some Title (album version) not be allowed when Some Title and Some Title (live) are, when in both cases both tracks are identical? --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC: Latin guidelines (second request)
Hi! This is a second request for comments about the style guidelines for Latin [1]. These were previously discussed in a RFC [2]. There was a failed RFV [3], an appeal to higher powers, an informal vote and then finally an apparent consensus. [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CapitalizationStandardLatin [2] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-May/002676.html [3] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-May/002807.html Summary of the past discussion: The main reason I wrote the page was that Latin has an unusual spelling convention: the letters u and V are not separated in Latin, u is used for lower-case and V for upper case. No objections have been raised with regard to this. Together with this I attempted to specify explicitely guidelines for capitalization (which were previously mentioned by [4]). This has met some resistance. [4] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CapitalizationStandardItalian?highlight=%28Latin%29 There is no official set of rules for capitalizing Latin (mostly because it's a dead language, thus having no official governing body, and probably because Latin didn't use case for a long time). Usage varies, loosely correlated with usage in the geographical region. The initially-proposed style was to follow sentence case, capitalizing only the first word of a phrase and proper nouns (names). Some disagreed, arguing (correctly) that it is often hard to identify proper names in Latin; this is mostly because they are inflected according to their gramatical role in a sentence. The proposed alternatives revolved around an English-style capitalization, meaning everything is capitalized except for a list of closed-class words (prepositions and articles, mostly). After some deliberation and an informal examination of usage, however, this was considered too foreign to Latin [5], and apparently the consensus was that we should use Sentence case, but with extreme care. [5] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-June/002974.html Therefore I have amended the original proposal (adding several warnings about correctness) and ask for a new set of comments. Native English speakers, please take a look to check for any mistakes or unclear formulations. -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
But in my very first post I specifically excluded iTunes, Napster and other such from this debate, because most if not all of their titles are of albums commercially available as CD's and I wanted this debate to concentrate on those which were purely net releases. Joan - Original Message - From: Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:50 AM Subject: RE: [mb-style] Net Releases Itunes does have different stores. I don't know if that matters. It's not something that seems to be known though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bogdan Butnaru Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 3:58 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases I just read through this entire thread, and I still couldn't figure out something: why is the basic reason we have a release country? I thought the reason was simply that to document initial availability (which is why we don't record import dates)-of course, any record can be bought by anyone, anywhere, with enought effort-, and to disambiguate between different releases with the same name, that may differ in tracklist, mastering and other characteristics. I suppose if we were interested in label/artist country we would add fields directly for that. I think the fact that we do use the label's country for a release when we have no more info is that it just is the same with the record's release country virtually every time (barring exports and other distribution details). I'd say (supposing the above are correct) that applying the same rules to net releases would mean they are worldwide releases almost every time. I have seen things released on the net that are NOT available everywhere: for example, I've seen some things on iTunes that were not sold in France (in that particular case, it was an episode of some show, I think, but I'm sure it's possible for songs too). In that case, that would be a US release. If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? -- Bogdan Butnaru - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. - O. ___ 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 Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 01:15:48PM +0100, joan WHITTAKER wrote: But in my very first post I specifically excluded iTunes, Napster and other such from this debate, because most if not all of their titles are of albums commercially available as CD's and I wanted this debate to concentrate on those which were purely net releases. iTunes has a clearly defined release area anyway, it won't let you buy songs without living in the right country. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] (album version)
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 05:30:02AM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote: I really don't want *identical* tracks to have different Titles. If the track was *originally* released on an album then the *identical* song on a Single release should have an *identical* title to the original Album release. Adding (album version) makes these songs completely different (when comparing titles, which is what most players Last.fm do). And removing (live) makes players think two completely different versions are the same. Does that not bother you? Players also can't distinguish between Some Title (an album) and Some Title (a single), but we don't change our style guidelines to change this so that people can tag their files easier because that info is stored in the release type. What about when a live track features on an album and a live release? The album will have Some Track (live) but the live release will have Some Track. Those are the same track with two different names too! And I think this is yet another example of a bad guideline that should be dropped since the release type isn't tagged. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] (album version)
It also means putting (live) onto live albums. Do you support adding that to every single track of a live album for consistency? No but if it's listed that way it should not be removed. By the way, we do have the http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameTrackRelationshipType to clarify the identical tracks. See, we can link identical tracks together, so we don't need the name to be the same as we can already store the fact they're identical. This argument is used in other places, so why can't it apply here? It just seems to be a load of whining about My tags! They're not the same! which applies to other things too but those aren't changed to make tagging easier because we simply state MusicBrainz isn't just for tagging. This is dangerous logic. While MB may not be just for tagging, people contribute to MB primarily for tagging purposes. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:15:16AM -0500, Cristov Russell wrote: This is dangerous logic. While MB may not be just for tagging, people contribute to MB primarily for tagging purposes. I'll agree there, the data should still be useful for tagging. I'm just pointing out that titles don't have to have the same title for us to be able to say that they're the same. When it comes to tagging for this particular issue, it goes both ways. Neither way is better from a tagging perspective, it's just too subjective. Some people will prefer all titles to match, others will prefer to see what's on the cover. We have plenty of cases where we simply don't have the flexibility in Picard for everyone to be satisfied, so it's not a very good argument. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
cases where we simply don't have the flexibility in Picard for everyone to be satisfied, so it's not a very good argument. i agree completly with nikkis suggestion, and the PRO arguments to this change. i'd just like to add to this discussion, that although it might be nice to have some field or whatever solution, we should try to solve such soft issues using the means we have available right now. since the information being lost triggered this dicussion, we should stick to how this could be solved using a style change. this is not a case which _needs_ development work, this is a soft change of culture and should be handled like that. --keschte ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
You sure won't get a veto from me! Please go ahead... azertus Nikki schreef: This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says If the release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the album version. I think this is completely wrong. A single does not necessarily have to include an album version and to me, the 'default' version on a single is the *single* version, given that it's, well, a single. Also, an album also does not necessarily have to include all songs from a single, so there may not even *be* an album version in existence. A single also need not include a single version, and if it does, it doesn't necessarily have to be labelled as such. By removing '(album version)', we're making it completely ambiguous. Is it an unlabelled single version? Is it an album version? Is it a mistakenly unlabelled remix, edit or live version? We're also being inconsistent, LiveTrackStyle says tracks should not contain (live) as the release status is live. Surely, by this logic, we should not remove (album version) from singles and remove (single version) instead. I personally don't like removing any of the version information from singles, they can and do contain so many different versions (single, album, live, radio edit, etc.) that you can't really say any particular version is the default. So why should album version be assumed to be the default version for singles and not live albums? --Nikki P.S. Won't we have to go back and add (album version) back to all the singles once we have NGS? ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On 6/18/06, Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my very first reply I had a single in my hands I got as promo - it sounds really shit and I wouldn't buy an album from this artist if they would make one. However, here's the track list again: 1. Title (XY remix) 2. Title (original mix) 3. Title (album mix) 4. Title 5. Title (AV radio edit) All versions have different track durations and sounds different, but the essential question is: what is the original version? track 2, 3 or 4 ? If I would get the album to compare each version, and find out that track 3 is exactly the same as on this single, then should I strip track 3 title to Title. But now what's the title of track 4 and who decides how this unlabeld other version should be named? Not to mention the confusion if track 2 would be on the artist album. I don't claim to know what to do for *every* specific case, but I'm sure someone who knows the artist well can propose a reasonable solution. Like I said earlier, I'd say go ahead and leave (album mix/version) if it causes trouble, but in clear cut cases where the single has a tracklist like: 1. X (album version) 2. X (remix) 3. Y 4. Z ... and X was originally released as a professional, commercially available recording then the (album version) should be dropped to show this relationship plainly. Regards, -- -Aaron ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Net Releases
On 6/18/06, Bogdan Butnaru bogdanb at gmail.com wrote: I'd say (supposing the above are correct) that applying the same rules to net releases would mean they are worldwide releases almost every time. I have seen things released on the net that are NOT available everywhere: for example, I've seen some things on iTunes that were not sold in France (in that particular case, it was an episode of some show, I think, but I'm sure it's possible for songs too). In that case, that would be a US release. Here's another example - NOT iTunes related: When I posted a release from the russian Mastik netlabel at my Netlabel blog, a while back, I got replies that some users can't access this site. Simular replies I got from discogs moderators, when I was going to add a release there with the label URL in the modnote: http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases I never had any problems to connect this site (from Germany). However, the label uploaded the releases to archive.org - http://www.archive.org/details/mastik - also, but in the very first place all download links pointed to their server. If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? yes please. [beth] Who do you want it from? It seems like most of the input you're getting isn't good enough and you are seeking some few people in specific. Or, perhaps that's just how set your mind is? I'm not trying to be cutting, but I am trying to get to the bottom of who exactly you need this proof from. [/beth] ___ 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, 16 Jun 2006 10:11:36 +0200, Nikki wrote: * We should have an 'official' and 'unofficial' attribute because some transliterations/translations are officially released, and therefore deserve separate entries. What does official mean in this case? Is this the same as I proposed, namely the distinction whether the trans...tion refers to an actual existing releas or is just a virtual release? IMO this is the most important distinction we should make. I do not care that much, wheter a trans...ion is officially sancitioned (and if by whom?). DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
Excuse me for being somewhat obtuse, but does this then mean that if an album, track or whatever is put out on the INTERNET, then at that time it becomes to all intents and purposes a worldwide release - Original Message - From: Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:24:11 +0200, Schika wrote: If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? yes please. OK, here is a clear statement: From the Days of Tarragon up to now a release area did always mean the _market_ on which that specific release was available for sale on the release date. This marked is assumed to be a coutry in most cases. The country of the label and the production site _may_ be related to this, but that is not the point. The last time we settled this was in the release area vs. release country and do we add the EU? debate. We realised that we have a problem, since distributors define their markets less and less along national boundaries, but have decided to stick to these with a few exceptions. If I got this wrong then may one of the old-timers here speak up. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
Surely the fact that all users cannot access the http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases site is not the fault of Mastik. They had an expectation when they uploaded their music that it would be available. The fact that it is not is surely more to do with the ISP providing the service to the person trying to connect. By the way, I had no problem connecting from the UK. Joan - Original Message - From: Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/18/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say (supposing the above are correct) that applying the same rules to net releases would mean they are worldwide releases almost every time. I have seen things released on the net that are NOT available everywhere: for example, I've seen some things on iTunes that were not sold in France (in that particular case, it was an episode of some show, I think, but I'm sure it's possible for songs too). In that case, that would be a US release. Here's another example - NOT iTunes related: When I posted a release from the russian Mastik netlabel at my Netlabel blog, a while back, I got replies that some users can't access this site. Simular replies I got from discogs moderators, when I was going to add a release there with the label URL in the modnote: http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases I never had any problems to connect this site (from Germany). However, the label uploaded the releases to archive.org - http://www.archive.org/details/mastik - also, but in the very first place all download links pointed to their server. If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? yes please. ___ 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
iTunes are very territorial Trade protectionism? - Original Message - From: Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [mb-style] Net Releases I did find it interesting what you said about not being able to purchase from itunes... thanks, I have been wondering. :) It's his ISP, or whomever... why can't he just admit he has a shitty ISP and that he's not the rule but the exception? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joan WHITTAKER Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:38 PM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases Surely the fact that all users cannot access the http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases site is not the fault of Mastik. They had an expectation when they uploaded their music that it would be available. The fact that it is not is surely more to do with the ISP providing the service to the person trying to connect. By the way, I had no problem connecting from the UK. Joan - Original Message - From: Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/18/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say (supposing the above are correct) that applying the same rules to net releases would mean they are worldwide releases almost every time. I have seen things released on the net that are NOT available everywhere: for example, I've seen some things on iTunes that were not sold in France (in that particular case, it was an episode of some show, I think, but I'm sure it's possible for songs too). In that case, that would be a US release. Here's another example - NOT iTunes related: When I posted a release from the russian Mastik netlabel at my Netlabel blog, a while back, I got replies that some users can't access this site. Simular replies I got from discogs moderators, when I was going to add a release there with the label URL in the modnote: http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases I never had any problems to connect this site (from Germany). However, the label uploaded the releases to archive.org - http://www.archive.org/details/mastik - also, but in the very first place all download links pointed to their server. If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? yes please. ___ 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] Net Releases
No clue, I just got really annoyed when I downloaded a video from their site and couldn't put it on my psp.. I never liked it much anyways, but, I certainly have a problem with it now. If Klayton didn't release songs through there I'd never touch it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joan WHITTAKER Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:42 PM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases iTunes are very territorial Trade protectionism? - Original Message - From: Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [mb-style] Net Releases I did find it interesting what you said about not being able to purchase from itunes... thanks, I have been wondering. :) It's his ISP, or whomever... why can't he just admit he has a shitty ISP and that he's not the rule but the exception? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joan WHITTAKER Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:38 PM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases Surely the fact that all users cannot access the http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases site is not the fault of Mastik. They had an expectation when they uploaded their music that it would be available. The fact that it is not is surely more to do with the ISP providing the service to the person trying to connect. By the way, I had no problem connecting from the UK. Joan - Original Message - From: Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/18/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say (supposing the above are correct) that applying the same rules to net releases would mean they are worldwide releases almost every time. I have seen things released on the net that are NOT available everywhere: for example, I've seen some things on iTunes that were not sold in France (in that particular case, it was an episode of some show, I think, but I'm sure it's possible for songs too). In that case, that would be a US release. Here's another example - NOT iTunes related: When I posted a release from the russian Mastik netlabel at my Netlabel blog, a while back, I got replies that some users can't access this site. Simular replies I got from discogs moderators, when I was going to add a release there with the label URL in the modnote: http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases I never had any problems to connect this site (from Germany). However, the label uploaded the releases to archive.org - http://www.archive.org/details/mastik - also, but in the very first place all download links pointed to their server. If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? yes please. ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:46:47 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote: I am arguing that *identical* songs should be *identically* titled. I think most people would agree with that dream. No, I don't and I soppose that there is a considerable amount of people here who disagree. Actually I think this is the core problem of the debate. There are some people here who think that the track title should be the same for all versions of a song (ObjectModel/MasterObject to be very precise), I'll call this the absolutistic point of view (and I don't mean kings and queens here :-) ). Then there are other people who think that the track tilte should be what makes most sense in the context of the release it appears on (here the track title refers to the ObjectModel/TrackObect). I'll call this the contextualistic point of view. On the MusicBrainzSummit7 we established that in the future these two points of view should be both in the database, as aspects with equal rights, and separated structurally. However, we have to live with the current structure for quite a while. The current structure is not able to deal with this distinction in a useful way. Now, I am very obviously a member of the contextualistic camp (in any aspect not only tagging: intertwingling, remember? :-) ). However, I think that the people who want an absolute name should have a way to retrieve this from the database. I have argued in the past that we cannot stop storing extra title information in track titles and move them into ARs unless there are tools to process this information (context again: the information storage needs processors). One of these tools will be picard 0.8 another one will be ArtistPageRedesign. Now these have a considerable advantage over the so called NextGenerationSchema: They are worked on by Lukas and Keschte who have the resources to fully focus on these features, as opposed to Robert who has to jump in and put out fires all the time. I assume that both projects should see the light of the day this year. It is _then_ that IMO we should try to move as much as possible to the contextualistic model of describing data _in the TrackTitles_, and as much as possible to the absolutistic model _in ARs_. To be concrete: If people are able to retrieve this informtation for tagging purposes, and if ARs are displayed in a more practical way, THEN, there will be no need anymore to give the same track title to all versions of the same song, because people can just follow some ARs that point them to the track with the 'original title'. Whatever the 'original title' is and how the ARs work, will have to be worked out. In conclusion I propose to postpone this debate until Picard 0.8 comes out. I then propose not to lead a debate about principles, but a debate about concete solutions to this and the related problems using contextual track titles (that say (album version) if it makes sense _in context_), ARs (taht point to the same track with the most 'context free' title), and Picard 0.8s tagger script that retrieves all this info and uses it for tagging. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:13:31 +0200, joan WHITTAKER wrote: Excuse me for being somewhat obtuse, but does this then mean that if an album, track or whatever is put out on the INTERNET, then at that time it becomes to all intents and purposes a worldwide release Unless it is not annotated with some stupid you may only download this if you are an US citizen, please add your zip code here statement, yes, that is what it means. If ReleaseArea still means _market_, as it has meant up to now IIRC, then the internet represents a worldwide market. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
Thank you very much indeed for this. After all, it is basic common sense and I am glad that we have reached a definite conclusion. Your input has been greatly appreciated to settle this question. Joan - Original Message - From: Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:13:31 +0200, joan WHITTAKER wrote: Excuse me for being somewhat obtuse, but does this then mean that if an album, track or whatever is put out on the INTERNET, then at that time it becomes to all intents and purposes a worldwide release Unless it is not annotated with some stupid you may only download this if you are an US citizen, please add your zip code here statement, yes, that is what it means. If ReleaseArea still means _market_, as it has meant up to now IIRC, then the internet represents a worldwide market. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
YIPPEE - Original Message - From: Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:45 PM Subject: RE: [mb-style] Net Releases No clue, I just got really annoyed when I downloaded a video from their site and couldn't put it on my psp.. I never liked it much anyways, but, I certainly have a problem with it now. If Klayton didn't release songs through there I'd never touch it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joan WHITTAKER Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:42 PM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases iTunes are very territorial Trade protectionism? - Original Message - From: Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:38 PM Subject: RE: [mb-style] Net Releases I did find it interesting what you said about not being able to purchase from itunes... thanks, I have been wondering. :) It's his ISP, or whomever... why can't he just admit he has a shitty ISP and that he's not the rule but the exception? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joan WHITTAKER Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:38 PM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases Surely the fact that all users cannot access the http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases site is not the fault of Mastik. They had an expectation when they uploaded their music that it would be available. The fact that it is not is surely more to do with the ISP providing the service to the person trying to connect. By the way, I had no problem connecting from the UK. Joan - Original Message - From: Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/18/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say (supposing the above are correct) that applying the same rules to net releases would mean they are worldwide releases almost every time. I have seen things released on the net that are NOT available everywhere: for example, I've seen some things on iTunes that were not sold in France (in that particular case, it was an episode of some show, I think, but I'm sure it's possible for songs too). In that case, that would be a US release. Here's another example - NOT iTunes related: When I posted a release from the russian Mastik netlabel at my Netlabel blog, a while back, I got replies that some users can't access this site. Simular replies I got from discogs moderators, when I was going to add a release there with the label URL in the modnote: http://www.mastik.org/?page=releases I never had any problems to connect this site (from Germany). However, the label uploaded the releases to archive.org - http://www.archive.org/details/mastik - also, but in the very first place all download links pointed to their server. If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? yes please. ___ 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 ___ 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 6/18/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excuse me having to ask, but how do we now get this put into the guidelines? OK our Country field is for the distribution area. This is very clear for internet releases or releases are known that they are only available in an defined area - like releases with an Japan only bonus track or so. What should be entered if we only know the label homebase or doesn't know anything at all? Such things should be clearly defined, before we put a guideline. -- .: 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 6/18/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excuse me for being somewhat obtuse, but does this then mean that if an album, track or whatever is put out on the INTERNET, then at that time it becomes to all intents and purposes a worldwide release I'd formulate this as the (official) action of puting an album available for download (free or for pay) on the Internet, with no geographical restrictions, is a worldwide release of that album on that date. If there are _intentional_ geographical restrictions (iTunes-like), then it's a release for the respective geographical regions. Of course, this leads to several issues, like what happens with individual tracks and arbitrary groups of tracks (parts of albums, etc), several separate releases, etc. - Original Message - From: Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:24:11 +0200, Schika wrote: If I'm wrong, can we try to make a clear statement regarding what is the 'release country' field for? yes please. OK, here is a clear statement: From the Days of Tarragon up to now a release area did always mean the _market_ on which that specific release was available for sale on the release date. This marked is assumed to be a coutry in most cases. The country of the label and the production site _may_ be related to this, but that is not the point. The last time we settled this was in the release area vs. release country and do we add the EU? debate. We realised that we have a problem, since distributors define their markets less and less along national boundaries, but have decided to stick to these with a few exceptions. If I got this wrong then may one of the old-timers here speak up. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
On 6/18/06, Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/18/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excuse me having to ask, but how do we now get this put into the guidelines? OK our Country field is for the distribution area. This is very clear for internet releases or releases are known that they are only available in an defined area - like releases with an Japan only bonus track or so. What should be entered if we only know the label homebase or doesn't know anything at all? Such things should be clearly defined, before we put a guideline. What my actually problem is: I have a bunch of vinyls here, all I know is that I got them here in Germany some day. And I or anybody else could find out in which areas of the world it was actually original distributed back in - let me say 1984 just as example. Another thing is that some physical releases have a code to download an extra song from their website - you can't access this file without the one-time working download code. What is the release country - the same as the physical release or worldwide? -- .: 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
I agree, though the point is probably academical right now: the track would be recorded in the database as an non-album track (since it's not on a release), and thus would have no release info... On 6/18/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if the album you purchased in Germany has a code to activate an extra song available for download from their website, then by virtue of the fact that you purchased the album in Germany, and the code was available on that German release, then the release country would, ipso facto, be Germany. You cannot download this track if you have not got the physical release, so, it is not therefore available to anyone. - Original Message - From: Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/18/06, Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/18/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excuse me having to ask, but how do we now get this put into the guidelines? OK our Country field is for the distribution area. This is very clear for internet releases or releases are known that they are only available in an defined area - like releases with an Japan only bonus track or so. What should be entered if we only know the label homebase or doesn't know anything at all? Such things should be clearly defined, before we put a guideline. What my actually problem is: I have a bunch of vinyls here, all I know is that I got them here in Germany some day. And I or anybody else could find out in which areas of the world it was actually original distributed back in - let me say 1984 just as example. Another thing is that some physical releases have a code to download an extra song from their website - you can't access this file without the one-time working download code. What is the release country - the same as the physical release or worldwide? -- .: 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 -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Citerar Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think it is easily assumed that any track on a Single release without any special attributes (live)/(acoustic)/(demo)/(remix)/(edit) is a song which has been previously recorded or is not live/acoustic/a demo/remixed/edited version of the orginal. I think this is obvious because Albums are the primary releases of ~99% of artists and a Single usually highlights a specific song from an existing album. I'd say about 50% of the singles (of album releasing artists) comes out before the album, and the rest 50% after the album has been released. I just think the original release is the most important, so its seems ridiculous to have an identical song released on a single and have it titled with (album version). Just think about a Single that has 3 or 4 songs from an existing album - which is not overly rare. We will have a single with titles: St. Anger (edit), St. Anger (album version), The Unnamed Feeling (album version), Some Kind of Monster (album version), Frantic (album version), St. Anger (live). Wouldn't that seem crazy? I never saw such a single, did you? But anuhoo, if those are the titles that are put on the release, then I can see no reason to not let them in to out database. We're aiming for correctness, no? But if they're not there (and even if they happen to be the same tracks as are also on an album), then noone's suggesting to make up a version-name and put it there. Just go with the way the tracks are named on the particular release. //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Net Releases
Pardon me asking, but what have a bunch of vinyls got to do with net releases. - Original Message - From: Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/18/06, Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/18/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excuse me having to ask, but how do we now get this put into the guidelines? OK our Country field is for the distribution area. This is very clear for internet releases or releases are known that they are only available in an defined area - like releases with an Japan only bonus track or so. What should be entered if we only know the label homebase or doesn't know anything at all? Such things should be clearly defined, before we put a guideline. What my actually problem is: I have a bunch of vinyls here, all I know is that I got them here in Germany some day. And I or anybody else could find out in which areas of the world it was actually original distributed back in - let me say 1984 just as example. Another thing is that some physical releases have a code to download an extra song from their website - you can't access this file without the one-time working download code. What is the release country - the same as the physical release or worldwide? -- .: 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
Yes, it does affect all releases, but this topic is purely about net releases. If you wish to address the question of country of distribution, please start another thread and let us get this particular one settled once and for all. - Original Message - From: Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/19/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pardon me asking, but what have a bunch of vinyls got to do with net releases. Aren't we on a position that in our Country field should be entered the country of distribution? Doesn't has this an effect to ALL releases - not only Net releases? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. - Original Message - From: Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] Net Releases On 6/18/06, Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/18/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excuse me having to ask, but how do we now get this put into the guidelines? OK our Country field is for the distribution area. This is very clear for internet releases or releases are known that they are only available in an defined area - like releases with an Japan only bonus track or so. What should be entered if we only know the label homebase or doesn't know anything at all? Such things should be clearly defined, before we put a guideline. What my actually problem is: I have a bunch of vinyls here, all I know is that I got them here in Germany some day. And I or anybody else could find out in which areas of the world it was actually original distributed back in - let me say 1984 just as example. Another thing is that some physical releases have a code to download an extra song from their website - you can't access this file without the one-time working download code. What is the release country - the same as the physical release or worldwide? -- .: 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 -- .: 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
