Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
i would say that bringing an old RFC that IMO never reached consensus, and then 35 mins later going to RFV is moving too quickly. based on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistTypeProject, any band that has changed it's lineup could be changed to a project: Or is a mixture of both: it has one or more creative forces behind it, who stay consistent over several releases, but changing performers. - so a band that changes drummers every so often, but always maintains the same guitar+bass player is a project? not veto-ing though, as i think that people seem to have an idea what constitutes a 'real' project, even if i don't :) On 10/10/06, Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. Thanks! ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] CSG: Multi-track movements
As far as I'm aware, the CSG don't specify any particular format for track titles when a single long movement is split across multiple tracks. Therefore, with davitof's encouragement, I humbly suggest the form I've used in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5686760. There are two parts to this suggestion: 1) A lowercase letter is appended to the (Roman) movement number in each track title to indicate the tracks position amongst the other tracks making up the movement. 2) All track titles except for the last track in the movement have a trailing - as an extra visual indication that the movement continues past the end of the track. Thoughts? -- David Gibson| I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
Kerensky97 wrote: DonRedman wrote: Heh, what about that simple suggestion: We could make a wiki page and collect all these artist there and the decisions that led to the state they are in. This would not be a guideline yet, but maybe a step towards one. I still think we need something more tangible than a wiki page listing the consensus on every artist name change, or even an annotation on the page mentioning the former or new name. Maybe I wasn't clear before, the AR doesn't have to actaully do anything now, it would have the same power as Performs as but would signify a different change where an artist changed name to something else at some point (and as a bounus it provides a convienient link to that artist). And we can still vote on certain merges that we don't think should be done, or certain merges we think should be done. Then maybe someday in the future we can utilize that AR to provide more cool functionality when we have the programmers and testers to deal with it. Personally I'm of the opinion that the prospect of generating a lot of work by separating artists and releases as in the proposal shouldn't stand in the way of creating a more semantically correct database. When changing the behaviour it doesn't mean everything has to be done at once. The changes to the releases can be made gradually whenever a new artist is added or whenever someone is up for the task. I do understand that a lot(?) of people might be reluctant with such a big change all of a sudden. Because of that I think I have to agree with Kerensky97. We could still change the the current 'performs as' AR to at least be able to create a link to other band/artist names. At the moment there are already releases divided over different artist names because, unlike others like e.g. Prince, in those cases it was decided to keep them separated. Especially in case of joined names an artist annotation can be added explaining the situation, optionally with a link to a wiki page with a discussion or more reasoning if needed. Yours, Age ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
On 10/11/06, Age Bosma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kerensky97 wrote: DonRedman wrote: Heh, what about that simple suggestion: We could make a wiki page and collect all these artist there and the decisions that led to the state they are in. This would not be a guideline yet, but maybe a step towards one. I still think we need something more tangible than a wiki page listing the consensus on every artist name change, or even an annotation on the page mentioning the former or new name. Maybe I wasn't clear before, the AR doesn't have to actaully do anything now, it would have the same power as Performs as but would signify a different change where an artist changed name to something else at some point (and as a bounus it provides a convienient link to that artist). And we can still vote on certain merges that we don't think should be done, or certain merges we think should be done. Then maybe someday in the future we can utilize that AR to provide more cool functionality when we have the programmers and testers to deal with it. Personally I'm of the opinion that the prospect of generating a lot of work by separating artists and releases as in the proposal shouldn't stand in the way of creating a more semantically correct database. When changing the behaviour it doesn't mean everything has to be done at once. The changes to the releases can be made gradually whenever a new artist is added or whenever someone is up for the task. I do understand that a lot(?) of people might be reluctant with such a big change all of a sudden. Because of that I think I have to agree with Kerensky97. We could still change the the current 'performs as' AR to at least be able to create a link to other band/artist names. At the moment there are already releases divided over different artist names because, unlike others like e.g. Prince, in those cases it was decided to keep them separated. Especially in case of joined names an artist annotation can be added explaining the situation, optionally with a link to a wiki page with a discussion or more reasoning if needed. That's what I think is best, just user performs as. The link text doesn't necessarily even need changing. And there's nothing technical stopping people already doing this, other than voters (I bet there's some already in the DB done this way, in fact, that got through.) Regards, -- Lauri Watts ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] artist type: project
On Oct 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Chris Bransden wrote: i never felt it was resolved. i feel that group is a plural, person is a singular, but project is pretty vague. i agree with lauri's comments in the original discussion that if we're to include project, we need collaboration, band, person and group, and all their definitions need to be rock solid (which i feel is impossible) to avoid edit wars. What is the difference between a band and a group? I could see adding a collaboration and a project type, but anything else starts getting too complicated. Would anyone venture to write a one paragraph definition for each of these proposed types? -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. VETO for formal reasons Please issue an RFV when the (kind of) RFC discussion has either died out or trailed off into tangents. Not when it is in mid course. And on topic: I strongly disagree with the second option. Where is the boundary to a group? Just because a band dissolved after their first albun they are a project? Note that according to Wikipedia Argyle Park is a band, just a very shortlived one. The problem is that you want to replace a purely objective criterion (singluar/plural) with one that has *meaning*. But that meaning is different to different people. Isuggest to either leave the objective criterion alone, or replace it with a full set of meningful artist types, but not mix the two. either: person, group. Period or: band, project, person, character, collaboration, orchestra, composer, ... DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs, the MusicBrainz documentation system. Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/SomeTerm (you might need to transform the term to singular) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Don Redman wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. VETO for formal reasons Please issue an RFV when the (kind of) RFC discussion has either died out or trailed off into tangents. Not when it is in mid course. Ok, fine. Its clear that this is not a done deal -- I was hoping to write some code, but it looks like wrangling discussions more is in order. Do we have a champion for this idea who can work to get consensus? -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
Given that it was Beth and I who originally put forward this idea, and at the moment Beth is ill and unable to be on mb, then I would be more than willing to be champion for this idea. To reiterate my original reasoning: Roger Glover is and has been for a long time a part of Deep Purple. However, in 1973 he left the group and produced for other artists. One particular project was his alone: http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290 Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio, Jimmy Helms, John Gustafson, etc. This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album, without even the other artists featuring. To be able to mark this as a project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a simple collaboration or even a VA. Deep Purple were not involved in this project and it could not be even remotely included in their discography. Joan - Original Message - From: Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Don Redman wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. VETO for formal reasons Please issue an RFV when the (kind of) RFC discussion has either died out or trailed off into tangents. Not when it is in mid course. Ok, fine. Its clear that this is not a done deal -- I was hoping to write some code, but it looks like wrangling discussions more is in order. Do we have a champion for this idea who can work to get consensus? -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Transl(iteration-ation) AR (Resurrection).
I could start working on updating the wiki page, most of the info is already in there, but I don't usually mess with the wiki so I may have to bug you on a few details. As for the calling the release status Transl(iter)ation that's about as concise as it gets; i was suggesting Alternate just to leave it a little openeded in case we want to use it to classify anything similar in the future. Right now the type of releases I expect would be going in there are: Translations Transliterations Non-Unicode versions (a form of transliteration I suppose) I was thinking alternate would allow us to throw a few other things in there that we don't want to delete, but we do want to shuffle into the wings untill the database can make better use of it. Those are just some thoughts though, we could settle it by flipping a coin and I'd be fine with it. -Dustin (Kerensky97) DonRedman wrote: On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:59:17 +0200, Kerensky97 wrote: BTW, I still like using Alternate as the release status. Then it might be possible to add a setting where people can choose to show alternate discs or not. Plus it's ambiguous enough you can stick a few other virtual releases in there or if we think of something in the future that isn't official or bootleg and just needs to be shuffled to the back till NGS. IIUC this one is really not fleshed out. There are some docs on the AR on ReleaseTransliterationAndTranslation. I suggest to rename that to Transl(iter)ationRelationshipType, to intertwingle it into the AR pages, and to document the finer details when the AR is in use. But I believe there should be a wiki page with *some* hints about the new release status. For that you have to decide on a name. You have proposed Alternate and Virtual. What about Transl(iter)ation? DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs, the MusicBrainz documentation system. Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/SomeTerm (you might need to transform the term to singular) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RFV%3A--Transl%28iteration-ation%29-AR-%28Resurrection%29.-tf2390960s2885.html#a6767237 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
