Re: [mb-style] RFV: New AR Type: Music Editor

[Lukáš Lalinský]

On Pi, 2007-03-02 at 10:27 -0800, Kerensky97 wrote:
> I still think "editor" is ambiguous enough to cause alot of confusion like I
> mentioned in the RFC, even labels use it in different ways; but I guess it
> could be solved if there's a really good definition of what specifically an
> editor is in this AR.

I take this as a veto, right?



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Fwd: Purevolume URL Relationship Missing

[Lukáš Lalinský]

Sorry for replying to this old thread, but needed a Purevolume AR type
just now...

On Št, 2006-10-12 at 15:22 -0400, Alexander Dupuy wrote:
[...]
> What about the missing indie911 URL relationship?  And the ones for 
> "mp3.com or The Podsafe Music Network or garageband.com" (to quote your 
> message of two months ago)?  We can't create a special Artist->URL AR 
> for every music-related site that's out there.  MySpace was an 
> exception, and I still think, a mistake, but at least it is far beyond 
> any of the others.  Can you come up with a generalized form for this 
> that covers all of these sites.  I tried to come up with something that 
> would generalize from MySpace to cover LiveJournal and other artist 
> sites, but it was too contentious to achieve consensus at that time.  
> Perhaps generalizing in a different, more music-related way, would be 
> successful.

We already have an AR type for MySpace and the main argument for it was
that it's big enough. I think Purevolume is big enough as well *and*
it's specialized to music. So, I'm proposing these changes:

 * Add new AR type "has a community page at".
 * Move the MySpace AR type under this new one.
 * Add new AR type "has a Purevolume page at".

Comments?



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Albums compiled by artists

[Jan van Thiel]

On 3/9/07, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Pi, 2007-03-09 at 09:50 -0800, Kerensky97 wrote:
[...]
> Plus all the added bonus of not further cluttering Relationship lists,
> Avoiding using VA as a dumping ground for anything that isn't completely by
> 1 artist, and still leaving a pretty accurate description that the album was
> organized by the correct artist.

I *very* strongly disagree with this. If compilation X should be moved
to Y can be questionable, but always add the correct AR. Cluttered
relationship lists can be easily fixed.

Remember that MB data are very often processed by software, which can't
know whether "Y compiled X", "Y DJ-mixed X", "Y remixed X" or "Y
performed X" just based on facts that it's called "Late Night Tales" and
Y is the album artist.


Of course ARs have to be added for Compiled-by, DJ-Mixed-by, etc.
relationships. But, when an artist is prominently listed on the cover
(whether it's the compiler, DJ-mixer, ...), the ReleaseArtist should
be set to that artist.

But the ARs are more important.

Jan (zout)

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mailing] [mb-style] RFC: Opera Track Style

[Don Redman]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:29:39 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:


Alternatively you can say: Hey, I'ts a wiki. Just delete stuff as you
like, and link to the old revision of the page for historical purpose  
like

this: 


Yes, but this is for experts who know how a wiki works or for those
who are thorough enough to do so. Keeping visible (and searchable)
pages seems a better option to me. Maybe these pages could be
synthesised a little: I don't think we need to keep track of each
specific answer, what is most useful IMO is:
- what has been tried,
- why it was not kept and
- when.


Right, as you prefer. Just go for it.

BTW What you describe is called TentativeSummary over at The Wiki:


  DonRedman

--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs,
the MusicBrainz documentation system.
Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/
(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] Albums compiled by artists

[Don Redman]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:07:00 +0100,  wrote:


The compiling artist is credited on the cover, I would expect these kind
of albums to appear on the artist page (in the appropriate section, not
along their regular albums)._I_ fail to see why it would be better to
keep them linked to 'various artists' as an artist, [...]


You gave the reason yourself: "not along their regular albums". And that  
is exactly why I an so opposed to this.
I do not care whether the compiling artist is in the artist field or not.  
But I do not want this release to appear *along their regular  
compilations*. However this is exactly what will happen if you put the  
compiling artist is in the artist field.


[...] keep them linked to 'various artists' as an artist, wherethey will  
be harder to find for those looking for them.


Why? They are listed in the AR list for that artist. If you are looking  
for an album compiled by X, where would be a better place to search than  
the "X complied ..." section of the ARs?


OK, I agree that the current display is *very* rudimentary. (No wonder, I  
helped design it ;-) ). Keschte has started to redesign this stuff, and  
the bits I have seen are very nice and usable. However it is not finished  
and he is no longer part of the project. But that would be the way to  
solve your problem.


I mean, we *have* a data structure to represent this: the "compiled by"  
AR, so why not use it. And IMO the *primary* artist of such a compilation  
are the performing artists, and those are various.


  DonRedman

--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs,
the MusicBrainz documentation system.
Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/
(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] Albums compiled by artists

[Lukáš Lalinský]

On Pi, 2007-03-09 at 09:50 -0800, Kerensky97 wrote:
[...]
> Plus all the added bonus of not further cluttering Relationship lists,
> Avoiding using VA as a dumping ground for anything that isn't completely by
> 1 artist, and still leaving a pretty accurate description that the album was
> organized by the correct artist.

I *very* strongly disagree with this. If compilation X should be moved
to Y can be questionable, but always add the correct AR. Cluttered
relationship lists can be easily fixed.

Remember that MB data are very often processed by software, which can't
know whether "Y compiled X", "Y DJ-mixed X", "Y remixed X" or "Y
performed X" just based on facts that it's called "Late Night Tales" and
Y is the album artist.

-Lukáš



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Albums compiled by artists

[Kerensky97]

I think the compiling artist does add a little something in that they created
the album itself, perhaps putting alot of thought into the songs and their
order.  Like a mixtape by a big musician.

The main reason I see atributing it to the compiling artist is it doesn't
really hurt anything with the album being attributed to the person who
organized the album rather than the VA catch-all.  The tracks are still
attributed to the artist who put together the tracks, the album is atributed
to the person who put together the album.

Plus all the added bonus of not further cluttering Relationship lists,
Avoiding using VA as a dumping ground for anything that isn't completely by
1 artist, and still leaving a pretty accurate description that the album was
organized by the correct artist.

But that's just my opinion, half the time I re-tag these to VA on my
computer anyway just out of ignorance.

-Kerensky97


Sami Sundell wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 11:38:50PM +0100, Don Redman wrote:
> 
>> >http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6534607
> 
>> I do not know Ladytron or this special release, but I disagree that
>> these  should be generally set to the compiling artist.  I suppose
>> this greatly depends on the genre of music.
> 
> I agree. I've come across this kind of compilations a couple of times
> before, and so far I fail to see, why they should be attributed to the
> compiling artist. An example of this is "Late Night Tales" series - see,
> for example,
> 
> or
> .
> 
> -- 
>  Sami Sundell
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> ___
> 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/Albums-compiled-by-artists-tf3350548s2885.html#a9399314
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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Classical Part Numbering

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2007/2/25, Robert Kiessling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Following up from my earlier posting, I propose to give a structure
to "Part_number" as used in ClassicalTrackTitleStyle.

The proposal is explained in
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitlePartnumberStyle

To summarise, it consists of:

1. Describing the semantics of Part_number as refering to the
structure of the original work. Thus multiple tracks can have the
same Part_number (superceding MultiTrackMovementStyle).

2. Defining Part_number as comma-separated list of the following:

   III
   No. 3
   Act III
   Scene III
   Part III

Example: Matthäus-Passion, BWV 244: Teil II, No. 56. Rezitativ "Der Landpfleger 
sagte"

Further examples are provided on the wiki page.

I hope this is the first step to progress discussion and
agreement on a number of open CSG items like colon use, part
title for classical songs and opera style.


It took me a long time, but I found the time to examine some
implications of your proposal. I disagree with your analysis that
MultiTrackMovementStyle uses a different principle from your proposal.
IMO, MultiTrackMovementStyle should only be applied when the existing
numbering could lead to ambiguous titles.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria

___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style