Re: [mb-style] [Clean up CSG] Release Title
On Feb 13, 2008 1:53 AM, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Trying to clean out the last of the issues... > > Classical Release Titles: > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle > > Presents a structure of: > > MainTitle [SubTitle(s)] [VolumeNumber [VolumeTitle]] [ [?BoxNumber > [?BoxTitle]] DiscNumber [DiscTitle]] [FeaturingArtist] > > > > Unresolved Problems: > > * Let's ignore the (artists) part here - that's what cooperaa's > proposal is trying to address, I think. Let's just deal with all the > rest of it. > > 1) Example like > http://musicbrainz.org/release/3261a468-953d-4dba-817e-a18e1d1e98b4.html > where the work mentioned (Symphony 9) is actually only a single > movement from the symphony. > > - My sense, there's no link, but if the title on the box was "The Best > of Beethoven", that should be the title, and not us cramming the rest > in - and thus, no need to worry about this. :) > > 2) Example like > http://musicbrainz.org/release/37c3923f-2e6a-4ae8-898e-8201e96fe24e.html > where cooperaa asked on the wiki on 1/31: "Should releases that simply > say "The 5 Piano Concertos" or "The 9 Symphonies" etc be changed to > "Piano Concertos Nos. 5" or "Symphonies Nos. 1-9"?" > > - For myself, see my answer to #1 - the work clearly shows a title of > "The 5 Piano Concertos" on the box; whereas the work titles are vague > and CSG should provide the role of giving them a common framework, my > sense is that to then move to the titles like these and rename them > would be to disregard whatever amount of ArtistIntent went into those > titles. I'd reserve applying any CSG structuring of the title for > those that fail to provide a title. (eg: "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" > and no title on the liner) - just glancing at that same stack of 22 or > so classical CDs next to my desk, that single example would be the > only one thus in need of any special "titling". > > -(2) The cat-corner case would be the other CD here titled "Mozart's > Requiem", as to whether that is considered a generic title in need of > structure, or a proper title that ought to not be "restructured". > > 4) http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6379094 - this is > essentially the same type of point as the Requem example above: is > "Symphony No. 9" a title or does it need "restructuring"? > > 5) How to list multiple works in titles? See CSGD #25 ( > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion?highlight=%28classical%29#head-72d53d00469f041ea3a037012f514f11483a60de > ). > > - I've seen most editors using "Klavierkonzerte Nos. 2-3", or > "Klavierkonzerte No. 2-3, 5, 9"; to me this seems cleaner than any of > the three alternatives suggested there. > > 6) Box sets - this is a different enough topic, I'm going to separate > it to its own email. > > > > As I guess is clear, I agree with the unsigned comment in #4 of CSGD ( > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion?highlight=%28classical%29#head-4cd5244f55d642e67169686fee82aae0f638c4e8 > ) - imho, normalization of the release title should be a last resort > where there truly is no release title. CSG ought to provide framework > where no common framework exists. While this is true of works, it > isn't true for the vast majority of release titles. Taking a "hands > off" approach, albeit with minor guidance (see item #5 above) also has > the benefit of being essentially cat-corner-free. :) > I have not been following the ML recently (right at the time you decided to trigger the CSG style discussions avalanche!), but I fail to see how you handle the numerous releases which differ only by their title. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Clarify CoverRelationshipType not for Classical, takes 1st release
Olivier: Thanks for your reply. I like your suggestion for making the wording about "Don't use the Cover AR with Classical" more concise. I'll do that. I'll make another draft of my proposal which is all written out, instead of making reference to the existing page. I can see that that is easier to review. You made a lot of good points about most contributors probably not wanting to read lots of text about "style evolutions" and "more than a couple paragraphs about such a thing as the Cover ar". I agree that concise is better. Please understand that I'm not proposing to _add_ this rambling history stuff to the CoverRelationshipType article. It's already there — read it! I'm proposing to do a minimal change to make it read like history instead of a currently-open debate. I think taking it out would be even better, but I don't really want to take that project on. I'm trying to focus on the CSG revision. Side comment: Folks, part of why there's a lot of traffic on mb-style about revising lots of pages is that lots of pages need lots of cleanup before they become current and concise. I can think of better ways to accomplish that goal than a blizzard on mb-style, but those aren't the mechanisms in place in MB. Thanks, everyone, for your comments. --Jim Olivier-10 wrote: > > 2008/2/12, Jim DeLaHunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> What we have now is nearly the opposite: a novice contributor needs to >> read >> the main style guide, the CSG, a bunch of proposal and discussion pages, >> and >> bathe in the mb-style discussion and edit discussions for a few weeks, >> then >> cross-index it all in their head, before having enough information to >> make >> good contributions. > > This is probably kind of a biased opinion about things, but if it's > your experience ;) > My point being: not everyone wants to dabble into Classical, involve > with as much enthusiasm and energy as you into MB, or even want to > read about style evolutions... > > >> >> "Efficiency" is relative to an objective. My objective is to empower MB >> contributors, and I don't mind spending my own time writing down >> information >> in multiple places to do it. Reducing the traffic on mb-style is a >> different objective. Given the neglect of CSG for a long time, and in the >> absence of a process for empowering a some editors to do a wholesale >> rewrite, achieving docs which empower contributors will involve an >> increase >> of mb-style traffic for a while. >> > > Your involvment in making doc is definitely an excellent thing and > no-one wants to discourage that. > > Now, good documentation is also concise documentation. Quite frankly, > I don't think most people (eg: by "most" I mean the usually silent > major part of editors who wants to slack their stuff in - this > excludes obviously the hardcore longtimers, and the dozen people > actively involved in discussions) want to read more than a couple > paragraphs about such a thing as the Cover ar. > > If there is also a need for further details, I would really like to > see these presented in a different section, possibly either a > different page, or a distinct paragraph on bottom of the page or > something like that. > > Finding the right balance between informative enough content and still > manageable in quantity for the casual editor is IMHO quite important. > > Also note that redundancy has a heavy cost in maintenance terms. > > So, specifically, as you asked for a review with suggestions: > > > >> [1. Change the Description section to read as follows.] > >> Description > >> This AdvancedRelationshipType links a cover version of a Track to the >> original Track, or a cover version of a Release to the original Release. > > I kind of prefered the old way round formulation, but I don't really care. > >> MusicBrainz doesn't have a crisp definition of "cover version", but this >> phrase from [WikiPedia]Wikipedia sums it up: "In pop music a cover >> version is a new rendition of a previously recorded song". > > Ok. > >> (A discussion is open at WhatIsACover to define "a cover" in the context >> of MusicBrainz, but we proceed despite the fuzzy definition.) > > It's just irrelevant for the casual editor. > Strip that off and put in fine prints at the bottom of the page something > like: > "If you're interested in discussing the Cover concept in MusicBrainz, > you can participate in WhatIsACover" > > >> The MusicBrainz StyleGuideline is to always use the earliest released >> Track or Release as the target of this relationship. This applies even if >> the earliest-released one was obscure, and a later one is more famous. >> This lets us sidestep subjective debates about which release is most >> important or influential. It also lets us capture the relationship >> between performances with a smaller number of AdvancedRelationship links. > > This should preferably live in a "style" section (see > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/RelationshipTypeTemplate) > Otherw
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Clarify CoverRelationshipType not for Classical, takes 1st release
2008/2/13, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Since we're discussing this: Is there some criteria for what to do > with simultaneous releases? Not that I know of. > I've seen in some (admittedly rare) cases > two or three versions of an album, and maybe a single too, released on > the same date. Which do we pick? Well, I would say just pick one and stick with it, possibly with some consideration about the country of release (favor the artist country (?) if the n releases were released in different countries), and possibly favoring the releases over the singles. Am not too sure we can come up with something more clear than that, and/or that this actually requires a clarification (though... after all...). - Olivier ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [Clean up CSG] Box sets, aka, what defines a unique release?
On Feb 13, 2008 1:54 AM, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1 Label A releases a classical CD. > 2 Label B licenses that classical CD and includes it as disc 6 of a box set. > 3 Label A releases a box set, also including that CD. > 4 Label C licenses that CD and includes it as disc 9 of a box set. > 5 Label B releases that CD again, this time as disc 97 of a huge box > set which includes the earlier box set. > 6 Label D licenses that CD and reissues it again as a new single CD. > 7 Label A re-issues that CD. > 8 Label C licenses that CD and includes it as disc 73 of a huge box set. > etc. I know it's annoying, but until we'll get the NGS, I think it wouldn't necessarily be a very bad thing to have all the box sets in the database. So, in cases where there is _really_ the same material (no remastering, etc), I'd have: - Every release of a disc that has a different title separately. This means 1, 6 and 7, unless titled differently, would get a single entry, with three release dates (and labels, cat#s, etc). The rest will get a separate release, titled according to BoxSetStyle (unless a disc would have the same name according to two box sets, where it gets one entry with two release dates). The tracks will be named identically for all releases. - _All_ ARs except "is a later release of" would be made only to the first release of a certain CD. (Even those found out on later releases, since the audio is the same). - _All_ releases of a CD get the "later release of" AR pointing to that first release. - Beg Lukáš to add to Picard a feature that gets ARs off of "earliest release of" an album and applies them to the one tagged. (It needs only check that the number of tracks and the track names and maybe lengths or even PUIDs are identical.) - Beg Brian to write a user script that clones a CD. This includes track names and lengths, but not ARs and release dates. It can also create the "earliest release" AR. The release title is set according to the one on its respective release. The reasoning behind all this is that someone who has any of the releases can just pick the one they want. Though Brian's proposal is more efficient, my problem is (and I've met with it often) that it can be very hard to find the real release you're looking for. So in his example, if I had release 3, it can be hard to notice that it's actually the same as one of the 100 discs in release 8. There's also the added annoyance that if I have a five-disc box set, I'll be told by the tagger and the CD player that they're discs 4, 31, 32, 33 and 71 of some box I've never heard of. There's another option: Add an optional text attribute to the release date, called something like "released as". So for re-releases (in box sets or not), we can just have changed titles. Picard already allows the user to pick the release info from an album's right-click menu. This would be very very useful for all re-releases, not just classical. (The many albums with 'bonus'/'limited releases' come to mind.) Devs, how hard would that be? > and we'd just be accumulating more and more "alternate possible box > set titles" for each of the specific label box set listings, rather > than having 20 or 30 different possible listings for what is otherwise > the exact same CD. I had the impression we'd only get around a dozen entries, are there really cases with 20 or 30 different releases? (As opposed two multiple releases of the same box set, which I presume would just get multiple release dates.) Also, are really all 80 discs of the big box set released in a dozen versions, or just the most popular? -- 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] RFC: Clarify CoverRelationshipType not for Classical, takes 1st release
On Feb 12, 2008 9:52 PM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/2/12, Jim DeLaHunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The MusicBrainz StyleGuideline is to always use the earliest released Track > > or Release as the target of this relationship. This applies even if the > > earliest-released one was obscure, and a later one is more famous. This > > lets us sidestep subjective debates about which release is most important > > or influential. It also lets us capture the relationship between > > performances with a smaller number of AdvancedRelationship links. > This should preferably live in a "style" section (see > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/RelationshipTypeTemplate) > Otherwise I kind of think this is a bit long for what it says... > > Maybe: > "You should always use the earliest released Track or Release as the > target of this relationship, as to avoid subjective debates about > which release is most important or influential." Since we're discussing this: Is there some criteria for what to do with simultaneous releases? I've seen in some (admittedly rare) cases two or three versions of an album, and maybe a single too, released on the same date. Which do we pick? I seem to remember a question about this earlier, but not the decision. -- 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] [Clean up CSG] Box sets, aka, what defines a unique release?
On 13/02/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > why treat classical box sets any different to normal box sets? > > > > if released separately: don't add the box set > > if only released in boxset: add the box set > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BoxSetNameStyle > > > > if part released only in the box set, and part not, add the whole box > > set for context > > (my interpretation of what we seem to do in these cases) > > I'm not disagreeing with you - if it's released separately, add just > the standalone release. If it's added in a box, add the box. > > The problem I'm describing is the cases like the Brilliant Classics > Master Composers series, or the Philips and Brilliant Classics > Complete Edition box sets. > > Each of these is released, not only (and perhaps not initially) as a > mega 80 to 180 CD set. To take the Philips Complete Mozart Edition > example, it has had each CD released first by other labels such as BIS > and Naxos (1992 and before), then re-released as standalone CDs by > Philips (1992 and before), then released as 45 volumes box sets > (1992), then 17 larger box sets (2000), 2 "half-the-series" sets > (1992), then finally one last huge set of all the CDs (2006). > > This isn't just theoretical - right now, we have several editors > working on adding these mega-sets. I just added the entire huge > Brilliant Classics Mozart set a few months ago, and a few editors and > I have been working on adding the entire Philips one. Some discs are > already present, but in their single disc or smaller volume versions. > So the question is, should we have editors who wanted to add the > discs, does it really make sense that we would have: > > BIS standalone > Philips standalone > Philips, one volume out of the 45 volumes > Philips, one volume out of the 17 boxes > Philips, one volume out of the 2 half-the-series boxes > Philips, one volume out of the complete series box > > plus any other standalone releases by other labels who also have > licensed that same CD from BIS? > > I'm suggesting that, in these cases, all the standalones list as one > listing, and for the boxes, so long as it still is the same label, all > combine into the largest set - so in this case, the 45, the 17, and > the half-the-series would all be listed once, as part of the complete > series box. If another label - Brilliant Classics, for example - then > licenses that CD for a different BC box, that too gets a separate > listing, within the same "largest BC box" concept. > > Thus we end up with 2 or 3 listings, not one for each time a label > adds more CDs and resells the same CD. > > This isn't what we normally see outside of classical though. First, > labels outside of classical don't tend to license off to other labels > entire CDs for inclusion in a box. Second, While you might get that > 25 CD single Oasis box set, you typically don't get a 5, then a 10, > then a 25, then a 50, then a 70, etc box set, reissuing the same > smaller boxes over and over again into larger boxes. Thus, whereas > the BoxSet guideline of "we allow multiple listings for CDs in boxes > and outside of boxes" normally makes sense, the business practices of > the classical labels, reissuing the same CDs over and over in > progressively larger boxes, stretches this principle, such that we end > up with largely redundant listings, different only in the name of the > box and the CD # within that box. but all of these things *could* happen outside of classical, and sod's law says they have :) i don't think this is a classical-only issue and any guideline amendment should be made to BoxSetNameStyle, even if 99% of the time it might apply to classical releases. back to the proposal: i would say that we should allow all box sets to be added even if they are a subset of a larger box, UNLESS that box is just a box containing other, existing, boxes (bear with me) - in which case that's basically the same logic we apply to boxes that contain separately available items. eg - if the 180 set is a meta-package of 10x 10 disc volumes (with the same order), which are also available separately, then add them separately. if all the discs are available separately, then add no box sets. - if you've got Geck's Mozart Chillout Box which contains discs 1, 43, 83-89 and 109 of the 180 disc set, then that needs to be added separately to retain the box set name and disc order. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [Clean up CSG] Box sets, aka, what defines a unique release?
> why treat classical box sets any different to normal box sets? > > if released separately: don't add the box set > if only released in boxset: add the box set > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BoxSetNameStyle > > if part released only in the box set, and part not, add the whole box > set for context > (my interpretation of what we seem to do in these cases) I'm not disagreeing with you - if it's released separately, add just the standalone release. If it's added in a box, add the box. The problem I'm describing is the cases like the Brilliant Classics Master Composers series, or the Philips and Brilliant Classics Complete Edition box sets. Each of these is released, not only (and perhaps not initially) as a mega 80 to 180 CD set. To take the Philips Complete Mozart Edition example, it has had each CD released first by other labels such as BIS and Naxos (1992 and before), then re-released as standalone CDs by Philips (1992 and before), then released as 45 volumes box sets (1992), then 17 larger box sets (2000), 2 "half-the-series" sets (1992), then finally one last huge set of all the CDs (2006). This isn't just theoretical - right now, we have several editors working on adding these mega-sets. I just added the entire huge Brilliant Classics Mozart set a few months ago, and a few editors and I have been working on adding the entire Philips one. Some discs are already present, but in their single disc or smaller volume versions. So the question is, should we have editors who wanted to add the discs, does it really make sense that we would have: BIS standalone Philips standalone Philips, one volume out of the 45 volumes Philips, one volume out of the 17 boxes Philips, one volume out of the 2 half-the-series boxes Philips, one volume out of the complete series box plus any other standalone releases by other labels who also have licensed that same CD from BIS? I'm suggesting that, in these cases, all the standalones list as one listing, and for the boxes, so long as it still is the same label, all combine into the largest set - so in this case, the 45, the 17, and the half-the-series would all be listed once, as part of the complete series box. If another label - Brilliant Classics, for example - then licenses that CD for a different BC box, that too gets a separate listing, within the same "largest BC box" concept. Thus we end up with 2 or 3 listings, not one for each time a label adds more CDs and resells the same CD. This isn't what we normally see outside of classical though. First, labels outside of classical don't tend to license off to other labels entire CDs for inclusion in a box. Second, While you might get that 25 CD single Oasis box set, you typically don't get a 5, then a 10, then a 25, then a 50, then a 70, etc box set, reissuing the same smaller boxes over and over again into larger boxes. Thus, whereas the BoxSet guideline of "we allow multiple listings for CDs in boxes and outside of boxes" normally makes sense, the business practices of the classical labels, reissuing the same CDs over and over in progressively larger boxes, stretches this principle, such that we end up with largely redundant listings, different only in the name of the box and the CD # within that box. Brian ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Setting Classical Release Artists to Performers
On 13-Feb-08, at 4:45 AM, Chris B wrote: On 12/02/2008, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12-Feb-08, at 11:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: Nothing to do? If he hadn't composed it in the first place, the release would be full of silence. The inheritors of recent composers (Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Barber...) probably still get something each time a CD of their ancestor is sold. The fact that Bach or Mozart died so long ago that they can't control what is done with their music has only legal and commercial consequences, not artistic. So if we want to use this kind of considerations, please use a contemporary composer. When a CD from a living composer is released, does the composer have something to do with it? If a contemporary composer wrote the music for inclusion on an album of theirs, then it makes sense for them to be the release artist. But old composers and probably many contemporary composers did not write music for 80-minute CDs. It's different when a performer takes the compositions and puts them together on an album. They are "releasing" material that may be by one or many composers. so what about for old recordings that are released with no involvement of either the performer or the composer? or bootlegs? what if it was the conductor who orchestrated (pun intended) the release? The steps are to determine who is the most likely to have been the one releasing the album. We choose the common performer and set them as the Release Artist. -Aaron ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [Clean up CSG] Box sets, aka, what defines a unique release?
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Box Sets, aka: what defines a unique classical release? This one is a pain, but not just in classical. I don't agree, I find BoxSetNameStyle sensible and good. (This is not to say that there aren't problematic cases. Here is an AddReleaseEdit for the second disc of a two-disc compilation that to my knowledge has not been released separately, yet it is part of (at least) two box sets: http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=album&orderby=desc&object_id=667055 I have forgotten to add proper annotations for the two discs on this and will do it later.) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [Clean up CSG] Box sets, aka, what defines a unique release?
On 13/02/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Box Sets, aka: what defines a unique classical release? > > This one is a pain, but not just in classical. In classical, though, > we tend to run into it a LOT more - Led Zep may put out one or two box > sets, whereas the same classical CD may be re-re-re-re-released in > many many box sets. > > 1 Label A releases a classical CD. > 2 Label B licenses that classical CD and includes it as disc 6 of a box set. > 3 Label A releases a box set, also including that CD. > 4 Label C licenses that CD and includes it as disc 9 of a box set. > 5 Label B releases that CD again, this time as disc 97 of a huge box > set which includes the earlier box set. > 6 Label D licenses that CD and reissues it again as a new single CD. > 7 Label A re-issues that CD. > 8 Label C licenses that CD and includes it as disc 73 of a huge box set. > etc. > > To put this in perspective, think of label A as BIS, label B as > Philips, label C as Brilliant Classics, and label D as Naxos. > > I've thought a lot about this one... My suggestion: > > I'd suggest that, for the single CD, whether it's the original label A > release, the label A re-release, or the label D release, we consider > those all the same. This is essentially how we handle similar issues > elsewhere in the database already. > > I'd suggest, for the box sets, we keep it to the largest box set per label. > So, Philips releases a 9 CD "The Complete Symphonies" box. > Philips then releases a 20 CD "The Complete Orchestral Works" box > which includes all of the 9 CD box. > Philips then releases a 180 CD "Complete Works" box which includes the > 20 CD box. > We use the 180 CD box set as the only Philips box set listing for that > CD, listing the alternate box set titles in the annotation. > > This way, we'd have the same CD only a manageable number of times: > * the single CD release (#'s 1, 6, and 7) > * the box set from label A (# 3) > * the box set from label B (#'s 2 and 5) > * the box set from label C (#'s 4 and 8) > > In this way, even if the list grew to 20 or 30 possible listings, > they'd all fall into one of 5 possibles: > * single CD release > * box set from A > * box set from B > * box set from C > * box set from D > and we'd just be accumulating more and more "alternate possible box > set titles" for each of the specific label box set listings, rather > than having 20 or 30 different possible listings for what is otherwise > the exact same CD. why treat classical box sets any different to normal box sets? if released separately: don't add the box set if only released in boxset: add the box set http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BoxSetNameStyle if part released only in the box set, and part not, add the whole box set for context (my interpretation of what we seem to do in these cases) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Setting Classical Release Artists to Performers
On 12/02/2008, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12-Feb-08, at 11:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > I was foll of work these last weeks, do I am late commenting here, > > sorry. > > Welcome to the discussion! :) > > > On Feb 4, 2008 4:53 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think this this is an independent issue. I'm relatively new here, > > > but my > > > understanding is that the (Orchestra feat. conductor: X, piano: Y) > > > notation > > > arose out of time when there was no AR capability in the database, > > the > > > taggers were less good at moving data from the database into tags, > > > and many > > > players couldn't read tags and used only what were in the > > > ReleaseArtist, > > > ReleaseTitle, and TrackTitle fields. All three limitations have > > > eased. I > > > don't see that changing ReleaseArtist is a precondition for removing > > > this > > > notation. > > > > There is still desire to have the performer information in the release > > title so people can search releases for performers. > > > > I agree. I think the browsing the database would be made much harder > > without at least some performer info. > > I'm not proposing we drop performer info from release titles with this > proposal, but I did mention it as something we could pursue if this > proposal was put into effect. Sorry for not making that clear. > > > > Aaron Cooper-3 wrote: > > >> > > >>> 4. Our composer pages will be less crowded > > >> > > > > > > Yes, but our Soloist and Conductor pages will become more crowded, > > > won't > > > they? And in an ideal world, the MB.org and a database full of ARs > > > will > > > have lengthy results for many artists, regardless of the value of > > the > > > ReleaseArtist field. If pages being "crowded" is a problem, perhaps > > > a better > > > solution is to redesign the search results page to deal with lots of > > > results. We could add more useful list orderings, subheadings, > > > refinement of > > > search results, summaries of results, etc. > > > > > > Composer pages will shrink (yay) and performer pages will grow, yes. > > But that's the point. Performers put out CDs like regular pop > > artists, they just don't write the material (in most cases). > > > > I think I've said it before, but it will be a lot more manageable to > > maintain discographies of 15 of your favourite performers than > > maintain the discography of every Bach CD ever recorded ever in > > history - ever. > > > > This is because you are reasoning in Composer VERSUS Performer. You > > still are a slave to the old mp3 ARTIST field. All are important, > > the composer and the performer and the recording engineer and the > > place it was recorded, and even the date it was recorded (BTW, this > > IMO would be almost more important than the performer, there is so > > much difference between a 1930 performance and a 1980 > > performance...) Is there something preventing you from recovering > > the discographies from the ARs? > > This proposal is about the Release Artist field (which is different to > the Track Artist field). To my knowledge, use of the Release Artist > field is fairly new (at least in iTunes). Separating Release- and > Track-artists in MusicBrainz isn't even that old. Performance ARs, > like composition ARs, are very important and we should definitely be > adding them but I don't think these are substitutes for Release and > Track Artists. We can say James Hetfield performed guitar on Master > of Puppets in the form of an AR all we want but this doesn't tell us > that the song was on a Metallica album. Likewise, we can say > Beethoven composed a sonata and Gould performed it, but this doesn't > tell us whether the track appears on an album with 15 other > performances by Gould or 15 other performances by the London > Philharmonic. > > [snip] > > > > 3. The database has a ReleaseArtist field that needs some value. > > > Between > > > composer, conductor, orchestra, soloists, chorus directors, > > > arrangers, and > > > all the other artists who contribute to what appears in the audio > > > signal in > > > a track, for Classical Music and across the range of users and use > > > cases, I > > > think the most important single role is composer. If you have to > > > pick one, > > > I'd pick the composer. > > > > I wouldn't, that's why I'm proposing this. Bach had absolutely > > *nothing* to do with releasing his music in 2006. There were a group > > of performers who wanted to play them, so they released recordings. > > We've come up with an objective/systematic way to determine who the > > most important performer is. I think it's logical to assume that > > whoever performs on all tracks was probably the primary performer with > > other featured performers filling in the gaps (you can't play a piano > > concerto on your new CD without an orchestra). > > > > Nothing to do? If he hadn't composed it in the first place, the > > release would be full of silence. The inh
