Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type

[Per Starbäck]

> In any case, if we define a single "taken from" an album as simply "it's a 
> single that
> has a track on it which was also on album Foo", then it remains true even if 
> the single
> and the album are released 10 years apart.

But preferrably there'd be an AR between those *tracks* then. In that
case, what is the point
of this release-release relation which gives no more information?

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

Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type

[Nikki]

Aurélien Mino wrote:
> +1000
> I'm glad to see that we're finally on the same page ;-)

+1000 more

> I'm wondering if there's really a need for a "supporting release" AR type.
> Sure it can exist and express something true, but is that really 
> something that has been requested by community and that will be used by 
> editors?
> I'm not sure. I'm personally interested and plan to use only of these AR 
> types, that is the "single taken from" AR type.

Same here. I wouldn't have a problem with them not being submitted at 
the same time either.

Nikki

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

Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type

[Aurélien Mino]

- "Per Starbäck"  a écrit :

> > In any case, if we define a single "taken from" an album as simply
> "it's a single that
> > has a track on it which was also on album Foo", then it remains true
> even if the single
> > and the album are released 10 years apart.
> 
> But preferrably there'd be an AR between those *tracks* then. In that
> case, what is the point
> of this release-release relation which gives no more information?

In most cases you won't need an AR between these tracks in NGS, because it 
would be the same recording (or you may have an AR saying that one is a remix 
or an edit of the other one).

But what we want to do with this release-group-release-group AR (that would 
have to be a release-release AR until we move to NGS) is to easily identify 
that a group of singles are related to an album, and vice-versa.
That's what Wikipedia is doing e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind

- Aurélien

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

Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type

[Brian Schweitzer]

That's my sense, re the 'Track From' AR part here, which I've mentioned but
not yet drafted.  That one, to me, seems specific to the
"single from" AR, without the need for some track equivalent of the
"supporting release" AR.  I see it as a track-RG AR.

I don't think this track AR would duplicate a single from release group AR.
Yes, both would normally apply each time, but the use is different.  ARs
sometimes apply "downwards", but they don't ever (iirc) apply "upwards".
Here, the meaning of each is different, as well.  One is talking about the
single, as a whole, being from the album.  The other identifies which
specific track(s) are the ones from that album.

To take it to an extreme where the 2 ARs then don't both apply at the same
time, theoretically, you could imagine a band releasing two albums at the
same time, with overlapping singles from them.  So SingleA could be from
both AlbumA and AlbumB, but TrackN is only going to be from one of those 2
albums.

I don't think this duplicates anything in the Recording entity either
(post-NGS).  That merges together the instances of tracks on different
releases, but it won't help do anything where the version/recording of the
track is not the same on the single and album.  Work would like the tracks,
but at an entirely different level, and with different meanings.

Where it seems problematic, however, is in making the AR work post-NGS
(hence my not drafting it yet).  As a track-track AR, it works, though it
has the problem of needing a new track-track AR for each new instance of a
single.  However, post-NGS, that track AR moves to the recording, which
doesn't mean the same things here - you'd now have the recording, on the
album, with an AR saying it was taken from the album...

Brian



On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Per Starbäck wrote:

> > In any case, if we define a single "taken from" an album as simply "it's
> a single that
> > has a track on it which was also on album Foo", then it remains true even
> if the single
> > and the album are released 10 years apart.
>
> But preferrably there'd be an AR between those *tracks* then. In that
> case, what is the point
> of this release-release relation which gives no more information?
>
> ___
> 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] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type

[jacobbrett]

"Single from" as an RG-RG makes sense, at least in terms of usability.
Ditto with "Supporting release" as an R-R (as the AR's wording may imply a
specific temporal relationship).
Tentatively agreed on keeping them seperate.

Can we define some example usage cases?

--Supporting Release Relationship Type (R-R, one/many to one)--

"The Social Network: Five Track Sampler[1] was released in support of The
Social Network[2]"
[1]http://musicbrainz.org/release/3b1c477a-0268-4d6e-a285-d2f60cad02f8.html
[2]http://musicbrainz.org/release/998e28f9-ed94-4de1-af8e-8dc544c1ab31.html

"Barnum's Audiophonic Merchandisical Tie-In Collectionary[3] was released in
support of Fable II[4]"
[3]http://musicbrainz.org/release/f809252e-30f0-4bd9-9c65-30da141c1e14.html
[4]http://musicbrainz.org/release/d75d2697-01d4-44f6-975e-9b17741ac418.html

Here's a more debatable one; the instrumental is a promo which I think is
passed around to movie studios etc.:

"Elect the Dead (instrumental)[5] was released in support of Elect the
Dead[6]"
[5]http://musicbrainz.org/release/25f1fbab-05e1-4fa9-939e-97ed534c5cb4.html
[6]http://musicbrainz.org/release/07e161e6-4f56-4655-934f-bf7f425fba64.html

N.B. It would seem that often, supporting releases are found in the same
release group as their "master".

--Single From Release Relationship Type (RG-RG, one to one/many)--

"Them Bones[7] is a single which was taken from Dirt[8]"
[7]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/795f20ee-8ac5-3737-ad17-74981fe5a9a5.html
[8]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/92d8f0c4-8c64-3bee-bee1-812a70e77efa.html

"Bad Moon Rising[9] is a single which was taken from Green River[10], Green
River / Cosmo's Factory[11] and Green River / Willy and the Poor Boys[12]"

[9]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/4f9eb8b6-a4cc-335e-9fe1-2b4636b3cd6d.html
[10]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/6c08878c-d6a1-37b6-84c3-9566748545c1.html
[11]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/19eeb41c-98d4-3528-ac65-b8f37b252106.html
[12]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/774703e5-0ae2-3f71-95cc-208dcc3d4e31.html

Should EPs/remixes be included, or should they be supporting releases?

Thoughts?
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFV4-Supporting-Release-Relationship-Type-tp5493859p5650718.html
Sent from the Style discussions 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] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type

[Per Starbäck]

> But what we want to do with this release-group-release-group AR (that would 
> have to be a
> release-release AR until we move to NGS) is to easily identify that a group 
> of singles are related
> to an album, and vice-versa.
> That's what Wikipedia is doing e.g. here: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind

I see, but I was commenting on

>>>  if we define a single "taken from" an album as simply "it's a single 
>>> that
>>>  has a track on it which was also on album Foo",

and it still seems to me that if that is what is meant, then this AR
would be redundant, and just a potential
source for conflicting information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
But maybe I took that quote too literally.

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

Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:01 AM, jacobbrett  wrote:

>
> "Single from" as an RG-RG makes sense, at least in terms of usability.
> Ditto with "Supporting release" as an R-R (as the AR's wording may imply a
> specific temporal relationship).
> Tentatively agreed on keeping them seperate.
>
> Can we define some example usage cases?
>

Perfect :)  I can edit those into the proposals, unless you'd prefer to.



> --Supporting Release Relationship Type (R-R, one/many to one)--
>
>



>
> Should EPs/remixes be included, or should they be supporting releases?
>
>
I don't follow this last question.  I think EPs and remix releases can be
"taken from" an album/soundtrack in the same way as a single.  My concern,
w/r/t the "single from" AR is that "is a single from" should become "is an
EP from" and something like that for remix, rather than that word 'single'.
For the supporting release AR, I don't think there's that same
precision/terminology issue, so I don't think we'll need that attribute on
that AR.  The "single from" AR could, I think, use examples of those
instances though.

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

[mb-style] RFV: 292 VGMdb Relationship Type

[Pavan Chander]

Hello, this is RFV: 292 VGMdb Relationship Type.

It has been 7 days since RFC: 292 was sent[1]

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:VGMdb_Relationship_Type

As many of you know, VGMdb  is a community project
dedicated to cataloguing the music of videogames and anime. They are an
excellent resource and we already have well over 300 releases that have
links to VGMdb in their annotation, so the relationship is in demand.

This RFV will expire in 48 hours.

[1]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2010-October/010112.html

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

Re: [mb-style] RFV-28: Theatre Style

[Brian Schweitzer]

Just a bookkeeping note, nikki, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposals is
still showing this as an active proposal, rather than it having been moved
to the discussions page.

Thanks,
Brian

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Nikki  wrote:

> Since there's been no veto, this has passed.
>
> 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