date:20110718

2011/7/18, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
 I am looking at
 http://musicbrainz.org/work/51ef99ac-488d-4c35-bef3-fc25bf73ca39
 (Divertissement, Op. 38 by Fernando Sor). We have a recording of the
 full work in one go, and a recording of each of its two movements.
 Should the full recording be linked to both movements, or to the full
 work as it is now?

To the full Work IMO. I understand linking to both movements would
mean the same, but linking to each movement would seem unnecessarily
complicated to me, and I don't see any benefit in doing so. Imagine a
full opera in one take...

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-331: Add CD Baby Relationship Type

2011-07-18 Thread Nikki

Aurélien Mino wrote:
 Why do you need the can be purchased for mail order at [CDBaby URL] 
 relationship?
 The has cover at  is enough.

It depends what your aim is. If you want to say that you can purchase 
the release for both mail order and download, and there's also cover 
art, then it's logical to want to add multiple relationships. If you 
just want to add a link to CD Baby then it's logical to add only one and 
not care about the exact relationship type.

IMO the cover art relationship was/is the wrong relationship to use 
anyway. It's not a link to an image.

 What the point of linking to an artist page on a shop?

Why were download/mail-order relationships ever added at artist level if 
we don't want to allow them there?

Nikki

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On 18 July 2011 07:09, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote:
 Am 12.07.2011, 16:45 Uhr, schrieb Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org:

 This deals with the legacy data issue (ws/1 still provides data in
 pre-NGS format) by retaining the existing guideline for track
 listings, while making use of artist credits at recording level.  When
 ws/1 is finally removed, we can allow track listings to be entered as
 on the release, as some have suggested.
 Comments?

 there is a track and a recording lvl because some people crave
 normalisation others want as on cover.
 so thats how it should be, imho, and for compatibility reasons without
 artist credits on track lvl.


How do you mean?  Why would you disallow artist credits on track level?

 i do think a switch to link the featured artist(s) to the title or the
 primary artist would be great.


They already are part of the title.  The proposal is to allow them to be moved
to the artist for recordings.

 also the expamples are confusing to me.
 i'd just give examples on tracklvl and then on recording lvl. it was not
 clear to me that the indented entrys are for recording lvl, i related them
 to the Track-Level


That's exactly how it is now.  The first line is the track level, then
the recording level is the indented list.  I can't see a much better
way of presenting it.

 --
 lorenz pressler
 PGP 0x92E9551A

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




-- 
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to address
separately:

1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) *ideally* translate into
NGS structures?

For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple artist
feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?

2. How should the featured artists *ideally* be treated on the (normalized)
recording level?

Assuming there is consensus that feat.-information should not be part of
the title field at recording level:
A) [Artist Credit] Foo  Bar (as by default)
B) [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (assuming feat. has a specific different
meaning, not to be normalized to )

3. Do we want/need a delay on application of (part of) these *ideal* rules,
once agreed upon, because of the ws/1 issue?

4. Do any or all of the above rules apply only to the exact wording feat.
(or featuring, features) or would it also affect (how?) other link terms (in
other languages) like with, en duo avec, con

The guideline should IMO reflect the ideal regulations, with a warning box
for not yet to be used features because of ws/1 compatibility issues, which
could be removed (without further debate) when it's no longer used.

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On 18 July 2011 10:19, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
 There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to address
 separately:

 1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) ideally translate into
 NGS structures?
 For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
 A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
 B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple artist
 feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?

Either or neither may be as on the cover, because we don't know what's
on the cover.

 2. How should the featured artists ideally be treated on the (normalized)
 recording level?
 Assuming there is consensus that feat.-information should not be part of
 the title field at recording level:
 A) [Artist Credit] Foo  Bar (as by default)
 B) [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (assuming feat. has a specific different
 meaning, not to be normalized to )

The second is correct.  The first is a collaboration, not a featured artist.

 3. Do we want/need a delay on application of (part of) these ideal rules,
 once agreed upon, because of the ws/1 issue?

It seems I'm alone in wanting track list changes delayed, even though there
is still very little NGS support.

 4. Do any or all of the above rules apply only to the exact wording feat.
 (or featuring, features) or would it also affect (how?) other link terms (in
 other languages) like with, en duo avec, con

We should normalise to feat. where appropriate at recording level.

 The guideline should IMO reflect the ideal regulations, with a warning box
 for not yet to be used features because of ws/1 compatibility issues, which
 could be removed (without further debate) when it's no longer used.

That sounds sensible, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't be too confusing.
I also have no idea what's wanted as track level; just 'follow the cover'?

 Chris/chabreyflint


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




-- 
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-330: Add Allmusic Relationship Type

2011-07-18 Thread Nikki

I don't really see the point in shortening the URLs to just p4147. We 
don't do it for most sites and I'd rather see the full URL on the 
relationships tab and Allmusic in the sidebar.

I don't think the first guideline is necessary either, we can just add 
the URL formats to the list on 
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Relationships/URLs#Standardised_URLs
Adding some Javascript to clean them up would be trivial (and any that 
get through anyway will get cleaned up eventually by someone like me).

One other thing, www.allmusic.com or just allmusic.com? Both work 
without redirecting...

Nikki

Johannes Weißl wrote:
 Hi there!
 
 I propose to add an Allmusic Relationship Type. Since the general
 opinion seems to be that the reasons not to link to allmusic.com are not
 valid anymore (see previous discussion), we need a proper relationship
 to actually be able to link to it.
 
 The proposed mappings are:
 MB artist -  AMG artist page (artist/p...)
 MB release group  -  AMG album page (main entry) (album/r...)
 MB work   -  AMG song/work page (work/c... and song/t...)
 MB recording  -  AMG performance (performance/f...)
 
 
 Previous discussion: 
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2011-July/012503.html
 Wiki page: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Allmusic_Relationship_Type
 Expiration date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:00 UTC
 
 
 Johannes
 
 ___
 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] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:15:03 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria  
davito...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/7/18, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
 I am looking at
 http://musicbrainz.org/work/51ef99ac-488d-4c35-bef3-fc25bf73ca39
 (Divertissement, Op. 38 by Fernando Sor). We have a recording of the
 full work in one go, and a recording of each of its two movements.
 Should the full recording be linked to both movements, or to the full
 work as it is now?

 To the full Work IMO. I understand linking to both movements would
 mean the same, but linking to each movement would seem unnecessarily
 complicated to me, and I don't see any benefit in doing so. Imagine a
 full opera in one take...


In this case I think it doesn't matter.
Otherwise I agree with Calvin (  
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2011-June/012280.html  
) that the most accurate way is to link to all performed movements.

A try to interpret the results of that discussion:

Recording linked to the relevant works (parts): accurate
Recording linked to the super-work: fuzzy - a performance of the whole  
super-work, but unsure about exactly which parts are performed
Recording linked to the super-work with partial performance AR: not  
identified - a performance of one or more parts (or part of a subpart)

/symphonick



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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.orgwrote:

 On 18 July 2011 10:19, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
  There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to
 address
  separately:
 
  1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) ideally translate into
  NGS structures?
  For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
  A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
  B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple
 artist
  feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?

 Either or neither may be as on the cover, because we don't know what's
 on the cover.

  2. How should the featured artists ideally be treated on the (normalized)
  recording level?
  Assuming there is consensus that feat.-information should not be part
 of
  the title field at recording level:
  A) [Artist Credit] Foo  Bar (as by default)
  B) [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (assuming feat. has a specific
 different
  meaning, not to be normalized to )

 The second is correct.  The first is a collaboration, not a featured
 artist.

  3. Do we want/need a delay on application of (part of) these ideal rules,
  once agreed upon, because of the ws/1 issue?

 It seems I'm alone in wanting track list changes delayed, even though there
 is still very little NGS support.

  4. Do any or all of the above rules apply only to the exact wording
 feat.
  (or featuring, features) or would it also affect (how?) other link terms
 (in
  other languages) like with, en duo avec, con

 We should normalise to feat. where appropriate at recording level.

  The guideline should IMO reflect the ideal regulations, with a warning
 box
  for not yet to be used features because of ws/1 compatibility issues,
 which
  could be removed (without further debate) when it's no longer used.

 That sounds sensible, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't be too confusing.
 I also have no idea what's wanted as track level; just 'follow the cover'?


Well, this is exactly my first point:
If the cover spells a track as Quux (feat. Bar) should follow the cover
be:
A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple artist
feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?


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



 --
 Andii :-)

 ___
 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-327: Featured Artists

On 18 July 2011 10:33, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
 wrote:

 On 18 July 2011 10:19, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
  There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to
  address
  separately:
 
  1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) ideally translate
  into
  NGS structures?
  For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
  A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
  B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple
  artist
  feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?

 Either or neither may be as on the cover, because we don't know what's
 on the cover.

  2. How should the featured artists ideally be treated on the
  (normalized)
  recording level?
  Assuming there is consensus that feat.-information should not be part
  of
  the title field at recording level:
  A) [Artist Credit] Foo  Bar (as by default)
  B) [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (assuming feat. has a specific
  different
  meaning, not to be normalized to )

 The second is correct.  The first is a collaboration, not a featured
 artist.

  3. Do we want/need a delay on application of (part of) these ideal
  rules,
  once agreed upon, because of the ws/1 issue?

 It seems I'm alone in wanting track list changes delayed, even though
 there
 is still very little NGS support.

  4. Do any or all of the above rules apply only to the exact wording
  feat.
  (or featuring, features) or would it also affect (how?) other link terms
  (in
  other languages) like with, en duo avec, con

 We should normalise to feat. where appropriate at recording level.

  The guideline should IMO reflect the ideal regulations, with a warning
  box
  for not yet to be used features because of ws/1 compatibility issues,
  which
  could be removed (without further debate) when it's no longer used.

 That sounds sensible, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't be too confusing.
 I also have no idea what's wanted as track level; just 'follow the cover'?

 Well, this is exactly my first point:
 If the cover spells a track as Quux (feat. Bar) should follow the cover
 be:
 A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
 B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple artist
 feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?

As I said above, it depends what the cover says!

It may say a, it may say b or it may say something else, C.


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



 --
 Andii :-)

 ___
 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




-- 
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:
Isn't this what the partial attribute is for?  Or do you mean the
editor doesn't even know if the performance is partial or not? But
then, when ARing to a movement, how are we sure it is a full
performance of the movement?

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org

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

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:43:33 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria  
davito...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:

 Recording linked to the super-work: fuzzy - a performance of the whole
 super-work, but unsure about exactly which parts are performed

 Isn't this what the partial attribute is for?  Or do you mean the
 editor doesn't even know if the performance is partial or not? But
 then, when ARing to a movement, how are we sure it is a full
 performance of the movement?


Note that it's recording - super-work, not recording-movement. I meant  
that it's presented as a full performance of a super-work, say Händel's  
Messiah, but we don't know exactly which parts; different versions of  
arias, maybe some movements left out, different arrangements and so on.

/symphonick

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Hello,

On 18/07/11 12:07, SwissChris wrote:
 When cover says Track (feat. Artist) should this (follow the cover) 
 translate into
 Track (feat. artist) (on track field) [by] Main Artist (on AC field)
 or (as I think is the only reasonable way) as
 Track (on track field) [by] Main Artist feat. featured artist (on AC 
 field).
 
 I don't think we're coming to anything productive without answering this 
 question first!

Here are two examples (warning, large images :).

Track 14 on Mysteryland 2010 is listed on the cover as:

track title: Born Again
artist credits:  RICKY L FEAT. M:CK

http://www.frob.nl/mb/2011/mysteryland.black.2010.jpg


Track 1 on BoA  is listed on the cover as:

track title: I Did It For Love (featuring Sean Garret)
artist credits:  BoA

http://www.frob.nl/mb/2011/smusa01.jpg



I would prefer that we do not move Sean Garret in the second example to the
artist credits of a track --- however, I wouldn't veto such a proposal as I
can understand that many people would think it more important to properly
link an artist to an artist entry in our database than it is to precisely
follow the order of things as they are on the cover.

-- kuno / warp.


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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Hello,

On 18/07/11 12:14, Andii Hughes wrote:
 That's the whole point of starting with a (mostly) blank slate for
 parts which are largely new for NGS.  To not impose new guidelines
 without going through the usual process.

 And something has to hold while new guidelines are being prepared.  To say
 these interim guidelines are anything other than the previously approved ones
 is imposing new ones.

If you think so, then so be it, we've imposed new guidelines.

We've worked on the NGS guidelines for a year before the NGS release.  During
that year we've had many discussions on how to deal with these new entities. At
various points throughout the process we've asked for feedback and help,
through this mailinglist and on irc.

If you're unhappy with the approach we've chosen, it's a bit late too complain
about it now, there was more than enough time to give us that feedback before
the NGS release. 

-- kuno / warp.

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

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:
 On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:43:33 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
 davito...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:

 Recording linked to the super-work: fuzzy - a performance of the whole
 super-work, but unsure about exactly which parts are performed

 Isn't this what the partial attribute is for?  Or do you mean the
 editor doesn't even know if the performance is partial or not? But
 then, when ARing to a movement, how are we sure it is a full
 performance of the movement?


 Note that it's recording - super-work, not recording-movement. I meant
 that it's presented as a full performance of a super-work, say Händel's
 Messiah, but we don't know exactly which parts; different versions of
 arias, maybe some movements left out, different arrangements and so on.

Yes, but do we know it that often for movement tracks? Some performers
remove some parts of works (of movements) like repeats, and most
listeners don't notice it. Many classical releases don't bother to
mention all the tiny details (I never saw written that a performer had
omitted a repeat) so that you can only know for sure if you have the
score(s) (or a good memory). I agree we probably miss something here,
between the full, the unknown and the partial performances, but I feel
we are considering as full many performances which, while not really
partial (90% of the notes are there) are not quite full either. So
either we state that the reverse of partial is actually almost
full or apparently full, or we should add a full attribute to
performance ARs and only users who have the scores (or an excellent
musical memory) should check this attribute. I believe the first
solution is much more reasonable :-)

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011/7/18, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl:
 Hello,

 On 18/07/11 12:14, Andii Hughes wrote:
 That's the whole point of starting with a (mostly) blank slate for
 parts which are largely new for NGS.  To not impose new guidelines
 without going through the usual process.

 And something has to hold while new guidelines are being prepared.  To say
 these interim guidelines are anything other than the previously approved
 ones
 is imposing new ones.

 If you think so, then so be it, we've imposed new guidelines.

 We've worked on the NGS guidelines for a year before the NGS release.
 During
 that year we've had many discussions on how to deal with these new entities.
 At
 various points throughout the process we've asked for feedback and help,
 through this mailinglist and on irc.

 If you're unhappy with the approach we've chosen, it's a bit late too
 complain
 about it now, there was more than enough time to give us that feedback
 before
 the NGS release.

Like Andii, I would NOT use un-normalized data. I'd even be more
extreme, I'd entirely remove things like feat which don't make much
sense to me. From my point of view, an artist either performed or he
did not, period.

BUT
- one frequent issue with edits before NGS was fights beween
pro-normalization and pro-as-printed
- one of the proposed benefits of NGS was allowing to enter data as
printed as well as normalized.

So that now I really don't know how I'd explain to a pro-as-printed:
ok, we sold you NGS as solving all the issues, now NGS is here, it is
much more clumsy to use than pre-NGS, there are almost twice as much
fields, but the fields where you can enter data as printed are.. well,
nowhere.

I agree that entering data in 2 conflicting ways is going to be
complicated. But if we don't, then I really fail to see what track
titles and release titles are for. Let's do with recording titles and
release group titles only, and we'll be perfectly normalized. I am
quite serious here, let's remove track and release titles entirely, I
won't complain, recording titles and release group titles are probably
all I will ever use and data input will obviously be much simpler.

And don't try to sell me a 2-level normalization system. I already had
difficulties to memorize a few of the mysterious rules of the pre-NGS
one-level system, I'd never manage to learn a 2-level system.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org

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

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:29:56 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria  
davito...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:

 Recording linked to the super-work: fuzzy - a performance of the whole
 super-work, but unsure about exactly which parts are performed

 I agree we probably miss something here,
 between the full, the unknown and the partial performances

I don't know if we agree or disagree? Let me try again:

1. A performance AR between a recording  the appropriate movements is the  
most accurate we can do.
Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: I.  
Molto Allegro (2. Fassung)
Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: II.  
Andante (2. Fassung)

2. The accuracy of a performance AR between a recording  a super-work is  
depending on the parts linked to the super-work.
Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550
Which version? (Works structure isn't clearly defined yet, this super-work  
could contain 2 superworks or 8 movements. But the issue regarding  
accuracy remains.)

/symphonick

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On 18 July 2011 12:06, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
 Hello,

 On 18/07/11 12:14, Andii Hughes wrote:
 That's the whole point of starting with a (mostly) blank slate for
 parts which are largely new for NGS.  To not impose new guidelines
 without going through the usual process.

 And something has to hold while new guidelines are being prepared.  To say
 these interim guidelines are anything other than the previously approved ones
 is imposing new ones.

 If you think so, then so be it, we've imposed new guidelines.

 We've worked on the NGS guidelines for a year before the NGS release.  During
 that year we've had many discussions on how to deal with these new entities. 
 At
 various points throughout the process we've asked for feedback and help,
 through this mailinglist and on irc.

 If you're unhappy with the approach we've chosen, it's a bit late too complain
 about it now, there was more than enough time to give us that feedback before
 the NGS release.


Right, you've lost me now.

There was a discussion of featured artists (which I took part in)
before NGS was released.
It never went to a vote:

http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2011-April/011250.html

which I presume means that the existing status quo is retained.

The only guideline available is:

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Recording_and_release_group_titles/Featured_artists

and now you're trying to imply that this somehow doesn't apply in some cases.

Can you please point me to these other guidelines on featured artists
if the linked one
does not apply for track listings?  Certainly no-one seems to be aware
of them at present,
which is why there is all this confusion.

 -- kuno / warp.

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




-- 
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread MeinDummy

There were two contrary statements about ws/1:


Andii Hughes wrote:
 
 So again: Is there any chance to fix it?
 E.g. by letting ws/1 automatically merge all credited artists into one
 collaboration artist.
 Or (probably better) by using only the first credited artist as the track
 artist and automatically appending all others to the track title using
 the
 join phrases.
 
 See my earlier e-mail about ws/1.
 
 I would support the server being altered to automatically move feat.
 credits to the title and not have it in the guideline, but this isn't
 what it does at present.
 
 

Calvin Walton-2 wrote:
 
 On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 17:16 -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
 3. Ideally, /ws/1 should handle the feat. link phrase by expressing
 the AC as ETI of the tracks it returns.
 
 Unfortunately, this is impossible to do in any sort of general way,
 mostly because the artist credits are used for more than just featured
 artists. Even if you limit it to just 'feat.' link phrases, there are
 several artists in the database that it would miss, and several
 collaborations or special artist credits that it would rewrite
 inappropriately.
 
 The current ws/1 method of simply making up a fake artist with a name
 that contains the entire artist credit is really the best we can do :/
 

Is it possible and does it make sense to change ws/1 in the described way or
not?
Wouldn't this always produce the same results for featured artists as it did
in pre-NGS times? Even if it is extended to other link phrases like 'with',
'avec', 'con'? (But leaving out '', 'and', '+' and the like and possibly
also 'vs.' for which all credited artists should probably remain in the
artist field.)

And BTW, what does ws/1 do about correctly entered collaborations like e.g.
http://musicbrainz.org/release/58bad121-bfab-4dda-89f8-4b1bc092de44 ?
I suppose these are just as ws/1 incompatible as featured artists but ws/1
has to live with them just as it has to with multi disc releases.

--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-327-Featured-Artists-tp3662499p3675138.html
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-327: Featured Artists

Hello,

On 18/07/11 14:17, Andii Hughes wrote:
 Can you please point me to these other guidelines on featured artists
 if the linked one
 does not apply for track listings?  Certainly no-one seems to be aware
 of them at present,
 which is why there is all this confusion.

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Track_and_release_titles

^ that is the entire guideline which applies to track and release titles.

There is no Featured artists guideline for track and release titles.

-- kuno / warp.


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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On 18 July 2011 13:32, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
 Hello,

 On 18/07/11 14:17, Andii Hughes wrote:
 Can you please point me to these other guidelines on featured artists
 if the linked one
 does not apply for track listings?  Certainly no-one seems to be aware
 of them at present,
 which is why there is all this confusion.

 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Track_and_release_titles

 ^ that is the entire guideline which applies to track and release titles.

 There is no Featured artists guideline for track and release titles.


That's just the old release title guideline.  What happens with the
artist credit?

 -- kuno / warp.


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




-- 
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread MeinDummy


swisschris wrote:
 
 There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to
 address
 separately:
 
 1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) *ideally* translate
 into
 NGS structures?
 
 For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
 A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
 B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple
 artist
 feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?
 

B.
'As printed' does IMO not mean that additional artist info has to be part of
the track title if the cover happens to have them next to each other.
Otherwise we'd end up with A for all 'feat.' tracks on single artist
releases and with B for almost all occurrences of the same track on VA
compilations.



 2. How should the featured artists *ideally* be treated on the
 (normalized)
 recording level?
 
 Assuming there is consensus that feat.-information should not be part of
 the title field at recording level:
 A) [Artist Credit] Foo  Bar (as by default)
 B) [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (assuming feat. has a specific
 different
 meaning, not to be normalized to )
 

Usually, '' and 'feat.' have different meanings and shouldn't be merged
into one normalized phrase.
But we could allow only a couple of standardized join phrases and make them
selectable from a dropdown.
E.g.:
'' as a normalized expression for '', 'and', '+', ...
'with' as a normalized expression for 'with', 'avec', 'con', 'mit', ...
'duet with' as a normalized expression for 'duet with', 'Duett mit', 'en duo
avec'
'vs.'
...



 3. Do we want/need a delay on application of (part of) these *ideal*
 rules,
 once agreed upon, because of the ws/1 issue?
 
Not if there is a reasonable workaround for the current ws/1 issue.
But it is currently not clear if featured artist credits can automatically
be moved from the artist field into ETI.



 4. Do any or all of the above rules apply only to the exact wording
 feat.
 (or featuring, features) or would it also affect (how?) other link terms
 (in
 other languages) like with, en duo avec, con
 
This guideline should ideally cover all cases where multiple artists are
credited for one track or release.

--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-327-Featured-Artists-tp3662499p3675218.html
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] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:
 On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:29:56 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
 davito...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:

 Recording linked to the super-work: fuzzy - a performance of the whole
 super-work, but unsure about exactly which parts are performed

 I agree we probably miss something here,
 between the full, the unknown and the partial performances

 I don't know if we agree or disagree? Let me try again:

 1. A performance AR between a recording  the appropriate movements is the
 most accurate we can do.
 Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: I.
 Molto Allegro (2. Fassung)
 Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: II.
 Andante (2. Fassung)

 2. The accuracy of a performance AR between a recording  a super-work is
 depending on the parts linked to the super-work.
 Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550
 Which version? (Works structure isn't clearly defined yet, this super-work
 could contain 2 superworks or 8 movements. But the issue regarding
 accuracy remains.)

I believe you are thinking as if only an AR to a super-work could be
poorly defined. I believe that many ARs to movements are inaccurate.
You ask me which version of the version? I ask you which version of
the movements were really used in the currently existing movement ARs?
Are you really sure that for each AR to a movement the full movement
was really performed? Do you really think that the performer never
missed a repeat? And how are we going to link to the correct movement
versions all the recordings which already exist in MB? Our data is
already inaccurate, and although the Work system should help improve
things, the problem is never going to disappear completely. Links to
works are often going to be fuzzy, because available information is
fuzzy, and downloading music without booklets is not going to improve
the situation.

I believe the accuracy of the AR to movements is fallacious. I don't
really think a performance of a Work should be considered less
accurate than performances of each movements. If a performer performed
a whole work as a whole, my first idea is to link to that work as a
whole. But if you really think linking to each movement is an
improvement, then this linking to a superwork means inaccurate
should be stated very clearly, because I think other users will feel
like me. I'd even consider appending use only if you can't find
better or use only if you're not sure after each super-work title.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Hello,

On 18/07/11 14:43, Andii Hughes wrote:
 On 18 July 2011 13:32, Kuno Woudtk...@frob.nl  wrote:

 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Track_and_release_titles

 ^ that is the entire guideline which applies to track and release titles.

 There is no Featured artists guideline for track and release titles.

 
 That's just the old release title guideline.  What happens with the
 artist credit?


http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Release briefly mentions how to enter
the release artist, we don't have have a page like that for tracks.

-- kuno / warp.

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Paul C. Bryan

On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 11:19 +0200, SwissChris wrote:

 There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to
 address separately:
 
  
 
 1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) ideally translate
 into NGS structures?
 
 
 For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
 A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
 B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple
 artist feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?


I have a preference for B.

 2. How should the featured artists ideally be treated on the
 (normalized) recording level?
 
 
 Assuming there is consensus that feat.-information should not be
 part of the title field at recording level:
 A) [Artist Credit] Foo  Bar (as by default)
 B) [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (assuming feat. has a specific
 different meaning, not to be normalized to )


I would strongly argue in favour of B.

 3. Do we want/need a delay on application of (part of) these ideal
 rules, once agreed upon, because of the ws/1 issue?


I don't want to, but I understand that this could impact ws/1. I guess
I'd ask how quickly a relatively straightforward change to the ws/1
could be made?


 4. Do any or all of the above rules apply only to the exact wording
 feat. (or featuring, features) or would it also affect (how?) other
 link terms (in other languages) like with, en duo avec, con


I would prefer we keep  feat.  as the link phrase as it's a very
commonly used abbreviation.

 The guideline should IMO reflect the ideal regulations, with a
 warning box for not yet to be used features because of ws/1
 compatibility issues, which could be removed (without further debate)
 when it's no longer used.


+1

Paul

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

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:02:02 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria  
davito...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:

 1. A performance AR between a recording  the appropriate movements is  
 the
 most accurate we can do.
 Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: I.
 Molto Allegro (2. Fassung)
 Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: II.
 Andante (2. Fassung)

 2. The accuracy of a performance AR between a recording  a super-work  
 is
 depending on the parts linked to the super-work.
 Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550
 Which version? (Works structure isn't clearly defined yet, this  
 super-work
 could contain 2 superworks or 8 movements. But the issue regarding
 accuracy remains.)

 I believe you are thinking as if only an AR to a super-work could be
 poorly defined. I believe that many ARs to movements are inaccurate.

No I don't, but the issue here was super-works. I've also been thinking  
about what to do with cases like recording of unknown piano version of  
work x.
Let's say we have 3 works in the db: original work x for guitar, work x  
(piano version by foo)  work x (piano version by bar). I suppose link to  
the original work is better than creating a new fuzzy piano version.

 You ask me which version of the version? I ask you which version of
 the movements were really used in the currently existing movement ARs?

I suppose that in this case we need to create 3 works for every movement  
(+ a corresponding super-work): version 1, version 2  a fuzzy version.  
Or we define works as more of the concept movement I  say that all  
versions are the same work?

 Are you really sure that for each AR to a movement the full movement
 was really performed? Do you really think that the performer never
 missed a repeat?

I'd consider that a performance variation, still the same work.

 Links to
 works are often going to be fuzzy

I agree. So what I'm trying to say is that it is - as always - preferable  
to be as specific as possible, if the data is available.  if we know  
exactly what 4 parts of a super-work is performed, IMO it's more accurate  
to link directly to those than to a super-work containing more than 4  
parts. If there's no different versions or added movements to consider  
(like in the OP), then I'd choose the most convenient option. No  
difference in accuracy what I can see.

/symphonick

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Alex Mauer

On 07/18/2011 05:30 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
 1. If the cover says 'X (feat. Y)' by Z, then artist credit is Z,
 title is 'X (feat. Y)'
 2. If the cover says 'X' by Z feat. Y then artist credit is Z +
 join-phrase ' feat. ' + Y and title is 'X'
 3. If the cover says 'X (with new singing sensation Y)' by Z, then
 artist credit is Z, title is 'X (with new singing sensation Y)'
 4. If the cover says 'X' by Z with his best friend Y, then artist
 credit is Z + join-phrase ' with his best friend ' + Y and title is
 'X'.
 and so on...
 
 i.e. whatever is on the cover...

+1 to all of this.

Those of us (myself, for one) who want more normalized titles can have
their tagger look at the recordings or the works instead of the tracklists.

The one downside I can see to this is that the feat. artist will not
have that release appear in their releases because they don’t have an
artist credit on it (it will only appear in relationships).  I don’t
know if that’s enough of a problem for it to mean we need an exception
guideline to the “as on the cover” concept.

—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-331: Add CD Baby Relationship Type

2011-07-18 Thread Per Starbäck

 And we will just end up with ton of spam links that will clutter the
 database and web site.

It doesn't necessarily need to clutter the site. When looking at a
release there could be a single find this for sale button showing
that info.

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Yin Izanami

If we go this literally with as on cover for tracklists, and therefore
normalize recordings to have all artists in the artist field, not in the
title field, then...

Can the server look at the recordings attached to a release's tracklist to
see the artist credits of the recordings?  If so, the server could
theoretically list the release on the pages of artists which show up in the
recordings but are missing in the tracklist.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:

 On 07/18/2011 05:30 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
  1. If the cover says 'X (feat. Y)' by Z, then artist credit is Z,
  title is 'X (feat. Y)'
  2. If the cover says 'X' by Z feat. Y then artist credit is Z +
  join-phrase ' feat. ' + Y and title is 'X'
  3. If the cover says 'X (with new singing sensation Y)' by Z, then
  artist credit is Z, title is 'X (with new singing sensation Y)'
  4. If the cover says 'X' by Z with his best friend Y, then artist
  credit is Z + join-phrase ' with his best friend ' + Y and title is
  'X'.
  and so on...
 
  i.e. whatever is on the cover...

 +1 to all of this.

 Those of us (myself, for one) who want more normalized titles can have
 their tagger look at the recordings or the works instead of the tracklists.

 The one downside I can see to this is that the feat. artist will not
 have that release appear in their releases because they don’t have an
 artist credit on it (it will only appear in relationships).  I don’t
 know if that’s enough of a problem for it to mean we need an exception
 guideline to the “as on the cover” concept.

 —Alex Mauer “hawke”


 ___
 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-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Paul C. Bryan

This convinces me that if we choose to keep track titles—which I think
we probably will—then they should be as-printed, whereas recordings
should be normalized. Given this, I revise my opinion accordingly: track
titles should contain feat. ETI and recordings should use the  feat. 
link phrase.

Paul

On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 13:51 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

 2011/7/18, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl:
  Hello,
 
  On 18/07/11 12:14, Andii Hughes wrote:
  That's the whole point of starting with a (mostly) blank slate for
  parts which are largely new for NGS.  To not impose new guidelines
  without going through the usual process.
 
  And something has to hold while new guidelines are being prepared.  To say
  these interim guidelines are anything other than the previously approved
  ones
  is imposing new ones.
 
  If you think so, then so be it, we've imposed new guidelines.
 
  We've worked on the NGS guidelines for a year before the NGS release.
  During
  that year we've had many discussions on how to deal with these new entities.
  At
  various points throughout the process we've asked for feedback and help,
  through this mailinglist and on irc.
 
  If you're unhappy with the approach we've chosen, it's a bit late too
  complain
  about it now, there was more than enough time to give us that feedback
  before
  the NGS release.
 
 Like Andii, I would NOT use un-normalized data. I'd even be more
 extreme, I'd entirely remove things like feat which don't make much
 sense to me. From my point of view, an artist either performed or he
 did not, period.
 
 BUT
 - one frequent issue with edits before NGS was fights beween
 pro-normalization and pro-as-printed
 - one of the proposed benefits of NGS was allowing to enter data as
 printed as well as normalized.
 
 So that now I really don't know how I'd explain to a pro-as-printed:
 ok, we sold you NGS as solving all the issues, now NGS is here, it is
 much more clumsy to use than pre-NGS, there are almost twice as much
 fields, but the fields where you can enter data as printed are.. well,
 nowhere.
 
 I agree that entering data in 2 conflicting ways is going to be
 complicated. But if we don't, then I really fail to see what track
 titles and release titles are for. Let's do with recording titles and
 release group titles only, and we'll be perfectly normalized. I am
 quite serious here, let's remove track and release titles entirely, I
 won't complain, recording titles and release group titles are probably
 all I will ever use and data input will obviously be much simpler.
 
 And don't try to sell me a 2-level normalization system. I already had
 difficulties to memorize a few of the mysterious rules of the pre-NGS
 one-level system, I'd never manage to learn a 2-level system.
 


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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:

 On 07/18/2011 05:30 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
  1. If the cover says 'X (feat. Y)' by Z, then artist credit is Z,
  title is 'X (feat. Y)'
  2. If the cover says 'X' by Z feat. Y then artist credit is Z +
  join-phrase ' feat. ' + Y and title is 'X'
  3. If the cover says 'X (with new singing sensation Y)' by Z, then
  artist credit is Z, title is 'X (with new singing sensation Y)'
  4. If the cover says 'X' by Z with his best friend Y, then artist
  credit is Z + join-phrase ' with his best friend ' + Y and title is
  'X'.
  and so on...
 
  i.e. whatever is on the cover...

 +1 to all of this.


Sorry again, guys, but that's Taliban Speech. We're here in a database, and
a database does build structures to store information from various sources
in a comprehensive, usable form: artist information in artist field, track
information in track fields, Extra Title Information in appropriate Comment
or Annotation fields (wherever these may be found on the original source).
If feat. should remain in the track title, as on the cover then why not
keep everything else there as well just because it happens to follow
directly after a track title?

Why should we keep what in fact is Extra *Artist *Information in the track
title, when stuff that actually is Extra *Title* Information  (like: from
West Side Story) should be moved to some other field?

I have a disc in hand (Ute Lemper sings Kurt Weill) where a random track
title reads  7. NANNA'S LIED - BRECHT/WEILL - Piano: Kai Rautenberg -
BROOKHOUSE MUSIC INC. And this should all go in track title, because it's
as on the cover?

We have agreed (e.g. for capitalization guidelines) that you can't deduce
artist intent from covers, since what's on a cover is mostly graphist's
intent. Just because for obvious redundancy and aesthetic reasons a main
artist is not generally repeated on every track, it's no longer as on the
cover, when we add him?

As said before all collaborations (be it feat., with, en duo avec)
semantically, logically link two artists, never a track title to an artist.
So track (feat. artist) on a cover is just a shortcut for track ([by
artist] feat. artist).

The NGS developers have done a great job on behalf of those that wanted as
on cover presentation of the data (ok. They still haven't solved the
problem of font size  color, but I'm sure they're working on this flaw ;-)

The NGS artist credit allows you to credit a featuring artist – in the
Artist Credits – with the exact wording you find on the cover, with the one
tiny exception that the Main Artist (flowing down from the release level to
the track level, as Andii puts it) has to be included. And now, just
because of this, you simply reject it?

If this is the way it should be, I'd vote with Frederic to just forget about
the two level system completely, which right now makes editing much more
time-consuming and complicated.

Chris/chabreyflint



 Those of us (myself, for one) who want more normalized titles can have
 their tagger look at the recordings or the works instead of the tracklists.

 The one downside I can see to this is that the feat. artist will not
 have that release appear in their releases because they don’t have an
 artist credit on it (it will only appear in relationships).  I don’t
 know if that’s enough of a problem for it to mean we need an exception
 guideline to the “as on the cover” concept.



 —Alex Mauer “hawke”


 ___
 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-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Simon Austin

On 18/07/11 14:00, MeinDummy wrote:
 swisschris wrote:
 There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to
 address
 separately:

 1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) *ideally* translate
 into
 NGS structures?

 For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
 A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
 B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple
 artist
 feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?

 B.
 'As printed' does IMO not mean that additional artist info has to be part of
 the track title if the cover happens to have them next to each other.
 Otherwise we'd end up with A for all 'feat.' tracks on single artist
 releases and with B for almost all occurrences of the same track on VA
 compilations.



You say that as if it's a bad thing! I mean, isn't that what happens. 
Nick Cave  The Bad Seeds' Where the Wild Roses Grow barely mentions 
Kylie Minogue on the original album [1] and their best of [2], but on 
Ultimate Kylie, it's by Kylie Minogue  Nick Cave  The Bad Seeds [3]. 
Wasn't one of the goals of NGS to avoid having to normalise all of them, 
because now the recording links to them all? 
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Consistent_Original_Data is glorious history...

Also, I think there's a subtle difference between a track/recording 
featuring a guest artist, and an artist with featured performer(s) [4], 
which tends to be muddied by converting them to artist credits.

1: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=556821
2: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=745099
3: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=349240
4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/j2fd

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Calvin Walton

On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:30 +0100, Simon Austin wrote:
 You say that as if it's a bad thing! I mean, isn't that what happens. 
 Nick Cave  The Bad Seeds' Where the Wild Roses Grow barely mentions 
 Kylie Minogue on the original album [1] and their best of [2], but on 
 Ultimate Kylie, it's by Kylie Minogue  Nick Cave  The Bad Seeds [3]. 
 Wasn't one of the goals of NGS to avoid having to normalise all of them, 
 because now the recording links to them all? 
 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Consistent_Original_Data is glorious history...

Huh, I wonder why that page was marked as history? Although it could do
with some wording updates, the principal is still valid, in particular
for the two cases I can think of:

  * You cannot find any primary sources for the tracklisting, and
are using the combination of several secondary sources (fan
pages, Wikipedia, stores, etc.) to determine the tracklisting.
  * You are determining the recording title for a recording with
name variations on different releases, where you can't determine
a definite artist intent for a particular style.

It seems a bit premature to just make the style principal go away like
that.

-- 
Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca


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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Simon Austin chi...@auzsoft.net wrote:

 On 18/07/11 14:00, MeinDummy wrote:
  swisschris wrote:
  There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to
  address
  separately:
 
  1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) *ideally* translate
  into
  NGS structures?
 
  For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
  A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS) or
  B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple
  artist
  feature, with the link phrase exactly as on cover) ?
 
  B.
  'As printed' does IMO not mean that additional artist info has to be part
 of
  the track title if the cover happens to have them next to each other.
  Otherwise we'd end up with A for all 'feat.' tracks on single artist
  releases and with B for almost all occurrences of the same track on VA
  compilations.
 
 

 You say that as if it's a bad thing! I mean, isn't that what happens.
 Nick Cave  The Bad Seeds' Where the Wild Roses Grow barely mentions
 Kylie Minogue on the original album [1] and their best of [2], but on
 Ultimate Kylie, it's by Kylie Minogue  Nick Cave  The Bad Seeds [3].
 Wasn't one of the goals of NGS to avoid having to normalise all of them,
 because now the recording links to them all?
 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Consistent_Original_Data is glorious
 history...


I was going to bring exactly the same example of Where the Wild Roses
grow. You forgot to mention the Single which credits Nick Cave and The Bad
Seeds *+* Kylie Minogue [1] and all the compilations which have (wrong or
right) feat. Kylie Minogue (as recordings!) on MB [2].

Fact is that NGS artist credit allows to catch all these differences quite
precisely as on cover. I'd also use this example to show that feat is
not always so specific in meaning as to have it kept by all means on
recording level. On the other side this example shows that you probably
can't trust all the feat. on MB tracks to really be feat. on the cover,
since the previous guideline asked to use this specific term for other link
phrases as well…

[1] http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=833051
[2]
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/172e1f1a-504d-4488-b053-6344ba63e6d0/recordings?page=25


 Also, I think there's a subtle difference between a track/recording
 featuring a guest artist, and an artist with featured performer(s) [4],
 which tends to be muddied by converting them to artist credits.


This last example is a temporary issue and should be fixed (catching the
actual Artist Credits AFAIK) when ws/1 clients will change to ws/2

Chris/chabreyflint


 1: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=556821
 2: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=745099
 3: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=349240
 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/j2fd

 ___
 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-327: Featured Artists

On 18 July 2011 21:02, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:

snip..

I was going to bring exactly the same example of Where the Wild Roses
grow. You forgot to mention the Single which credits Nick Cave and The Bad
Seeds + Kylie Minogue [1] and all the compilations which have (wrong or
right) feat. Kylie Minogue (as recordings!) on MB [2].
Fact is that NGS artist credit allows to catch all these differences quite
precisely as on cover. I'd also use this example to show that feat is
not always so specific in meaning as to have it kept by all means on
recording level. On the other side this example shows that you probably
can't trust all the feat. on MB tracks to really be feat. on the cover,
since the previous guideline asked to use this specific term for other link
phrases as well…
[1] http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=833051
[2] http://musicbrainz.org/artist/172e1f1a-504d-4488-b053-6344ba63e6d0/recordings?page=25

Most of those probably should be merged, which means one still needs
to be picked for the recording.
Personally, I'd tend to trust the single cover as it's the case where
the most focus has been on that particular
track, whereas with an album it's one of many.

Also, I think there's a subtle difference between a track/recording
featuring a guest artist, and an artist with featured performer(s) [4],
which tends to be muddied by converting them to artist credits.

This last example is a temporary issue and should be fixed (catching the
actual Artist Credits AFAIK) when ws/1 clients will change to ws/2

It needs splitting on MB, but yes the BBC still using ws/1 is one of
the things I was worried about.
You'll get exactly that situation where there's one single artist
composed of the primary and featured artists.

Chris/chabreyflint

1: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=556821
2: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=745099
3: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=349240
4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/j2fd

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

--
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On 18 July 2011 14:00, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
 Hello,

 On 18/07/11 14:43, Andii Hughes wrote:
 On 18 July 2011 13:32, Kuno Woudtk...@frob.nl  wrote:

 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Track_and_release_titles

 ^ that is the entire guideline which applies to track and release titles.

 There is no Featured artists guideline for track and release titles.


 That's just the old release title guideline.  What happens with the
 artist credit?


 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Release briefly mentions how to enter
 the release artist, we don't have have a page like that for tracks.

 -- kuno / warp.

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


Ok, let's take a step back then.  If the current guideline only
applies to recordings,
should I alter this proposal to also just concern recordings and release groups
(i.e. the bit about moving the feat. part to the artist credit)?

I think it should have been made much clearer that there weren't any rules for
track or release titles, because it certainly wasn't clear from the discussions
I've followed.  Also, I can understand the choice between track and
recording titles
for unnormalised/normalised data, but is the same thing supposed to apply for
releases and release groups?
-- 
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Andii Hughes
gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
 On 18 July 2011 14:00, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
 Hello,

 On 18/07/11 14:43, Andii Hughes wrote:
 On 18 July 2011 13:32, Kuno Woudtk...@frob.nl  wrote:

 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Track_and_release_titles

 ^ that is the entire guideline which applies to track and release titles.

 There is no Featured artists guideline for track and release titles.


 That's just the old release title guideline.  What happens with the
 artist credit?


 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Release briefly mentions how to enter
 the release artist, we don't have have a page like that for tracks.

 -- kuno / warp.

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


 Ok, let's take a step back then.  If the current guideline only
 applies to recordings,
 should I alter this proposal to also just concern recordings and release 
 groups
 (i.e. the bit about moving the feat. part to the artist credit)?

I think that would avoid any vetoes and allow us to go forward. We can
argue about tracks in another proposal :) Of course, some of the
questions still apply: is con, that translates as with but is
sometimes used as feat., to be changed to with? to feat.? :)

 I think it should have been made much clearer that there weren't any rules for
 track or release titles, because it certainly wasn't clear from the 
 discussions
 I've followed.  Also, I can understand the choice between track and
 recording titles
 for unnormalised/normalised data, but is the same thing supposed to apply for
 releases and release groups?

At least in theory, yes.

 --
 Andii :-)

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



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Simon Austin

On 18/07/11 21:02, SwissChris wrote:


 Also, I think there's a subtle difference between a track/recording
 featuring a guest artist, and an artist with featured performer(s)
 [4],
 which tends to be muddied by converting them to artist credits.


 This last example is a temporary issue and should be fixed (catching 
 the actual Artist Credits AFAIK) when ws/1 clients will change to ws/2


 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/j2fd

To clarify... The Zombies started in the 60s and split up at the end 
of that decade. The 2011 album by The Zombies featuring Colin Blunstone 
 Rod Argent highlights the two original members who reformed the band. 
They're not guests, nor collaborating.

- Si

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Hello,

On 18/07/11 21:45, Calvin Walton wrote:
 On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:30 +0100, Simon Austin wrote:
 You say that as if it's a bad thing! I mean, isn't that what happens.
 Nick Cave  The Bad Seeds' Where the Wild Roses Grow barely mentions
 Kylie Minogue on the original album [1] and their best of [2], but on
 Ultimate Kylie, it's by Kylie Minogue  Nick Cave  The Bad Seeds [3].
 Wasn't one of the goals of NGS to avoid having to normalise all of them,
 because now the recording links to them all?
 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Consistent_Original_Data is glorious history...
 
 Huh, I wonder why that page was marked as history? 

That guideline was moved to the Style Principle page:

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Principle

If no definite proof can be found for the correct spelling/punctuation,
 the most common version should be used.

-- kuno / warp.

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

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

2011/7/18 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com

 On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:02:02 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria
 davito...@gmail.com wrote:

  2011/7/18, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com:

  1. A performance AR between a recording  the appropriate movements is
  the
  most accurate we can do.
  Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: I.
  Molto Allegro (2. Fassung)
  Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550: II.
  Andante (2. Fassung)
 
  2. The accuracy of a performance AR between a recording  a super-work
  is
  depending on the parts linked to the super-work.
  Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a performance of Sinfonie in g K. 550
  Which version? (Works structure isn't clearly defined yet, this
  super-work
  could contain 2 superworks or 8 movements. But the issue regarding
  accuracy remains.)
 
  I believe you are thinking as if only an AR to a super-work could be
  poorly defined. I believe that many ARs to movements are inaccurate.

 No I don't, but the issue here was super-works. I've also been thinking
 about what to do with cases like recording of unknown piano version of
 work x.
 Let's say we have 3 works in the db: original work x for guitar, work x
 (piano version by foo)  work x (piano version by bar). I suppose link to
 the original work is better than creating a new fuzzy piano version.

  You ask me which version of the version? I ask you which version of
  the movements were really used in the currently existing movement ARs?

 I suppose that in this case we need to create 3 works for every movement
 (+ a corresponding super-work): version 1, version 2  a fuzzy version.
 Or we define works as more of the concept movement I  say that all
 versions are the same work?

  Are you really sure that for each AR to a movement the full movement
  was really performed? Do you really think that the performer never
  missed a repeat?

 I'd consider that a performance variation, still the same work.

  Links to
  works are often going to be fuzzy

 I agree. So what I'm trying to say is that it is - as always - preferable
 to be as specific as possible, if the data is available.  if we know
 exactly what 4 parts of a super-work is performed, IMO it's more accurate
 to link directly to those than to a super-work containing more than 4
 parts. If there's no different versions or added movements to consider
 (like in the OP), then I'd choose the most convenient option. No
 difference in accuracy what I can see.


And create 32 ARs for a global performance of the Goldberg Variations? It
seems a little overkill to me, but if you feel it is really important, I
won't fight it. It won't happen often. I still don't like saying that an AR
to a super-work means fuzzy, I'd rather have an explicit fuzzy attribute,
but if others agree your solution is better...

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Restricting the guideline to recordings  release groups would certainly
make things go smoother. For the ws/1 issue i'd see something like we have
here:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Theatre_Style

Chris/chabreyflint

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.orgwrote:

 On 18 July 2011 14:00, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
  Hello,
 
  On 18/07/11 14:43, Andii Hughes wrote:
  On 18 July 2011 13:32, Kuno Woudtk...@frob.nl  wrote:
 
  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Track_and_release_titles
 
  ^ that is the entire guideline which applies to track and release
 titles.
 
  There is no Featured artists guideline for track and release titles.
 
 
  That's just the old release title guideline.  What happens with the
  artist credit?
 
 
  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Release briefly mentions how to enter
  the release artist, we don't have have a page like that for tracks.
 
  -- kuno / warp.
 
  ___
  MusicBrainz-style mailing list
  MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
 

 Ok, let's take a step back then.  If the current guideline only
 applies to recordings,
 should I alter this proposal to also just concern recordings and release
 groups
 (i.e. the bit about moving the feat. part to the artist credit)?

 I think it should have been made much clearer that there weren't any rules
 for
 track or release titles, because it certainly wasn't clear from the
 discussions
 I've followed.  Also, I can understand the choice between track and
 recording titles
 for unnormalised/normalised data, but is the same thing supposed to apply
 for
 releases and release groups?
 --
 Andii :-)

 ___
 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] CSG: Classical superworks and performance of links

On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:23:14 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria  
davito...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree. So what I'm trying to say is that it is - as always -  
 preferable
 to be as specific as possible, if the data is available.  if we know
 exactly what 4 parts of a super-work is performed, IMO it's more  
 accurate
 to link directly to those than to a super-work containing more than 4
 parts. If there's no different versions or added movements to consider
 (like in the OP), then I'd choose the most convenient option. No
 difference in accuracy what I can see.


 And create 32 ARs for a global performance of the Goldberg Variations? It
 seems a little overkill to me, but if you feel it is really important, I
 won't fight it. It won't happen often. I still don't like saying that an  
 AR
 to a super-work means fuzzy, I'd rather have an explicit fuzzy  
 attribute,
 but if others agree your solution is better...


I don't know if it's important or not, maybe the inaccurate cases are  
rare, so we don't have to worry about it. I'm hoping we can figure out  
what we want from works; what level of detail can we manage?

If we forget my add a fuzzy work suggestion, and try your fuzzy  
performance, would it be something like this:
There are 2 super-works in the db:
Sinfonie in g K. 550 (1. Fassung)
Sinfonie in g K. 550 (2. Fassung) (assuming for now that this is the  
default)
and we have a performance where we don't know the version:
Symphony No. 40 in G minor is a (assumed) performance of Sinfonie in g K.  
550 (2. Fassung)
(someone can find a better term)

/symphonick

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Ryan Torchia

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:

 On 07/18/2011 05:30 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
  1. If the cover says 'X (feat. Y)' by Z, then artist credit is Z,
  title is 'X (feat. Y)'
  2. If the cover says 'X' by Z feat. Y then artist credit is Z +
  join-phrase ' feat. ' + Y and title is 'X'
  3. If the cover says 'X (with new singing sensation Y)' by Z, then
  artist credit is Z, title is 'X (with new singing sensation Y)'
  4. If the cover says 'X' by Z with his best friend Y, then artist
  credit is Z + join-phrase ' with his best friend ' + Y and title is
  'X'.
  and so on...
 
  i.e. whatever is on the cover...

 +1 to all of this.


+1 again.


 The one downside I can see to this is that the feat. artist will not
 have that release appear in their releases because they don’t have an
 artist credit on it (it will only appear in relationships).  I don’t
 know if that’s enough of a problem for it to mean we need an exception
 guideline to the “as on the cover” concept.


Seems to me like this credit *should* appear in relationships for the guest
artist, because that's (usually) the most accurate description of how
involved they were with the track.

For that matter, has anybody suggested NOT listing the featured guest as an
artist, but instead adding a {featured} option to the performer AR and
adding the guest there?

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

On 18 July 2011 23:50, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:

 On 07/18/2011 05:30 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
  1. If the cover says 'X (feat. Y)' by Z, then artist credit is Z,
  title is 'X (feat. Y)'
  2. If the cover says 'X' by Z feat. Y then artist credit is Z +
  join-phrase ' feat. ' + Y and title is 'X'
  3. If the cover says 'X (with new singing sensation Y)' by Z, then
  artist credit is Z, title is 'X (with new singing sensation Y)'
  4. If the cover says 'X' by Z with his best friend Y, then artist
  credit is Z + join-phrase ' with his best friend ' + Y and title is
  'X'.
  and so on...
 
  i.e. whatever is on the cover...

 +1 to all of this.

 +1 again.


 The one downside I can see to this is that the feat. artist will not
 have that release appear in their releases because they don’t have an
 artist credit on it (it will only appear in relationships).  I don’t
 know if that’s enough of a problem for it to mean we need an exception
 guideline to the “as on the cover” concept.

 Seems to me like this credit *should* appear in relationships for the guest
 artist, because that's (usually) the most accurate description of how
 involved they were with the track.


I think it should and that would be the benefit of moving to artist
rather than track accreditation for recordings.

 For that matter, has anybody suggested NOT listing the featured guest as an
 artist, but instead adding a {featured} option to the performer AR and
 adding the guest there?

That's part of the current and proposed guideline:

'In both cases:
Add Relationships of the appropriate Relationship Class (usually
Performance) to link to the featured artist(s') entries in
MusicBrainz.'

There's a 'guest' tick box for this.  I've added many such ARs in the past.


 --Torc.

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




-- 
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
 On 18 July 2011 23:50, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:

 On 07/18/2011 05:30 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
  1. If the cover says 'X (feat. Y)' by Z, then artist credit is Z,
  title is 'X (feat. Y)'
  2. If the cover says 'X' by Z feat. Y then artist credit is Z +
  join-phrase ' feat. ' + Y and title is 'X'
  3. If the cover says 'X (with new singing sensation Y)' by Z, then
  artist credit is Z, title is 'X (with new singing sensation Y)'
  4. If the cover says 'X' by Z with his best friend Y, then artist
  credit is Z + join-phrase ' with his best friend ' + Y and title is
  'X'.
  and so on...
 
  i.e. whatever is on the cover...

 +1 to all of this.

 +1 again.


 The one downside I can see to this is that the feat. artist will not
 have that release appear in their releases because they don’t have an
 artist credit on it (it will only appear in relationships).  I don’t
 know if that’s enough of a problem for it to mean we need an exception
 guideline to the “as on the cover” concept.

 Seems to me like this credit *should* appear in relationships for the guest
 artist, because that's (usually) the most accurate description of how
 involved they were with the track.


 I think it should and that would be the benefit of moving to artist
 rather than track accreditation for recordings.

 For that matter, has anybody suggested NOT listing the featured guest as an
 artist, but instead adding a {featured} option to the performer AR and
 adding the guest there?

 That's part of the current and proposed guideline:

 'In both cases:
 Add Relationships of the appropriate Relationship Class (usually
 Performance) to link to the featured artist(s') entries in
 MusicBrainz.'

 There's a 'guest' tick box for this.  I've added many such ARs in the past.

Not *exactly* the same, though, even if fairly similar: there are some
cases where the liner credits say and guest guitar X without being
considered a feat.
But quite close, true that.


 --Torc.

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




 --
 Andii :-)

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



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011-07-18 Thread lorenz pressler


 On 18/07/11 12:07, SwissChris wrote:
 When cover says Track (feat. Artist) should this (follow the cover)
 translate into
 Track (feat. artist) (on track field) [by] Main Artist (on AC field)
 or (as I think is the only reasonable way) as
 Track (on track field) [by] Main Artist feat. featured artist (on AC
 field).


if we don't want ws/1 compatibility i would favour to move feat. also on  
tracklvl to the artist credits, away from the title field.


Am 18.07.2011, 12:31 Uhr, schrieb Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl:
 Here are two examples (warning, large images :).

 Track 14 on Mysteryland 2010 is listed on the cover as:

 track title: Born Again
 artist credits:  RICKY L FEAT. M:CK

 http://www.frob.nl/mb/2011/mysteryland.black.2010.jpg


 Track 1 on BoA  is listed on the cover as:

 track title: I Did It For Love (featuring Sean Garret)
 artist credits:  BoA

 http://www.frob.nl/mb/2011/smusa01.jpg

these are some nice examples!
1. compilation where the artist is credited on every track, and if there  
is a feat. artist it's next to the main artist.
2. a single artist cd, where there is no column for the artist (because of  
obvious reasons). however the feat. artist can't be appended to the artist  
here so it is written in parenthesis AND with smaller fontsize thus making  
it clearly separated from the track title. so beside that i think that we  
should credit/link featured artists properly also on track-lvl i do think  
that in most of these cases the feat. should not be part of the tracktitle  
in most occasions. if the feat. artist is not in parentheses and written  
in the same size/style as the rest of the track i would keep it in the  
tracktitle.


-- 
lorenz pressler
PGP 0x92E9551A

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

[mb-style] RFV-326: Add Artist Type Other

2011-07-18 Thread Johannes Weißl

Hello,

7 days have passed, since there was no veto I submit the RFV.
The proposal is to add a new Artist Type Other.

(Minor) changes since RFC:
All attributes / link phrases etc. should be the same as with type
Unknown.

Wiki page: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Artist_Type_Other
Expiration date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:00 UTC


Johannes

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

2011/7/18 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
 On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Andii Hughes

snip...

 Ok, let's take a step back then.  If the current guideline only
 applies to recordings,
 should I alter this proposal to also just concern recordings and release 
 groups
 (i.e. the bit about moving the feat. part to the artist credit)?

 I think that would avoid any vetoes and allow us to go forward. We can
 argue about tracks in another proposal :)

Done; see the revised version at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists

 Of course, some of the
 questions still apply: is con, that translates as with but is
 sometimes used as feat., to be changed to with? to feat.? :)


I don't really feel qualified to judge on these (the only ones I've
ever seen are 'with' and 'feat.')
and the previous guideline didn't cover them either.

I'd say we need a separate guideline that maps them to either 'feat.'
or '  ' (collaboration)
at recording level.  For the featured artist proposal, the join terms
are mandated as
'feat.' then ', ' and '  ' for multiple featured artists.

FWIW, 'with' sounds more like '  ' than 'feat.' to me.



-- 
Andii :-)

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

Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists