RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
I skimmed some of the emails but in actuality I don't think it would make much difference since I disagree with the general concept altogether. IMO the approach is wrong. Can you point out what in my comments would have been argued by the thread? Cristov (wolfsong) If you had spent a week or more talking about something, and had me come in and with just skimming over something said I don't think so and then explain it to me because my point differs would you be so willing to try and make a concise booklet of not only your thoughts, but several other moderators to clarify the point? To me that is redundant and as well going opposite of what Don laid out as a way to present something. Which was to my understanding Present the idea Listen to, and work through comments Once presented, and seeming mainly acceptable go through testing (the process we are in right now) After that, draw up the wiki and RFV (request for veto) I don't think it's the opposite at all. Seemingly the discussion hasn't stopped simply because it's been implemented on test. Upon that time, the person vetoing (which is you, before the veto phase, but that's okay.) And technically I can't veto yet so I'm commenting. Should do enough research to give a valid argument as to why a VETO should be given. In my opinion, not only are you asking me to present the comments in a short concise form (that are available on the mailing list), but now argue once more why it should be kept instead of you doing the research and drawing up why it shouldn't come into being. This isn't a first, it's beginning to seem more the norm. People that haven't fully read into something, then stating whoa, stop, halt, and I don't like this, but with a grasp of only half of the discussion. (most of which this time has been on the mailing list and easily able to be dug through.) No, I can't go over everything, because I would one more have to go through the mailing list, read everyone's comments and present them to give them their own light since that is only appropriate. I have a trip to prepare for, and while I am willing to give you information I have readily at hand, I am not willing to research something that has already been pretty thoroughly commented on in mailing list. Sorry, perhaps if I didn't have a trip I was preparing for I would be more willing. I really didn't ask you to summarize anything. I asked if you having read my comments and understood that I disagree with the entire concept believe that there is something about the comments of the thread that would change my mind about not liking this at all. If you do then I'll go read the whole thing but based on what I skimmed the comments weren't around does this make sense as a whole. I of course could be very wrong and missed something. Nyght aka Beth. Maybe Joan, mo, Shepard or a handful of others can bring you what you've requested. Hmmm. I'm not really making a request of anyone. If you don't like the color of paint does it matter if someone uses vertical versus horizontal strokes? It won't change your opinion of the color. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
By that very comment Argyle Park is then indeed a project. I would be more than happy to give you more indepth information, since I hadn't yet covered that one. Ummm are you saying the name of the release is Argyle Park? I'm not familiar with this. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
In that case, you completely misread my comment. I said the term project describes the release not the artists. Cristov (wolfsong) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan KestenholzSent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 1:55 AMTo: MusicBrainz style discussionSubject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project well, try google then. http://www.discogs.com/artist/Argyle+Parkand the release http://www.discogs.com/release/257385 On 7/5/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By that very comment Argyle Park is then indeed a project. I would be more than happy to give you more indepth information, since I hadn't yet covered that one.Ummm are you saying the name of the release is Argyle Park? I'm not familiarwith this.Cristov (wolfsong)___ Musicbrainz-style mailing listMusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.orghttp://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: New Artist Type: Project
Perhaps you should reread my email because I have stated the reasons why I do not like the idea. Also, I did not mention artist attributes, I mentioned attributes for groups specifically. Cristov (wolfsong) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan KestenholzSent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:02 AMTo: MusicBrainz style discussionSubject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project Please note that i agree with Beth that thisPre-Veto is a wee bit unfounded. If you disagree with a proposal, you should first throroughly through the mailing list threads (not just skip over them) before participating. This isn't the first time the topic of artist types has come up on the mailing lists, i recall several times it has been discussed. In this stage you should state your reasons why you do not like the idea (not a general dislike) as she suggested, that would be more appropriate. You know more about the inner workings of MB, if a proposal stands, and somebodyrambles a bit about additional development (what: unknown, effort needed: unknown) to suit his perception of the problem better, it won't happen. If you have a better idea (you mentioned attist attributes... what else is the artist type then?) then you should try to outline how this could work, else don't bother. regards, Stefan On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/5/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By that very comment Argyle Park is then indeed a project. I would be more than happy to give you more indepth information, since I hadn't yet covered that one.Ummm are you saying the name of the release is Argyle Park? I'm not familiarwith this.Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
Again, you're not reading what I said "To me, a project is a release by a group of artists; not the artists themselves". What does that haveto do with whether it's "album, official"or it's founders? I'm saying the resulting work is the project. Cristov (wolfsong) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan KestenholzSent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:11 AMTo: MusicBrainz style discussionSubject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project well, its an "album, official" released by a "project" with founder(s) "x", "y"and participants(s) "a", "b", "c" On 7/5/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that case, you completely misread my comment. I said the term project describes the release not the artists. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
I disagree with this entire notion on 2 levels. First, I don't agree with examples and definitions used on the wiki [1]. In particular the first one. While I'm unfamiliar with wumpscut and Cedlldwellar, I don't see how Nine Inch Nails qualifies as a project. Also, there's no such thing as not being allowed to perform someone else's songs. Anyone can perform a song and pay royalties. Also, bands like The Alan Parsons Project had more than one static member but were clearly projects in that different artists were invited to participate on different tracks and releases. Second, from an interface stand point what we have today with Person or Group should remain as is. What people are describing as collaborations and projects are still groups (more than one person) so these terms really are just group descriptors. If we want them then we should have group attributes not new ArtistTypes. It's also a better way to handle solo artist groups like Lightening Seeds and Aphex Twin which are thought of as groups but only have one member. Again, not a project but instead a pseudonym. Cristov (wolfsong) [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistTypeProject ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
After some more thought something else occurs to me. To me, a project is a release by a group of artists; not the artists themselves. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] (album version)
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 05:30:02AM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote: I really don't want *identical* tracks to have different Titles. If the track was *originally* released on an album then the *identical* song on a Single release should have an *identical* title to the original Album release. Adding (album version) makes these songs completely different (when comparing titles, which is what most players Last.fm do). And removing (live) makes players think two completely different versions are the same. Does that not bother you? Players also can't distinguish between Some Title (an album) and Some Title (a single), but we don't change our style guidelines to change this so that people can tag their files easier because that info is stored in the release type. What about when a live track features on an album and a live release? The album will have Some Track (live) but the live release will have Some Track. Those are the same track with two different names too! And I think this is yet another example of a bad guideline that should be dropped since the release type isn't tagged. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] (album version)
It also means putting (live) onto live albums. Do you support adding that to every single track of a live album for consistency? No but if it's listed that way it should not be removed. By the way, we do have the http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameTrackRelationshipType to clarify the identical tracks. See, we can link identical tracks together, so we don't need the name to be the same as we can already store the fact they're identical. This argument is used in other places, so why can't it apply here? It just seems to be a load of whining about My tags! They're not the same! which applies to other things too but those aren't changed to make tagging easier because we simply state MusicBrainz isn't just for tagging. This is dangerous logic. While MB may not be just for tagging, people contribute to MB primarily for tagging purposes. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
Errr I'm not sure if MP3 software really matters. None of what I'm talking about impacts tagging without TaggerScript. AKA ARs would only link to a performance name (the original) and not to each other or back to Real Name ARs. The Alias field should be renamed to something like Spelling Variants or something along those lines. It's function is still absolutely valid. I would say yes to the last one. There are several ways to spin this and all of them use terms (artist intent, what's on the cover, user expectation) I think are vastly abused and overused but in this case I think they are valid. I will however avoid a long explanantion since I'm sure that any interested party would understand what I mean here; if not I'll be happy to explain. :-) Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:48:17 +0100 yeah i saw that but it hurt my head thinking about it :) i'm not so sure that splitting up artists in this way (AKA link or not) is the way to go. on the tagging front, considering that most (?) MP3 software (or people's file structures) operate on an X:\Artist\Release\Song.mp3 heriarchy, unifying artists in the way we do currently is beneficial. eg, the back catalogue of 'A Silver Mt. Zion' would be near impossible to select on iTunes if we listed all AKAs as seperate artists, rather than aliases ( http://musicbrainz.org/showaliases.html?artistid=39340 ). also, what would be the difference between AKAs and performance names? 'Aphex Twin', 'AFX', etc, are performance names of 'Richard D. James' - would there also be AKA links between all these as well? secondly, what would be the correct usage of the alias function, if we had an AKA? for typos? slight varyations? and finally, would this mean we duplicate albums that were released under one name, then repressed once the artist changed their name? cheers, chris / gecks On 24/05/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think a new a.k.a. AR is needed. I actually raised this a few weeks ago with no comment[1]. Cristov (wolfsong) [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-May/002619.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
The problem is were still trapped in linguistic semantics of terms like featuring, and, with, appears, etc. All of these terms imply some sort of cooperative effort. What needs to be decided is do we care what these words individually mean and apply the SG differently to them? Or do we bundle them together and apply a single rule? I for one don't see much point in declaring a guest artis on a single track a collaboration but I would rather we decieded to make this an all or nothing affair or make that portion of the schema change a priority. Frankly this issue has torn at us again and again and simply can not be resolved by discussion. Either we implement a rule that can be applied across the board, beg the development team to give this highest priority or just keep spinning our wheels in endless discussion. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:48:12 +0100 (BST) On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote: http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652 I agree with the 'yes' voters here - the same track can be 'x (feat. y)', 'y (feat. x)', or 'x y', on different releases. eg, a guest artist is typically billed as (feat.) on a release on which their contribution is restricted to 1 track! the single of 'sisters are doin' it for themselves' would bill Aretha higher because in the context of that single she gets a higher billing. however i don't think that should impact the artist attributed to that track in all contexts. I'm glad you brought this up in the mailing list. There is no point in changing who it is credited to according to the release that a work appeared on. The work is identical whether it appears on a Single, Eurythmics an AF album or a VA compilation. The people who receive the royalties are the same in each instance. As I stated previouly on IRC this is an identical situation to the Queen David Bowie release of Under Pressure. On the album in question, in the liner notes it is shown as a duet, on the liner notes of Respect: The Very Best of AF it is also shown as a duet. What is a duet if it is not a collaboration? http://www.annie-lennox.com/sisters2.htm Tina Turner was first choice for the collaboration but she turned the Eurythmics down because the song was apparently too feminist in content. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B02VD3/ ... and a rocking collaboration with Eurythmics, Sisters Are Doin' It for Themselves, that she completely takes over. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89106,00.html Lennox came to the party looking a helluvalot happier than she does in the pictures. She's over her big divorce, which is what the album is about, and she's been touring all over the world. Is there anyone she wants to duet with? (She has one famous hit collaboration, with Aretha Franklin, on Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves.) I don't think so, she said in her heavy brogue. I'm happy singing solo I think. From the Grammy awards: http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1986/grammys.htm BEST RB VOCAL PERFORMANCE BY A DUO OR GROUP - other nominees: Ashford Simpson - Solid Eurythmics Aretha Franklin - Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves Hall Oates, David Ruffin Eddie Kendrick - The Way You Do The Things You Do / My Girl The Pointer Sisters - Contact You'll notice in the Grammys, it wasn't just Eurthymics or Aretha Franklin nominated for the award, it was both! If that doesn't prove it is a collaboration, what does? Steve (inhouseuk) ___ 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] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
No I'd rather have the ability to link multipe artists to a track/release but since doing so involves a fair amount of development some sort of consistency is better than none and proposing we go back to X (feat. Y) will only start a bigger debate (although in the short term it's far more sensible IMO until we can actually link multiple artists). Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:52:11 +0100 On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:19:56AM -0700, Cristov Russell wrote: Yes but the problem is that the Alias field is not solely used for literal aliases; it's also (and possibly more commonly) used for misspellings. That is why I suggest we rename the Alias field and us AR for true aliases. So you'd rather see two artists with slightly different names with half of their albums duplicated? I'd rather see Alex's proposal for stating what the alias is than splitting one artist into more than one artist because they legally couldn't use a particular name in one country. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] omitting major?
I really don't think it has anything to do with flare. Gershwin was an American composer. I mentioned this major/minor thing before in reference to case (ie F for major and f minor) and most everyone disagreed; notably none of them Americans. I studied music theory and composition and probably the reason I thought this was common is it's probably just something American composers adopted in the last few centuries. I've seen this many times in jazz charts and there are many variations including with and without major/minor attached and with different cases (ie F Major/f minor or F major/f minor. It all ends up translating the same to someone who reads music but from a SG perspective I would say we stick to a standard. Artist intent is a misnomer here since the majority of these composers are dead and what's putting on the cover is left to somebody at the label. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nathan Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] omitting major? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:46:09 -0700 (PDT) lol. Well I can certainly understand the drive towards a standard, but I have a problem when our style goes against a vast majority of references to the work. I don't claim to understand Gershwin's intent, but I think he may have been aiming for a title with a ring to it: Concerto in F sounds quite a bit different than Piano Concerto in F major, which is what our style would force. Most of the time it's referenced with the abbreviated version, which I kind of view as a common name: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%22concerto+in+f%22+gershwinsourceid=mozilla-searchstart=0start=0ie=utf-8oe=utf-8client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla:en-US:official Not that I really care too much, but I do think in this case our stylized name would be wrong. Except these esoteric examples, we should always expand imo. -Nate --- Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Screw artist intent, they're dead! (For the most part) I hope you all were able to appreciate my sarcasm, because I think the difference between a purposeful capital F (F) to symbolize F major can easily be rewritten as F major because we are getting the same point across as the artist - and that is that the key is F major. Umm to summarize my wandering thoughts: I think the artist intended it be read as F major if they use a capital F so there's no harm in changing the written form of the title to portray the same intent using MB's guidelines. On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Nathan Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From what I know this usually is only done when space is very limited. Liners rarely ever omit these values, but I have a poster of all classical music that uses this notation, for example (it has the names of maybe 4k works squeezed on it in like 8pt font). I don't think we're that concerned about space. Of course, I think Gershwin's Concerto in F is an exception, because of artist intent. There are others like this too, but very few. Ah, Artist intent... -Nate --- Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/5/25, Jan van Thiel [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 5/25/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people (not only MB users) omit major, and specify only minor. The CSG recommends writing major/minor in lower case, but it doesn't say if major can be omitted. Personally, I'd prefer always specifying it (because there is also the convention where upper case means major and lower case means minor and those who don't know this might misinterpret c and change it to C). What are your opinions? I'd say: let's keep it. Oops, once again my question was not precise enough :-( So here it is: Is major mandatory or optionnal? For the reasons above, my position is: Mandatory Jan, I understand that your position is: Mandatory too. -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- -Aaron
RE: [mb-style] Mutiple-disc Album Titles Utilizing Disc Number tags
Right now, we use the album titling scheme from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DiscNumberStyle. This seems backwards to me, as we won't be able to easily use this Disc Number or Album Subtitle information easily with the tagger as it is stored in a single line with the Album Title. Shouldn't we be storing this information (Album Subtitle and Disc Number) in separate fields so we can easily manipulate it with newer tagging programs? Many audio players, such as amaroK group albums with the same title and separate multiple discs by the Disc Number tag. We can't enter this information because it is part of the Album Title string and would probably be a pain to extract. Anyone agree? I think we should store the Disc Number separately, and group multiple-disc albums together using AR's or some other method. We may be then tempted to write Album Titles in the format Album Title: Album Subtitle but I think that the Album Subtitle should also be in a separate field (if possible). Comments? -- -Aaron Cooper Probably but it may be a while yet. Read the following to understand. http://blog.musicbrainz.org/archives/2006/05/future_directio.html http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/NextGenerationSchema http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ObjectModel -- Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Disc Numbers on Multi Volume sets
Good. (disc x: name) only applies when the disc has it's own name so that's why I asked. ;-) Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Bernard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] Disc Numbers on Multi Volume sets Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:43:30 -0400 Thanks for responding, Cristov. The years are given to volumes, not discs: Volume 1 is 1959-1961, Volume 2 is 1962, Volume 3 is 1963, and Volume 4 is 1964. Even in the first volume the discs aren't titled by year, but just encompass all of the content for the covered years in chronological order. So, if there's no further worries, I'll get to it! -Steve On 5/3/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're almost right but one caveat. If each disc is a different year it should be The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 4 (disc 16: 1964). While it's not given as an example it would fall under http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DiscNumberStyle. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Steve Bernard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: [mb-style] Disc Numbers on Multi Volume sets Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:22:33 -0400 I just received the latest entry in the Complete Motown Singles collection for my birthday (Volume 4, 1964). I'm gearing up to get these DiscIDs and tags and such into MB, and at the same time I want to clean up the data that's already in there. I have a question about the DiscNumberStyle and how it relates to these sets. The record label doesn't reset the disc numbers at the start of each volume, so that Volume 1 was discs 1-6, Volume 2 is 7-10, etc. You can see this listed on the label's official site at http://www.hip-oselect.com/catalogue_motownsingles4.asp and it's also labeled that way on all the discs and in the liner notes. So, my question is whether I should set the disc title for these to, say, The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 4: 1964 (disc 16) etc, or should I do The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 4: 1964 (disc 1)? I would assume the former because that reflects the packaging and the intent of the reissuers, but I guess it could also look confusing if people aren't clued into the way the numbering works. So, if there's any official guidance to be given, I'm happy to hear it. Thanks, -Steve ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] albums and single with the same title
Yet another thing that TaggerScript could probably help with. TaggerScript where are? Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] albums and single with the same title Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:33:30 +0100 nah cos it's only relevant if you own both. same reason we don't append (vinyl) or (japanese release) to titles, even though there's plenty of reasons why you would want to own both. i think it's just one of those things you have to do at your end :) maybe the tagger could be made smart enough to realise when this was going to happen and ask the user if they wanted to add something to distinguish it? On 03/05/06, Brian Gurtler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i think we need a way to differentiate singles form albums with the same name. For example Morphine has an album titled Cure for Pain they also have a single Cure for Pain as well. I have both ripped and tagged but they end up in the same folder. Also if i physically move one of them to another folder they end up in the same album in my music player library anyway because they have the same title information in their tags. what can we do to prevent this from happening? can we add (single) to singles that have the same title as albums? would anyone be opposed to that? ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
We are digging much too deelply here. A composer writes music. A lyricist writes words. If a person does both they should be credited with each AR. Since we already have both, there is no need to add yet another AR. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 14:51:22 +0100 in contemporary music, the name in brackets is the 'written by' credit - you should give all names in brackets that credit, and not specifiy who wrote the lyrics/music/etc, if it is not given. if it's music: xxx, lyrics: yyy, they would be music written by xxx, lyrics written by yyy. for contemporary music, only use 'composed by' when explicitly stated. On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said before, I understand, but what about sleeves where all you get is a name or a couple of names, with no mention of what they precisely did. Usually, you can guess who wrote the lyrics and who did something with the music, but that is about all. Or sometimes, you get something like music: xxx, lyrics: yyy). I can see how yyy should be entered, but what about xxx? 2006/5/2, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand, but there will be times when the user will not be able to choose (because he will not have the info). What do you suggest, then? IMO people shouldn't be adding ARs if they don't have the sleeve or some kind of factual info to go on. as well as being innacurrate it's kinda pointless to add ARs you *think* may be right, no? i can understand people want to link the beatles to these orchestra covers albums (for example) but for that case CoverRelationshipType is available for a more general relationship. as a possibly relevent aside: 'written by' is quite important as credits go, as it has many legal implications. this is why it's important to get 'right' IMO. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
It makes no difference. Think of the arguement the other way. Numerous classical works are later arranged with different instrumentation. That doesn't change anything about the role the composer played in the creation of the piece, it only changes the arrangement. The composition is unchanged, the role the composer played in the pieces creation is unchanged and therefore the credit is unchanged. To put it in modern terms the copyright still holds for the new arrangement. The composer is still the original writer and it can't be copyrighted again by the arrange simply because they changed the instrumentation. I don't see how composer or producer are grey areas and you just said they are specific roles which is a contradiction. Written by is synonymous for composer and or composer/lyricist. It does not imply some new role. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:12:37 +0100 On 02/05/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes composing is a specific roll as I described but how it get's credited as a whole other matter and crediting in no way changes the role. Since All You Need Is Love was written by both McCartney and Lennon, they each should have a composer and lyricst AR associated. Whoever did the arrangement would have an AR for that role. but if you got a credit on a classical covers album saying written by Lennon McCartney, how would you represent it? it's not a composed by credit - they didn't compose that track for an orchestra, the composed it for bass, guitars, drums and vocals. they WROTE the tune, no matter what context it is performed. 'composed by' is only relevent in the original context. I would say your definitions are imprecise as well. There are numerous examples of composers who didn't do any arranging whatsoever. For instance many jazz composer only wrote charts with a melody and rough cord changes. The musicians were expected to arrange on the fly. like i said, there are grey areas, just as there are with most credits (producer would be a prime example!). Also, although I'm not sure if you're implying or thinking it but it's absolutely incorrect to classify composers differently by genre. Just because we tend to call pop composers songwriters doesn't make them any less composers. It's just that terms like written by are more often used on popular genres. absolutely. i have contemporary releases with composed by, and some without. it's a valid role in all genres, it's just so is written by. we can't use composed by for 'music written by' as it simply doesn't work for all circumstances, and is being abused all over the shop. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
My point is if it says writer and no seperate credit is given for lyrics, enter a composer and lyricist AR. There's no need to add a new relationship that means exactly the same thing as existing ones. You acheive the same thing. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:26:18 +0100 On 02/05/06, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you misunderstood. What I meant, is this: you said: if it's music: xxx, lyrics: yyy, they would be music written by xxx But here, you are supposing something. I can understand when you ask for being able to record what is on the sleeve, but written is not on the sleeve in my example, and I believe my example is very frequent. There is no reason to say that written is better than coimposed. And I definitely don't like assumptions. I'd be happier with a third possibility, something meaning I don't know because the sleeve data didn't say. that would be ideal, but a name in brackets would be the writer on a contemporary release - for copyright reasons it's almost always there. what i'm saying is, in contemporary music, 'writer' is the catch-all credit, not 'composer'. by saying 'written by' you can't be wrong. but if an artist is going to put some random name in brackets after their song (who didn't write), then there's not much i can do, though i really think this would be rare, and normally would be obvious if you knew the artist. ___ 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] WriterRelationshipType
Why should we create different ARs that say exactly the same thing because different credits are used across different releases. That's not scalable and AFAIK isn't the point of AR or MB in general. The wiki docs that correspond to the relationship should detail the circumstances and the variations under which a particular AR should be used. Otherwise we just end up creating more and more ARs that have no common denominator. The StyleGuide is meant to clarify the information in the database. Creating new ARs should only be done as a last resort when no options exist. If one exists we should clarify it's usage. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:41:35 +0100 those closer we reflect liners, those more factual and useful the database becomes. i'm tired of discogs shitting on us in this regard :( I agree that we should be entering the credits as they are listed on the liner notes, not what we interpret the credit to be. If its says music written by that's exactly what we should be crediting it as, not guessing that it may mean something else. Same goes for recorded, engineered and every other credit. We spend far too much time argueing over ARs and what they mean. The problem is that not every release uses the sames terminology for the same role. So either we guess (which is wrong) or we create a more flexible AR system that allows credits to be entered exactly as they appear on the liner notes. You could argue that this will mean we will have loads of incorrect ARs, but we have loads of incorrect ARs now, because people are trying to guess when matching the actual liner notes with the limited ARs we have. And we do have a voting system to catch anything that is obviously wrong. oh, and discogs isn't that great itself, I could pick holes in almost every punk release they have listed there :p At least we get new submissions entered without waiting 3 months for someone to vote no on some petty error. Mud ___ 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] WriterRelationshipType
The same thing can be achieved by clarifying what the AR relationships mean. We already consolidate instruments for instance that have multiple common names (i.e English Horn and Cor Angelis). Why do we need multiple relationships to describe the same role? Accuracy is achieved by clarity not by throwing more definitions into the mix. If we correctly identify other examples and terms in the description of the AR, we acheive that clarity. If we have multiple terms people will still have to decypher if they are using the appropriate one. We already have a lot of questions surrounding how to use AR as the AR Philosphy thread points out. So I would say that before we go adding things, we should be clear about what we already have. Another reason for this is internationalization. While English has a glutten of synonyms, do they translate acorss languages? Probably not. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:25:56 +0100 I thought the point was to create an accurate music database. Guessing that a credit for written means the same as composed, or a credit for recorded means the same as engineered is not collecting accurate data. If someone is credited as being an assistant co-producer, I want to see them credited as such, not have the credit changed to whatever we think that may mean. I would rather see multiple ARs which say the same thing, then have what we have now, which is limited ARs which are not accurate. I find it very frustrating to add ARs, especially for production and having no idea what AR I should use as none match the actual credits given. I usually resort to adding info in an annotation, which then makes the whole point of ARs redundant. I disagree that new AR's should be added as a last resort, we should be trying to create some way of expanding ARs and making the data more usable and more accurate, not restricting it. Mud From: Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussionmusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org CC: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 08:51:40 -0700 Why should we create different ARs that say exactly the same thing because different credits are used across different releases. That's not scalable and AFAIK isn't the point of AR or MB in general. The wiki docs that correspond to the relationship should detail the circumstances and the variations under which a particular AR should be used. Otherwise we just end up creating more and more ARs that have no common denominator. The StyleGuide is meant to clarify the information in the database. Creating new ARs should only be done as a last resort when no options exist. If one exists we should clarify it's usage. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:41:35 +0100 those closer we reflect liners, those more factual and useful the database becomes. i'm tired of discogs shitting on us in this regard :( I agree that we should be entering the credits as they are listed on the liner notes, not what we interpret the credit to be. If its says music written by that's exactly what we should be crediting it as, not guessing that it may mean something else. Same goes for recorded, engineered and every other credit. We spend far too much time argueing over ARs and what they mean. The problem is that not every release uses the sames terminology for the same role. So either we guess (which is wrong) or we create a more flexible AR system that allows credits to be entered exactly as they appear on the liner notes. You could argue that this will mean we will have loads of incorrect ARs, but we have loads of incorrect ARs now, because people are trying to guess when matching the actual liner notes with the limited ARs we have. And we do have a voting system to catch anything that is obviously wrong. oh, and discogs isn't that great itself, I could pick holes in almost every punk release they have listed there :p At least we get new submissions entered without waiting 3 months for someone to vote no on some petty error. Mud ___ 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 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http
RE: [mb-style] Another BoxStyleSet-like issue
Did we get to a conclusion on the issue of CDs released individually and as 2-CD releases? I encountered something like that infamous NIN/AATTCHB:Still disc, see [1], but with a twist: while the tracklist is identical, the content is not; one of the discs is remastered. Any new ideas? -- Bogdan Butnaru - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. - O. I don't think there was a consensus but I do think you forgot the link. ;-) Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] language of descriptions for untitled tracks
I'm not too thrilled about the whole concept of adding pseudo-titles, but if we're going to do it it should work like this (imho of course). The reason we're doing it is to give so information on what the track contains (when it doesn't have a title). And this information should be useable for all of the MB population, and should therefore use the official MB language of information; english. //[bnw] Why are we even considering pseudo-titles at all? We already have [1] UntitledTrackStyle which says use [untitled]. If the only reason is to add descriptive information, that can be done in an annotation. Since there aren't two versions we don't need descriptive information like with remixes. The other thing that comes to mind is the only tag that this information would naturally be associated with is Comment not title so again this really should be an annotation. Cristov (wolfsong) [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/UntitledTrackStyle ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] RFC: UntitledTrackStyle
Day Dreamer wrote: I think we should enter this kind of information at whatever is the album language I concur. But if we made this an official guideline, then the rule for [silence], [data track], [untitled] and [unknown] needs to be changed as well to allow other languages. Let's try to make it official: I propose to change UntitledTrackStyle to allow any language, preferring the language the artist would most likely use (which should be equal to the language most fans would expect and - in most cases - the album's language). Comments? derGraph Are you solely proposing changing the above to the language of their release or does this include pseudo-titles? Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
i think a 'co-executive producer' would indicate that there
was more than one executive producer (of whom our man is
either equal to {ie they are also a co-exec prod}, or below
{they are an exec prod)
Yes
executive co-producer would perhaps mean someone with real
production roles (ie a normal co-producer), who also had
some/all executive responsibilities. guess work, though...
i think the main thing is that both terms exist in music, and
if we can't concretely say that they are the same thing, then
not representing the difference is losing data.
Can we find some examples of the second instance. I don't think I've ever
come across it. Someone in both roles is usually credited twice; once as a
producer and once as an executive producer.
Cristov (wolfsong)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Re: Another BoxStyleSet-like issue
Yes, I forgot the link: [1] http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4670791 On 4/28/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did we get to a conclusion on the issue of CDs released individually and as 2-CD releases? I encountered something like that infamous NIN/AATTCHB:Still disc, see [1], but with a twist: while the tracklist is identical, the content is not; one of the discs is remastered. Any new ideas? -- Bogdan Butnaru - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. - O. IMHO if the titles are different, it should be a separate entry in the database and I'm certain there were desenters of this viewpoint. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Bootleg locations
Cristov Russell wrote: If an Italian artist performs in Spain they obviously have Spanish fans so why should a recording by a Spanish, French or English fan arbitrarly use the language of the performer? But I think we both agree that we should use the language the fans would expect, or don't we? derGraph Depends on which fans you mean. I think it should be either be in English as some suggest or in the language of the country of origin (or the language printed on the rest of the disc). Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Bootleg locations
I agree to a point. The problem that arises is the rogue implementation of rules. A style guideline would elleviate that but at the same time deligence from the community can mitigate that. Keep in mind though that a lack of guidelines creates voting wars. At minimum I think it should be documented in the wiki as a proposal so that everyone has some frame of reference to this converstion and the loose consensus. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Brian Gurtler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] Bootleg locations Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:33:34 -0400 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 has deciding which language to use for a bootleg release become much of an issue on MB yet? i know that i previously said that the information should be the same as on the ticket of the event.. but now I'm starting to feel that we shouldn't have a guide saying which language it should be in, just that the constancy of the language is used throughout the 'release' i like what Chris Bransden is saying.. the language of the release will sort itself out via democracy/the system and its users if this becomes a problem in the future perhaps there would need to be a change in the data model to include various languages to a release. - -b Cristov Russell wrote: dj empirical wrote: i think that with bootlegs, what the artist does often has no bearing on anything! :) Eh ... of course not! But that's not the point! However, an artist performing in Italian exclusively will most likely have most fans in Italy, and almost all fans would rather like to see Italian than English script on the cover. derGraph If an Italian artist performs in Spain they obviously have Spanish fans so why should a recording by a Spanish, French or English fan arbitrarly use the language of the performer? Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFETxQ+2YJNWTt8ApARAvJIAJ49TKCWhvkNTXgRBWA2Z5m4wtMvEQCfYS27 J/ZQUyMP0ZY0xJ3FSpHJJ7Y= =jzMf -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
Great. So I would say yes there is a problem with additional executive producer. I still don't understand what was wrong with the original coproducer configuration. There is a possibility that multiple executive producers exist and are labeled co-executive producer. I'll verify tonight if I have any discs like this but I'm pretty sure I've seen it. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:42:59 +0200 Cristov Russell wrote: I'm not sure I'm following this structure. Can you post full examples? Thanks. Implemented on test and created an example for each possible combination: http://test.musicbrainz.org/showrel.html?type=albumid=421276 Any problems with the possible combinations with additional? Simon (Shepard) ___ 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] Bootleg locations
dj empirical wrote: i think that with bootlegs, what the artist does often has no bearing on anything! :) Eh ... of course not! But that's not the point! However, an artist performing in Italian exclusively will most likely have most fans in Italy, and almost all fans would rather like to see Italian than English script on the cover. derGraph If an Italian artist performs in Spain they obviously have Spanish fans so why should a recording by a Spanish, French or English fan arbitrarly use the language of the performer? Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Bootleg locations
I think 'The' should be included, to indicate it's plural and because I like it better. zout (from the Netherlands) -- Jan van Thiel -- Ummm the 's' makes it plural not The. :-) Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] RFC: Instrumental Style
Thomas Tholén wrote: There's no way in hell to get back the information wether those tracks in reality are named Queer and Trip My Wire or Queer (album version) and Trip My Wire (album version). This loses data and makes the database less useful. We're loosing data all the time. And there's no way to avoid all possible loss of data. The developers are doing their best to create new means to store such data, but we simply cannot keep every bit of data. Get along with that. derGraph That is not an argument to loose this particular bit of data. It isn't increasing the file or field name to something unusable and as the developers implement these changes, reentering this data will be an even bigger task which is (I think) Thomas' point. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Instrumental Style
Where would you suggest we put it instead? If it has it's own page it can be grouped appropriately where it applies but perhaps it really should just be part of an existing page. My thinking was that it should be part os ExtraTitleStyle but that page is already split into smaller components so I made new page for consistency. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Instrumental Style Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:55:15 +0100 I don't understand why we need a whole guideline to say that. --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
Re: [mb-style] Clarification of instrumental track info
That was probably my fault. I think I said artist intent when what I was really trying to say was what's on the cover and just didn't have a better shorter phrase. It probably was read literally (not unjustly) and therefore led to this back and forth. Do we have a phrase that better describes what's printed on the cover? I totally agree that artist intent is entirely different (and something that will never be truly decided upon). Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [mb-style] Clarification of instrumental track info Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:33:56 +0200 On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:26:03 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote: Second point: My argument stems from the fact that Simon/Shepard suggested if 'instrumental' is written on the cover, it's artist intent, so it trumps most guidelines. He didn't really say that clearly, but the mighty word artist intent did appear there, and I can't see any other interpretation. My argument is just an answer to that. We can base our guesses of artist intent on the cover (lacking anything better), but we have to take care on how exactly we interpret the cover, and even when we do, we might be wrong. The point that I was trying to make (and I forgot to, really), is that artist intent sounds very important, but the cover doesn't reliably imply artist intent, so we shouldn't resort to it, and try to figureout our own rules. Ah that sounds different. To be very precise: I completely disagree with the statement that what's on the cover is artist intent. And I thought we had been over this. Artist Intent and What's on the cover are two very different concepts. Just think of a cover on which the designer/marketer/whatever did something differently than the artis would have wanted it to be. I do not think it is fair to resort to Artist Intent for the question of instrumental. I would see a point if people would argue with Consistent Data, however. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ 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] Clarification of instrumental track info
Okay I have a huge issue when artist intent is argued this way. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that because a different font was used it is or is not artist intent. All that we know with absolute certainty is that it does appear on the cover (regardless of whether the artist intended for it to be there and part of the title). Unless you have proof from the artist saying they intended whatever it's pointless to declare artist intent. Let's stick to objective data. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [mb-style] Clarification of instrumental track info Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:03:19 +0300 On 4/19/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: one could argue that, following the style principles [2], artist intent overrules this - since it is not even a strong guideline. And I'm very much for seeing (instrumental) as artist intent as it can clearify the general intended concept of the artists in a tracklisting. [...] Oh yes, it is written in a smaller font! We should of course only keep it if it's written in the exact same font as the track title. ;) [2] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/StylePrinciple My oppinion: Well, if it appears on the cover it's clearly artist intent (it was the artist's intent to appear on the cover), but if it's in a different font it's not part of the track's title (it wasn't the artist's intent for the instrumental note to be part of the track's title). Looking at your link [3], track 8's title does have a part in paranthese that is in the same font, thus we have reason to believe it's part of the title. [3] http://193.138.231.156/~cover/?fCall=ShowImagevId=130399vType=Back By my understanding, artist intent is relevant when it conflicts with one of our rules(*). Here we have rules saying the Track name field of the database contains the song's name and sometimes a few other bits of info. Artist intent in this case is about the track listing (positioning) on the cover, which is not relevant to us and our fields. A conflict would be when we, for example, spell or capitalize the song titles differently than the author would do; in that case, there would be a common concept for the conflict, the song title. In the case here, there is no conflict, because there is no common concept: database fields and cover positioning are different concepts. The artist's intent is not relevant to the positioning of data in the fields, but only to what that data is (in this case, a title and a piece of ExtraInfo). (*) read guideline :) -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] RFC: Instrumental Style
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Cristov Russell wrote: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/InstrumentalStyle Looks good to me. I honestly thought there was already a styleguide covering this. But, obviously it was one of those 'unwritten' rules. Steve (inhouseuk) I don't think you imagined this. I'm almost positive it was there too and I'm guessing it was lost in the last SG update last year. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Clarification of instrumental track info
There's a good place to start. What is the arguement for it not to appear in the title? Was it not listed this way on the release? Does it significantly increase the length of the title? Is it a personal preference? There are a lot of things that we can move to annotation and I'm guessing that in many cases, it comes down to a personal preference of how we want data to appear. I think we're better off investing in things like the new data schema and UI that will have long term benefits to MB. Keep in mind that moving things to annotations means that it is lost to other users to tag and it's probably easier for an individual to remove data from their tags manually than it is to find and add data that isn't there. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [mb-style] Clarification of instrumental track info Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:03:28 +0100 i dunno, in my experience an artist would only use 'instrumental' if the intent intially was to have it with vocals, and it didn't work out, for whatever reason. perhaps no vocal'd version exists now, but maybe they only do it live, or maybe it will be released in the future? also, i suppose this kind of info can be contextually relevent if it shows that this track is the only one on the release without vocals. personally i'd prefer to keep it but i suppose the same could be said for other things we get rid of (but then i reckon we should keep those to :P) On 18/04/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/18/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO instrumental info is always contextually relevant, so shouldn't be moved to the annotation. ie, instrumental implies that 'normal' versions of this song are not instrumental, so we need to keep it. i think that the intent for the guideline is to remove info that isn't used to distinguish audibly different versions of tracks (eg 'bonus track'). Exactly. But such a note is very often present on track-listings, even when there is no other version with voice. For example tracks on http://musicbrainz.org/album/f2e7bfa8-35b4-44ea-b21f-243c18571ada.html have only instrumental versions, though in the database we sometimes have and sometimes don't have that info http://193.138.231.156/~cover/Archiv/Cover/Audio-CD/R/Back/197446.jpg http://193.138.231.156/~cover/Archiv/Cover/Audio-CD/R/Back/195807.jpg http://193.138.231.156/~cover/Archiv/Cover/Audio-CD/R/Back/186840.jpg Other examples where the only version is instrumental, so the note should be removed: http://193.138.231.156/~cover/Archiv/Cover/Audio-CD/M/Back/5410.jpg (song Orion), http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4347552 Examples where it should be kept: - Version info: http://musicbrainz.org/album/01d50d9e-bb39-4ddf-a64d-41cf17dd2071.html (track 16) - Part of the title (lots, do a search). On 18/04/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I'd like to see a clarification of the status of (instrumental) notes on tracks. By my reading of the rules, this note is (usually) not versioning info, and should go in the album annotation instead of the track's title (except, of course, when there is another version that does have vocals). Please confirm if I am right about this, and add a _very_ clear note to an official part of the wiki _specifically_ mentioning the word instrumental; everytime I try to move such notes I get no-votes and the only argument I can give is a not-very-clearly-worded fragment of an not-very-official guideline (the last two lines of the http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ExtraTitleInformationStyle page, in the 'discussion' section). If I'm not right, please explain why. -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself. – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ 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] Clarification of instrumental track info
Is it printed on the case? Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: dj empirical [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [mb-style] Clarification of instrumental track info Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:50:42 -0400 On 4/18/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's a good place to start. What is the arguement for it not to appear in the title? in my mind, in a case like Orion (instrumental) [1], the instrumental is just to bring attention to the fact that it's an instrumental on an album which otherwise only has tracks with vocals. it's not a part of the song title and there were never vocals recorded or planned for it. [1] http://musicbrainz.org/album/fed37cfc-2a6d-4569-9ac0-501a7c7598eb.html Obviously, though, instrumental versions of songs which otherwise have vocals should be labeled as such. -- --dj empirical-- - http://www.myspace.com/djempirical hey, look what i wrote: http://i-see-sound.com/?q=author/15 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] [RFV] MySpace AR request
Beth wrote: With MySpace's growing popularity. There are some artists now using it in conjunction with their official websites, and even some using it as their website. Therefore I felt it might be another AR we include for linking. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MySpaceRelationshipType I borrowed the Discogs page for the template, and made the small changes to it for Myspace. What do you think? I think this AR type proposal is quite obvious and can be fast-tracked. Anyone against adding it? While I'm not against this, I do have a concern about the validity of artist pages on MySpace. Anyone can create a page for an artist and do whatever they want; there's no way to prove the artist is involved at all. Since we use links for all kinds of proof, I would at least suggest a caveat that data from MySpace is unconfirmed and should not be used as evidence of artist intent etc. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] [RFV] MySpace AR request
2006/4/15, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: While I'm not against this, I do have a concern about the validity of artist pages on MySpace. Anyone can create a page for an artist and do whatever they want; there's no way to prove the artist is involved at all. Since we use links for all kinds of proof, I would at least suggest a caveat that data from MySpace is unconfirmed and should not be used as evidence of artist intent etc. Cristov (wolfsong) This would be inherent to the MySpaceRelationshipType. Actually, IMO, this is one of the good points in creating a special RelationshipType for links to this web site. -- Frederic Da Vitoria Inherent how? Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] [RFV] MySpace AR request
i'm all for this AR type. it's fairly easy to tell which myspace band pages are official and which are not... this is where voting will come in no? if someone think it's not official than they can vote no. How? Which one of the Lance Bass pages is official? Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] [RFV] MySpace AR request
Try Find a Friend http://search.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=findMyToken=4ca932e4-b710-45 a6-901b-79ce3a33193c Cristov [EMAIL PROTECTED] The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. Cornelius Tacitus -Original Message- From: Brian Gurtler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 2:09 PM To: Cristov Russell Cc: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' Subject: Re: [mb-style] [RFV] MySpace AR request searching for Lance Bass.. no results match your request Cristov Russell wrote: i'm all for this AR type. it's fairly easy to tell which myspace band pages are official and which are not... this is where voting will come in no? if someone think it's not official than they can vote no. How? Which one of the Lance Bass pages is official? Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
I agree that the layout should be the same and that the variations should be
attributes.
Cristov (wolfsong)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:59:42 +0100
hmm. i see - so these would all be check boxes? it seems to me the
format of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ProducerRelationshipType and
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType (of which I
emulated) should be very similar.
I think they should either both have one primary (producer / engineer)
multiple attributes (co-producer, executive producer, additional /
audio, sound, live sound, mixed...), or just multiple seperate roles
on the same wikipage (as per
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType is now). The
latter makes more sense to me. it doesn't seem right to have the 2
being different in their layout, yeah?
On 12/04/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:50:21 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
responded. anyone else? i'm requesting a veto now, as i think this one
is really good to go.
Did I get this right, that both {co-} and {executive} are attributes? If
so they should be listed in the attribute sections just for formal
correctness.
This is not a veto. I am for this.
DonRedman
--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation
around! :-)
___
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
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] BoxSetNameStyle
Will UPC codes be a part of that as well? Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: RE: [mb-style] BoxSetNameStyle Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:22:46 +0200 You can start thinking about things if we had label, catno support, because that's the next thing I hope we'll add to the server. Currently we are cleaning up the code, and after that, we'll implement the things that were on the plate for quite some time (artistpageredesign, label/catno, advancedentities) :) regards, g0llum i suppose we should be giving people to tag things the way they want, but without cat#/label support, i don't see the logic. ___ 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] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
I've added comments to the wiki. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:07:44 +0100 i gave this a go - http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ProducerRelationshipType 1) thoughts? 2) consensus? 3) implementation? 4) ? 5) profit? :) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] BoxSetNameStyle
are we getting anywhere with this one? as far as i know no guidelines (either new or amendments to BoxSetNameStyle) have come of it, and the problem is still as it was before. I actually don't see it as a problem. Having the duplicates in the database until we can change the schema of the database makes sense. i still maintain my position that we currently index by tracklist, not product. If that were the case, we wouldn't have allowed the numerous duplicates already in the database. until label/cat# support appears, i don't see the logic in creating seperate entries for boxset/bonus releases of the same album. We do capture this in annotations now. While I agree it's not that useful in it's current form. this IMO is consistant with the current BoxSetNameStyle, and just the general 'feel' of the db. I don't see that as an argument to do away with the duplicate entries, only the method in which to name the discs. We made a change to the database a while back to explicitly allow for some of these duplicates. and it's my personal opinion that i'd much rather tag by the 'master' release, rather than give it an overlong irrelevant title, just because it was a freebie with something else. i think i'd even go as far as giving the proper title for albums packaged together on the same disc, depending on what track was currently being tagged, but that's a whole new kettle of fish :) I completely disagree with the idea of a master release. I won't re-list the numerous examples of why these duplicates are necessary since they have already been posted and I'm sure you've read them all but I will say that if a duplicate disc of the same tracklist appears in a subsequent release that has it's own title, catalog and release date, it is a unique release. maybe this issue has no chance of reaching consensus anyway :) I'm clearly on the opposing side of your argument and since I don't see how a small amount of duplication hurts the database and how merging such data will lead to lost data, I will continue to be so. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Contextual information in track title
2006/4/9, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2006/4/8, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Therefore, the tag would show the annotation in perhaps the comment box on whatever supported format the user utilized for their music library. The tagger should show information the way the user wants the information displayed. How it appears in the database should be irrelevant. Do we have a timeline for TaggerScript yet? You mean that the tagger should be able to apply user-defined formatting to the database data? This would of course make everyone happy. -- Frederic Da Vitoria Absolutely. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/TaggerScript?highlight=%28tagger%29 Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Contextual information in track title
About mod 4578355, The original title was: Canitque de Jean Racine From the Film Babe, clearly wrong since From the Film Babe is not really part of the title. After asking advice in the IRC, Nyght added a mod to change it to Canitque de Jean Racine (from Babe). I would have rather used Canitque de Jean Racine (from film Babe), because what Babe actually is (film, tv series, opera, whatever) is not clear in the proposed mod. Agreed -- Cristov (wolfsong) A man who dares to waste an hour of time has not discovered the value of life. Charles Darwin ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
No. Following that logic, every ripped format (mp3, wav, flac, aac, mp4, ogg, etc.) that was not released via an artist or their label is a Bootleg. The original media source should be the determinate of what is Official or Bootleg. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Brian Gurtler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:06:30 -0400 Beth wrote: My thoughts... Q1. Which DVDs to add? A1. All DVD musical rips. Arguments: it was argued MB was a music database. Music DVD's are based on music and bands. That in itself seems to be a good reason to add them. If MB is supposed to be an archive of band's music at least.) once you separate the video from the audio you are left with a homemade audio release which isn't any different than a bootleg. if it was official audio, there would be an official audio release of the same audio put out by the band. example.. the Dave Matthews Band Live in Central Park CDs and DVDs are official. if i took the audio from the DVD to make a CD.. whats official about that? nothing. it's an act unsanctioned by the band. If there was no audio release of a DVD put out by a band, than you have to create the audio yourself. That audio is a bootleg. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Pieces with two names (in two languages)
To the first question I would say yes; put the French name in parens. To the second question no; genre information is not stored in MB. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ari Torhamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [mb-style] Pieces with two names (in two languages) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:08:28 +0300 Hi, I'm new to MusicBrainz and have a question about naming. I couldn't find the anwser from the Style Guidelines. On the CD in question most titles of individual pieces have their names in two languages. They are presented like this: 1. PARIISIN TAIVAAN ALLA -SOUS LE CIEL DE PARIS- ...and so on. Is there a naming convention for this situation? Shall I put the French name in parenthesis directly after the Finnish name? One more question. I'm going to do the submittion from the Soundjuicer in Gnome and there's a field called Genre there for each album. I'd guess that what I put there will not go to the MusicBrainz database, but I thought to ask just to be sure. Thanks :-) Ari ___ 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] LiveTrackStyle
No the downside is that the information wouldn't be available at all for tagging if it's in an annotation. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: RE: [mb-style] LiveTrackStyle Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:07:06 +0200 What about implementing annotations on the track level (NATs first, but why not for other tracks as well)? I think this would be a more elegant solution to the problem where to put location, dates (or generally: categorization) of NATs. The downside is, that this information would not be easily available for tagging. g0llum nah, i think we need every scrap of info available, because there's no other place to store it for NAT's. info that doesn't neccesarily seem relevant at the time of entry, might be at a later date, when the artist's NAT section is more comprehensive. ___ 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] LiveTrackStyle
You stated that it wasn't easily available for tagging. I'm simply pointing out that is in fact not available at all for tagging. Personally, I don't think MB is anywhere near being a music encyclopedia with the current schema and UI issues so I am very focused on tagable data. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],'MusicBrainz style discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [mb-style] LiveTrackStyle Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:23:17 +0200 So what? We could agree on a minimal set of information to be added to the track name field in the database. But all this bloated information is too much, imho. The question is: Do we collect this information for the tagging, or the music encyclopedia aspect of the database?! No the downside is that the information wouldn't be available at all for tagging if it's in an annotation. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] LiveTrackStyle
I agree. The live category can not be tagged. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Björn Krombholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [mb-style] LiveTrackStyle Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:47:30 +0200 On 4/3/06, Brian Gurtler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: trackname (live) should not appear on any track on any live album. the album that the track resides on tells us that it's live. Btw, why not? (live) is title information like a mix name. It makes a lot of sense to add this even to live albums IMO. Creating a special case for live albums would be just another exceptional guideline, that makes things more complicated than they could be. #Fuchs ___ 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] LiveTrackStyle
Any idea when TaggerScript will make it's debut?
And I also like the idea of using the mini track annotations for titled parts
UNTIL we have a schema that supports their seperate entry.
Cristov (wolfsong)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [mb-style] LiveTrackStyle
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:04:12 +0200
derGraph wrote:
I like Chris' idea of copying he annotation data into the comment tag.
However, this doesn't seem to be possible, since the annotations are
multi-line text which allow wiki markup. However, we might add a
single-line text field, some kind of mini-annotation, where only a
limited set of information should be stored. Of course, we'd need to
insert another Picard option to replace / append / leave the comment
fields ('append' might be impossible to implement, though), since some
users might want to leave their comment tags as they are.
Yet another option? :) No, tagger script should do exactly that. But well, I
guess development talk about this can wait until we (if ever) actually have
track annotations.
And when I asked for annotations to be included in the webservice I was told
they're not useful there...
I like the idea of mini annotations. This would be the perfect place for
titled parts of songs, because they are often too long to be added to the track
title (example:
http://musicbrainz.org/album/63ae8f9b-af38-4a41-a1fd-e2b26c55ac4e.html).
Simon (Shepard)
___
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] Co-ProducerRelationshipType
Don Redman wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:30:45 +0100, Chris Bransden wrote:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Co-ProducerRelationshipType
http://test.musicbrainz.org/trac/ticket/1173
not sure what else i have to do, so let me know :) think it's a
relatively straightforward add.
Well, what about this one?
Wolfsong seemed to disagree on this one (see his comment on
the wiki).
any comments anyone? Do we need this? Could this not be
done with an
attribute like in:
artist {co-}produced album or track
DonRedman
This could be done by checking the additional marker.
Example: Ralf Hildenbeutel[1] additionally produced
Accident in Paradise [2]
Schika
[1] http://musicbrainz.org/showartist.html?artistid=8062
[2] http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=436618
That I disagree with. Coproduction implies that people worked together while
additional production implies that someone added to but did not collaborate
with the original production. This happens frequently on remixes and
occasionally where a producer is fired but they use his original work
instead of starting over or they want to avoid a legal spat.
I think the (co-) and (executive) attributes would be better.
Cristov (wolfsong)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] change 'Recording Engineer' to 'Recorded By'
On 26/03/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simplifying is good, but not when it could be misinterpreted. To a native English speaker Recorded By has various meanings in the context of musical works. The situation is far worse for non-native speakers, where they might need to refer to a dictionary. On the contrary the non-native speakers do not seem to have a problem with this :-) What phrase would you use? I would either leave it as it is, or use 'Engineered' engineered by could be an entirely different role. 'recorded by' does not neccesarily mean any engineering involvement. it is sometimes synonymous with 'producer', with all that that entails. we definitley need engineer, recorded by, and producer to be seperate roles. I disagree. The person who handles the sound board is the engineer recording the tracks. They are the same thing. While a producer might well be manning the board there isn't someone recording and someone else engineering. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RE: [mb-automods] Two issues here
2) Also IMHO, approving moderation with pending Nos should be a) disabled b) anyway avoided by any automod. Ciao MArco (ClutchEr2) I would say this falls under CodeOfConduct [1]. I don't think it should be disabled but some self restraint by automods should be applied. I'll update the doc this evening unless someone else tackles it beforehand. -- Cristov [EMAIL PROTECTED] All great truths begin as blasphemies. George Bernard Shaw [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CodeOfConduct?highlight=%28codeofconduct%29http: //wiki.musicbrainz.org/CodeOfConduct?highlight=%28codeofconduct%29 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Two issues here
1) Do CSG override cover art? IMHO cover art and liner notes are overridden so much that when is really needed it has to be. 2 and 8 what? No.? Op.? [catalog]? I've never been in agreement that cover art should *globally* be considered evidence of artist intent and in classical music I think there is more argument for having and SG than any other genre. That said, I think it's probably best to update the SG to be clear about plurals and we have several options as to what that looks like. We can drop No. and not abbreviate Op., use Nos., only use No. when referring to single symphonies and the list goes on. -- Cristov [EMAIL PROTECTED] All great truths begin as blasphemies. George Bernard Shaw ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)
LOL yes, give the position to someone that has no spine and will back down at any argument presented to them. you know that i'm only confrontational when confronted.. and i believe most people that don't have thier head in the coulds on IRC realize that as well. -Brian btw-- what exactly ARE the qualifications for the position? Technically since you're attacking DonRedman with this email you are being confrontational now and he hasn't confronted you. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: Call for StyleSecretary Help: Let's try discussing/deciding thisin IRC (was [mb-style] add instrument request: vacuum cleaner)
I've been waiting over 3 months for an instrument to be added to MB and jumped through way too many bullshit hoops to get to where we are now. i'm just looking for it to be added without any further hoops like i was told by Redman that it would be once Mos thingy went live. It's been live for over two weeks and still no vacuum. the email is hardly confrontational, i'm requesting someone follow up on their word. While your previous email asking for follow up (quite understandably) might be the case, this thread comes across clearly is an attack on DonRedman. You can't call someone spineless and expect that to not be considered confrontational. -- Cristov (wolfsong) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Re: Re: Instrument/vocal member of on TEST
I agree with earlier comments that we don't need to duplicate the artist
information here. Other than that, I prefer the second option.
Cristov (wolfsong)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: ZaphodBeeblebrox formerly known as mo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: [mb-style] Re: Re: Instrument/vocal member of on TEST
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:54:24 +0100
as this has been in limbo for a whole week I now ask for additional input and
veto:
we currently have
[artist] is/was a{additional:n additional} {instrument} performing member of
[artist]
[artist] has/had {instrument} performing member [artist]
[artist] is/was a{additional:n additional} {vocal} vocal performing member of
[artist]
[artist] has/had {additional} {vocal} vocal performing member [artist]
-- OR--
[artist] performed {instrument} as member of [artist]
(no reverse link phrase?)
[artist] performed {vocal} as member of [artist]
(no reverse link phrase?)
(g0llum could you come up with a reverse phrase please?)
personally I'm fine with either. as long as it is implemented.
as for the actual *work* of implementing it, I am fine with doing this task.
~mo
___
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] What does primary artist really mean?
Without a definition what are you ordering. Also, this isn't a question of general use but one of style since it impacts FeaturedArtist and a number of other sytle related issues. Cristov (wolfsong) --- Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:52:25 + To: General discussions about MusicBrainz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [mb-users] Re: [mb-style] What does primary artist really mean? ah but that's exactly my point - you can't define it. the music industry doesn't define it, and as an index of the music industries product, we can't define it either. all we can is represent it in an ordered manner. On 28/02/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your entire comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said and it we're talking about what constitutes a primary versus secondary performer, level of contribution does matter. If doesn't then the word choice is entirely inappropriate. For something to be primary it has to be greater then something else. So what that something is should be defined be contribution, popularity, sequencing or whatever. Cristov (wolfsong) ___ MusicBrainz-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] chorus master / orchestra types
Don Redman wrote: I do not think I understood the first one, and the second one seems absolutely obvious to me. IIRC it was even proposed before. I don't know, maybe it's just a problem of my English and I just don't know what exactly chorus master is. But I think chorus master == choir conductor, so it makes no sense to me to say that Artist performed chorus master on Album or Artist performed choir conductor on Album. Your English is perfectly fine; it doesn't make since and as far as I know the chorus master is the conductor. -- Cristov (wolfsong) Behind every great fortune there is a crime. Honore de Balzac ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] DVD in album titles
Brian Gurtler wrote: no, it would not leave the entire database as bootleg. it would make the live concert DVD rips bootlegs where the source is the DVD (aka DSBD as far as live recording sources are labled outside of MB). Please expand on this, because it makes no sense to me how ripping out audio of a concert DVD is anything but a bootleg. It doesn't make much sense to me why it would be bootleg. I buy a CD, put it in my computer, open a ripping program, hit go, and have a bunch of wav files that I can encode to whatever. I buy a live DVD, put it in my computer, open a ripping program, hit go, and have a bunch of wav files that I can encode to whatever. There's no difference in process between the two for me other than using EAC for CD ripping and DVD Decrypter for DVD ripping, so it's hard to see why when I rip a CD it would be official but when I rip a DVD it would be bootleg. I suspect other people that rip the audio from their live DVDs feel the same way. Exactly. -- Cristov (wolfsong) A pessimist thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it. George Bernard Shaw ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] DVD in album titles
Jan van Thiel wrote: Another question is: what DVDs do we allow to be added? Audio DVD for certain, but what about video DVD rips and the like? -- Jan van Thiel live DVD rips (IMO) should be added as live/bootleg and follow the live/bootleg naming scheme. -b. The source of the audio is still official so it should not be bootleg. If we follow that argument the entire database should be bootlegged. -- Cristov (wolfsong) Knowledge is power. Thomas Hobbes ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Promo releases
A lot of material marked as promotional are simply pre-release copies intended for retail and radio play prior to release and there is no difference at all between it the actual release. Other items such as mailer and instore copies should be considered Promotional since they are only available through a specific source and are not the same as the Official release. -- Cristov (wolfsong) The Truth is realized in an instant; the Act is practiced step by step. Zen saying ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] SG5DR ClassicalStyleGuide Change Proposal
Since SG5DR has been implemented, I think it would be a good time to change ClassicalStyleGuide to represent the implemented changes I was thinking about it since the very start. I somehow agree but I'm was waiting in opening a discussion on the matter to full understand SG5DR and see the impact on MB. Great, I hadn't until nechto13 mentioned it on IRC. We talked through it and I asked him to post it to the mailing list to get the discussion stated. I also think this makes sense. which means that style guide would say that while the track artist should still be attributed to composers the artist of an album itself should be the performer under which it was released. I will surely support this for the typical VA entries performed by a single (big) performer. About forcing a global moving such as all Beethoven entries I'm a little more conservative because it could be difficult to chose wich main performer deservers the Album: the Orchestra, the conductor, the soloist? I think for releases of works by a single composer the artist should be Orchestra (conductor: Artist) with Soloist only at the album level if they perform on all tracks using the existing style rules for formatting with one small adjustment. I would suggest we drop feat. from the formatting (see above). In pop listings it would be strange to not have it but the role really achieves the same function for classical releases. I would like to see the change to ClassialStyleGuide unless someone has some sort of objections, which need to be addressed in the process. Since officially I'm still the man, please just allow a couple of days for discussions and than I'll try the edit. Ciao MArco / ClutchEr2 -- Cristov (wolfsong) You're driving a car; it isn't a telephone booth, a beauty parlor or a restaurant. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] vocal type should be optional
Cristov Russell wrote: Remove Lead since it's what people seem to have the most trouble with and it's rarely used in credits. Background would stay since many performers are actually credited as such. Also add beat boxed, rapped/rhymed, hummed, spoke and change the vocal verbiage to Sang vocal. I like how people in this mailing list always want to do things more complicated than they are ;) Removing Lead is quite problematic as there are *many* relationships that use it + we'd need to restructure the vocal type tree and this task can't be done using link editor. So it'd take some time. On the other hand, we can simply change 1- to 0- for vocal type attribute (what is a matter of minute). This allows us to use vocal instead of lead vocal, when lead vocal is not appropriate. Of course then again there is an even easier option. Leave things just the way they are. If we're going to fix something I see no point in only addressing a portion of the problem. We've had this problem for well over a year now. We can either fix and get it right or let it be what is but pacification isn't a solution it's only a band aid and as with many things here, things that just get patched have a way of rearing their heads again. -- Cristov (wolfsong) Every time you lick a stamp, you're consuming 1/10 of a calorie. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] redundant ExtraTitleInformation
Hi, I feel that 'album version', 'edit', 'original', etc. are all remix/version names (don't have a good name for this, please think of one so I can add it to a new guideline proposal), comparable to 'Some Crazy DJ mix'. Consider the following two releases: single: 1. Some Song 2. Some Song (album version) 3. Some Song (Some Crazy DJ mix) album: 1. Some Song ... 12. Some Song (single edit) ... Why should we remove 'album version' on the single, but not 'single edit' on the album? I consider them to be remix/version names that just do not have a given name like 'Some Crazy DJ mix'. And in the context of the release, 'album version' is not redundant at all. And if it's written on the sleeve, it should be in the database. It's just unavoidable to have different names for the same track on different releases. In my opinion. Jan (zout) I tend to agree. Although I would discourage any guideline that says as printed on the cover because people far too often take such things as gospel, I do feel that there is not a good argument to remove or drop the information. To expand the argument further. We do the same thing with AlbumTitle. It's more than a little confusing and frustrating to see 5 versions of the same release in the database with the exact same title when in some case they do have an extended title such as Deluxe Edition. I would propose we allow this information to remain and be included in square brackets. For example Josh Groban's Closer http://www.joshgroban.com/store/music_video.html Closer Closer [Limited Edition] Closer [Internet-Only Fan Edition] The styleguide should say that the original release [Regular Edition] should not be notated. In this case, it was most likely done for clarification but was not on the CD packaging. It should also say that the most verifiably documented edition name should be used where the release is otherwise identical. One final scenario is Musicals and Soundtrack titles. While we agreed at some point that Musicals with multiple recordings (London Cast, Broadway Cast, Original Cast, etc.) should retain that information, I again feel that there is no argument to remove it all. For example, the title printed on the first Moulin Rouge soundtrack is Music from Baz Luhrmann's Film Moulin Rouge! instead we have http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=41224. This is a good example because technically this release isn't a true soundtrack. Some of the tracks appear in the film while others are studio recordings. The subsequent release, Moulin Rouge 2 (yes that's what it's called) has some of versions used in the film. Both should be categorized as Soundtracks but in many case Music from the film implies that there are different, additional or missing recordings on the release. Cristov (wolfsong) This time it will be a long one. Final words of Georges Clemenceau, French premier, d. 1929 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
