Re: [mb-style] RFC: Artist 'is managed by' AR
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 2:14 am, Steve Wyles wrote: > I feel this is moving into the 'legalities' of the music business rather > than just recording information about the music or artists. That was my initial thought too but you could argue the same point about the 'was involved with' and 'has spouse' ARs. > It wouldn't be good to have out of date information I don't understand this objection, relationships change all the time that's why we have start and end times for them. Matt Howe (mdhowe) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC: Artist 'is managed by' AR
Pretty simple, most artists have a manager and we can't currently represent this in MB. It should be a link between a person and an artist/group. I'm not sure what else to say. any opinions on this? Now that I think about it, aren't some artists managed by a company? I'm not really sure how a company can be represented in MB. Anyway... Cheers, Matt Howe ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: RFC: BonusDisc ammendment (was: Re: [mb-style] x (disc 1) &x(disc 2), vs x & x (bonus disc) / version info for special releases)
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 8:42 pm, Lauri Watts wrote: > On 9/20/06, Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know why you > > dislike Chris and I couldn't care less, the point is that your personal > > like/dislike of people should have no bearing on how you judge their > > suggestions/proposals. > > I don't even know Chris, and have no opinion on him personally. > _This_ is how stupid arguments start. > > Your apology for assuming facts not in evidence, accepted in advance. > > Regards, Fair enough, I apologise if I misread the situation. You still haven't addressed the main issue though, namely, your putting words in peoples mouths: Chris Bransden said: >"Also note that the ReleaseAttribute for a Bonus Disc will normally not >be 'album', unlike the primary release. On Wednesday 20 September 2006 3:37 pm, Lauri Watts wrote: > I never said that almost all bonus discs are albums. All I wanted to > say was "bonus discs are never albums" is not a fair statement either. > Nobody said they aren't (more) often live or compilations. That _is_ a fact in evidence, do you care to address it? Cheers ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: RFC: BonusDisc ammendment (was: Re: [mb-style] x (disc 1) & x(disc 2), vs x & x (bonus disc) / version info for special releases)
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 3:37 pm, Lauri Watts wrote: > > off-topic. But I just didn't think that "almost all bonus discs are > > Albums" was a fair statement. In fact, I would (and am) argue that > > I never said that almost all bonus discs are albums. All I wanted to > say was "bonus discs are never albums" is not a fair statement either. > Nobody said they aren't (more) often live or compilations. This is how stupid arguments occur on this mailing list. Chris' ammendment never said "bonus discs are never albums", see for yourself: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BonusDisc?action=diff&rev2=6&rev1=5 "Also note that the ReleaseAttribute for a Bonus Disc will normally not be 'album', unlike the primary release." I personally have seen dozens of bonus disc's and there is only 1 that I would consider even close to being an album: http://musicbrainz.org/release/e299757e-d320-471c-88f6-b8b946a13e04.html All tracks are previously unreleased. That said, I don't believe that it is impossible for a bonus disc to be an album and I haven't heard anyone else here say that. I don't know why you dislike Chris and I couldn't care less, the point is that your personal like/dislike of people should have no bearing on how you judge their suggestions/proposals. Cheers, Matt Howe (mdhowe) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Torrents as Releases (Was: Billboard's "topwhatever")
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 2:28 pm, you wrote: > I feel that the difference between the ones above and the Billboard > ones are the source... Billboard is recognizable as an industry > standard/measure on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis... who decides > what's the Top 150 or Top 200 in the ones you list above? I think > popular also has to be weighed against source as well. Reputability could be a separate requirement, but the popularity of a torrent has nothing to do with the source. Popularity could only be based on how many seeders and leechers there are for a particular torrent. Another issue I have is that I can't see any particular reason why you would _need_ to tag against this particular 'release'. I personally would want the songs tagged with 'real' data. The list as it is would only be useful to me as a playlist. Filling the album tags with ''Billboards Top 'whatever'" serves no practical purpose and the release year could only (correctly) be given as the year the torrent was compiled which again serves no useful purpose. IMHO, MusicBrainz should only store accurate information, when someone tags tracks with MusicBrainz they should only get useful information, not tags from some list that is deemed to be 'popular' and authoritative by a few autoeditors. Matt (mdhowe) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Torrents as Releases (Was: Billboard's "topwhatever")
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 3:21 am, Don Redman wrote: > Since we need to figure out which gidelines we need for such torrents, we > will allow such series in *one by one*. The most important thing which we > need to figure out is how to determine whether a torrent is 'popular' > enough. > > That means, if you are an editor and want to start to enter a series into > MB, send a mail to the StyleMailingList and ask if it is considered > popular enough. This should be a realively quick process. > > Currently accepted torrents are: > > * Billboard's Top... (i.e. torrents that are compilations of a year's > Billboards Top something listing) I am oppossed to this, it is just way to arbitrary for my liking. Even if a torrent is considered 'popular' do we really want it in the database. Greatest Hits compilations etc. Just as a random example: Most seeded Foo Fighters torrents: http://isohunt.com/torrents.php?ihq=foo+fighters&ext=&op=and&ihp=1&iht=-1&ihs1=2&iho1=d A few torrents that I would consider 'popular' on that search include: 100 Greatest Rock Songs of the 90s: Self explanatory. Top 150 Hits of the 00s (2000 - 2005): Again, self explanatory. The Best of "Foo Fighters": 26 random tracks & 5 videos. Foo Fighters: All of their albums rolled into one torrent. Top 200 Hits of the 2000's Rock-Alternativ Foo Fighters - Greatest Hits: 18 random tracks. 128 Indie and Alternative Acoustic Versions And for comparison here is the same search for 'Billboard': http://isohunt.com/torrents.php?ihq=billboard&ext=&op=and&ihp=1&iht=-1&ihs1=2&iho1=d We already have a problem with bootleg compilations with a lot of older artists (The Beatles, The Beach Boys, etc.) with little or no way of verifying them. Adding 'popular' torrents would double the problem IMHO. Matt Howe (mdhowe) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
