Re: [mb-style] The Hills are Alive with... (The Great Soundtrack Debate)
artysmokes wrote: Except for the special (yet arguable) case of classical releases, I think the Artist should be the *performer*. Everyone outside of Musicbrainz recognises this, so why can't we? Thoroughly agree with this. The Sound of Music is one of my all-time favorites and I got your initial questions wrong (according to MB). :/ How do you solve a problem like Ma-Musicbrainz? -- Paula Callesøe aka spacefish Mrs. Steele =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= play : The Lord of the Rings Online view : Fracture read : Stephen King - The Dark Tower hear : voices... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] The Hills are Alive with... (The Great Soundtrack Debate)
Philip Jägenstedt wrote: Isn't it the case that different users want different things and that the same thing doesn't apply to all releases? When I've added soundtracks I've tried to use the performing artist (because it's on the sleeve and it's the only thing I know). But for some soundtracks, like Spirited Away (http://musicbrainz.org/release/7327ef89-e214-4f90-8d5d-3e56ffe21d0b.html) I'm far more interested in knowing the composer (Joe Hisaishi) than what orchestra happened to record it. As far as musicals are concerned, I think where there are vocals, the performer should be listed. When the soundtrack is instrumental, the composer is appropriate. I know for my own collection, I prefer this method and will generally retag anything Musicbrainz does that is contrary to it. -- Paula Callesøe aka spacefish Mrs. Steele =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= play : The Lord of the Rings Online view : Fracture read : Stephen King - The Dark Tower hear : Underworld - Rowla =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] The Hills are Alive with... (The Great Soundtrack Debate)
Philip Jägenstedt wrote: By all means try writing a soundtrack style guide that you think would work. The current one is just a proposal... No, thank you. I was just giving my opinion. ;) -- Paula Callesøe aka spacefish Mrs. Steele =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= play : The Lord of the Rings Online view : Fracture read : Stephen King - The Dark Tower hear : Underworld - Air Towel =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Nikki wrote: By removing '(album version)', we're making it completely ambiguous. I disagree. For my own use, if the track on the single is the same version as that on the album, it gets no version info because it is *the same track*. When I search for this track I see that it appears in two places: the album and the single. Of course, I can also see version information for other *mixes* of the same track but my concern is how many times this exact track appears in my collection. Take this example: The Album Track The Album Track (album version) What's different about these? Nothing except they appear on two different items. They are both The Album Track. (album version) is extraneous because there is nothing different about these tracks. What about compilations? Should we append all tracks there with (album version)? The item to note here is where the track appears: album, compilation, live, single, EP. If it's the same track as the one that's on the album, woot! There's no reason to note it otherwise. Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Thomas Tholén wrote: And I don't really see (album version) as stating that it is the same verion as on an album, I see it as recording the title under which this particular track is present on this particular release. But just as (feat. artist B) is not part of the track title, neither is (album version). The problem with MB is that there is no separate field for version information and there really ought to be. And live tracks are always noted by the fact that they either appear on a live item or are appended with (version information) on non-live items. I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal collection, which ARs don't cover. I don't really understand how or what, but I suppose it's a tagger issue then? I was referring to my own database, correct. (Yes, I'm that obsessive. :) ) Although I don't use MB for tagging, I do refer to it for general tagging purposes, but only as a guideline. (I am waiting for Picard beta 0.8 for the MBID-only tagging option) In the simplest terms this becomes a tagging issue, I suppose, though not my primary concern. Paula (spacefish ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Schika wrote: On 6/18/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal collection, which ARs don't cover. I don't really understand how or what, but I suppose it's a tagger issue then? //[bnw] No, I guess that Paula don't want to see the exactly same track (everything is simular, track lenght, version, sound ...) appearing one time as Title and another time as Title (album version). Exactly. :) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] SortNameStyle
Simon Tucker wrote: Additionally, how do you deal with numbers - there are problems of sorting them numerically or by their words. e.g. I would file The 411 *after* 808 State on my shelves. I wouldn't. Or maybe I'm missing your point? Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] % in URL Relationships
Schika wrote: Paula Callesøe wrote: Hello, A discussion started on http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4161538 has prompted me to bring this up here on the list because we may need some guidelines written for the use of % in URL ARs. OpenDataRelationshipClass currently has nothing regarding the use of any special characters in URLs. By default, Wikipedia URLs use %28 and %29 to represent ( and ) and %26 for . No one other than a power-user will know that Wikipedia URLs can be converted to one without % using the character the %nn represents. For example, for the band Cameo, Wikipedia defaults to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo_%28band%29 but we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo_(band) to reach the same information. Note that in MB's interface, the last ) is not dropped as it is here in this email so it's perfectly usable. wrong, you provided the proof for this. Click on the links in your mail app and you will see that the last link will not work correctly - the last char will not recognized as part of the URL. Read it again. When clicked through MB, the last ) is NOT dropped (maybe I should have bolded that :) ) and it works fine. Go to http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ef4d808a-2113-44c3-9b44-1b31f026ef1e.html and try it from there. The fact that it drops the last ) in email may or may not be a consideration in its further use however. Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] % in URL Relationships
Steve Wyles wrote: The RFC is: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1738.html Thanks, this was helpful and I've bookmarked for reference. My thought is that we continue using whatever URL is defaulted by the referenced site, rather than trying to remember which characters can be converted and which can't. Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] % in URL Relationships
Hello, A discussion started on http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4161538 has prompted me to bring this up here on the list because we may need some guidelines written for the use of % in URL ARs. OpenDataRelationshipClass currently has nothing regarding the use of any special characters in URLs. By default, Wikipedia URLs use %28 and %29 to represent ( and ) and %26 for . No one other than a power-user will know that Wikipedia URLs can be converted to one without % using the character the %nn represents. For example, for the band Cameo, Wikipedia defaults to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo_%28band%29 but we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameo_(band) to reach the same information. Note that in MB's interface, the last ) is not dropped as it is here in this email so it's perfectly usable. Unfortunately though, this conversion cannot be done with Discogs URLs. http://www.discogs.com/artist/Emerson,+Lake+%26+Palmer is unreachable using http://www.discogs.com/artist/Emerson,+Lake++Palmer. So what should be the norm? Since I'm currently seeing % URLs all over MusicBrainz, I have to wonder first, what the problem is (I suspect it's an encoding issue), second, how do we standardize the process when different sites use different standards, and third, how can we expect a regular user to have the aforethought to convert % URLs? It's certainly nothing I would have thought of if clutcher2 hadn't brought it to my attention. I mean, I just copy the URL from the browser address bar and paste it into MusicBrainz like everyone else does, right? Cheers! Paula (spacefish) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
