Re: [mb-style] Genre support
one of my favourite things about Musicbrainz is that it doesn't try and deal with genre. Genres are massively subjective and also incredibly fluid and i'm not sure how useful they'd be to end users of MB data. i think attaching an artist to a genre in particular isn't a good start. eg Miles Davis might be assigned as a jazz artist but there are many prople who would not consider something like Bitches Brew to be jazz. so recordings might be a better place to start. But my instinct is to think that it would be a very bad idea. Again, it's one of those things that would take away from MB's core purpose, which is as a repository of veriable facts. There's nothing factual about Genres in the main - they're a necessary evil when it comes to marketing but they're not necessary for MB IMHO sorry to be so negative! P -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Lukáš Lalinský Sent: 12 December 2011 15:58 To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: [mb-style] Genre support Hi, This discussion is a little off-topic here, but I can't think of a better group of active MB users to discuss a feature like this. I'd like MB to have some support for genres. This was apparently discussed at the last MB summit, but I don't know details about that. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Summit/11/Session_Notes#Genres I've created a ticket that seems to be a superset of the genre features discussed at the summit: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3738 The idea for now is just to define the genre lists and relations between them. It does not deal with the problem of assigning entities like artists to genres (I think that SoundUnwound has a nice solution to this though). My idea is to add the concept of genres to MusicBrainz, make it editable by users, linkable to other genres and URLs. That way we can define genre trees. Then I'd like for each genre to have a list of tags that the genre can appear as. This can be used for autocompleting genres when adding tags, and whitelisting tags in applications like Picard (it can be used to whitelist tags also from other sources, like Last.fm). Does any of this make sense? Do you think it's a good idea? Lukas ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Deprecating collaborations
Their history definitely warrants that they that they be included as a single entity in MB. definitely agree with this. their solo releases (such as they are) came some while after their collaboration began. Hall Oates releases form the vast bulk of both men's recorded output. they're essentially a band with an unimaginative name. what would you do with simon garfunkel? i would say they're a similar case (actually possibly less strong than Hall Oates in that both have had successful solo careers) it's always going to be fuzzy, this one. and i'm not sure exactly what to do with CSNY etc. p From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Paul C. Bryan Sent: 24 August 2011 16:13 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Deprecating collaborations I wrote: Here's a performance collaboration worthy of review: Daryl Hall John Oates, at least judging by their album covers: On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 21:44 -0700, Ryan Torchia responded: How does that put them in the same boat? That sometimes they were credited using their full names rather than just last names is really kind of trivial, IMO. Their history definitely warrants that they that they be included as a single entity in MB. The line can be fuzzy for collaborations like Lennon/Ono, but really not for Hall Oates. How does their history definitely warrant they be included as a single entity in MB? How is it fuzzy for other collaborations and not so for Hall Oates? Length of time in collaboration? Number of releases? As the majority of their albums appear to credit them individually on the cover, it seems on its face like a collaboration, not a group. As such, this collaboration seems like a logical migration from collaboration artist to joint artist credit-especially absent any guidelines to direct us otherwise. Related to this, I'd like to see people work out what we should do with Crosby, Stills, Nash Young. (And Crosby, Stills Nash), Crosby Nash, Stills Nash, the Stills-Young Band, David Crosby, Stephen Stills, Graham Nash, Neil Young, and of course... Buffalo Springfield.) I get the part about the Crosby* cases. I don't get the Buffalo Springfield case (isn't it a rock band, i.e. group-or was this made in jest?) Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Arrange on works
i would have thought that most Orchestrator relationships are at recording level -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren Sent: 22 August 2011 16:47 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Arrange on works On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote: Well this is more of a case of incorrect wording on discogs (checked the edits). This credit should be arranger and not orchestrator (as per the booklet), I'll go and remove all the orchestrator credits and addin him as an arranger at the recording level. Hmm, I still have several orchestrator relationships that apply to recordings more than to works (will be recorded just once, in most cases, including, now that I think about it, stuff like Metallica playing with an orchestra and the like) Sebastien 2011/8/22 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote: I would also like a warning added to the use of the Orchestrator AR at work which similarly doesn't apply to most non-classsical works. Examples: http://musicbrainz.org/work/8627f9e0-6743-304f-aecf-5fd687650cb8 http://musicbrainz.org/work/d6e72540-d65c-3cb6-b02f-e6989e09790a http://musicbrainz.org/work/836ad30c-e0fb-3198-8970-1d840b66d62b The problem with this is that orchestrator is not currently present at recording level, so there's no other place to enter it. I think we should also add it to the recording level. Sebastien 2011/8/21 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Paul C. Bryan pbr...@anode.ca wrote: On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 21:40 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Paul C. Bryan pbr...@anode.ca wrote: Okay, but unless it can be demonstrated that pop/jazz/other genres support this, I think we should still consider cleaning house somehow. I don't really see why something should be not used because other genres do not support it. Other genres do not usually support chorus master either and we don't remove those... Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I'm suggesting that we attempt cleanup of arranger-on-work instances where they currently does not make sense, namely pop and jazz titles. Oooh, I see then. Anyone cares to RFC a nice warning against the widespread use of arranger on works? Murdos maybe? Paul ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
I think that no matter how controversial work types can be, they are essential for filtering works in prolific composers as mentioned above. could you not just use filtering on the title field to sort? symphonies, nocturnes, sonatas, concertos etc are titled as such which is why i'm not sure work types are that useful (i'm not sure if anyone agrees with this point, but i'll make it again till someone responds and tells me i'm wrong...:) Also I would love it if the work types are hierarchical with broader work types and more specific work types: wah. i can imagine the edit wars now, and they're not pretty. this is the kind of thing that could wake Skynet. Another note, I had suggested via a ticket (http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-2638) to add the Period for composers, I think this would be a fantastic addition allowing us to categorize/filter by period. again, this seems a bit fuzzy to me, particularly at composer level (how would you classify Schnittke?) maybe it would work at work level, but it's still contentious i think)... cheers p From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Lemire, Sebastien Sent: 15 August 2011 13:59 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Add work types I think that no matter how controversial work types can be, they are essential for filtering works in prolific composers as mentioned above. I think that a single attribute (as of now) would cover without too much controversy 90%+ of the classical work types and if we structure it in a tag format where multiple types can be selected, it could cover 98%+ of the works. Therefore for the vast majority of the works, it would work well and should be very useful. Also I would love it if the work types are hierarchical with broader work types and more specific work types: Music for Keyboard - Serenade - Nocturne - etc Symphony - Romantic Symphony - Classical Symphony Chamber music - String Quartet - Trio Concerto - Piano Concerto - Violin Concerto - Cello Concerto etc... (note the work types above may be incorrect, just examples) Also I think until we can find a way to implement them for popular music, they should be discouraged. Personally I definitely wouldn't mind adding Genres on MB, even with the controversy in edits, and should also work fine for the majority of the works in MB. It can also be argued that that information perhaps should be at the RG level rather than the Works level. Another note, I had suggested via a ticket (http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-2638) to add the Period for composers, I think this would be a fantastic addition allowing us to categorize/filter by period. Example periods would be: - Medieval - Renaissance - Baroque - Classical - Romantic - Post-Romantic - Modern - Contemporary This information could also be stored at Work level (rather than Artist/Composer level as I had suggested) What do you guys think? Sebastien On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:54, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: And given that we deliberately don't have genre fields, instead only having folksonomy tags, I wonder if that is an argument for removing work types entirely... I still think there's a use in classical for a select list of work types, with an Other catch-all, for the purpose I already stated. As long as people don't expect it to be especially precise. -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
i'd have to say probably not, but that's a personal view...the issue is whether the concept of a work type is actually useful in MBz. it's a lot more nuanced than the usual type of objective data. i wou;ld look elsewhere if i wanted that info. same with genres. -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria Sent: 12 August 2011 11:10 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Add work types 2011/8/12, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk: as someone (David?) suggested, tagging is the way to go. otherwise when it comes to non-classical material it's difficult to imagine a work definition being separate from a genre definition... Tagging indeed, but would folksonomy work? -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
hi in case anyone's interested here's the work types spreadsheet I put together some while ago. it was compiled using definitions taken from Radio 3's specialist Classical Music d/base - some are clearly rather eccentric as a result - i whittled it down to 18 work types I thought were workable but this is the original. https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuVpjiSn_606dGFXa3Q 0SEtXOEtYd1ZxblFhcU9kVlEhl=en_US this doc explains what i thought i was up to... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gD_lYCZLS1kX-PohRC4ZscXpX6RKmdIA8mk4 5A52IAM/edit?hl=en_US p http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
yes, i think what i wrote is an argument for abandoning work tyoes (certainly as structured data). From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Paul C. Bryan Sent: 12 August 2011 18:27 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Add work types On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 18:54 +0200, Nikki wrote: And given that we deliberately don't have genre fields, instead only having folksonomy tags, I wonder if that is an argument for removing work types entirely... Tacit +1. Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
Some while ago I started compiling a list of work types, predominantly for classical music use. But even there (where one could argue that the work type is an important concept) it's often hard to arrive at an objective definition. Most work types in classical music are explicit in the title (Symphony, Sonata, Fugue, Nocturne, Polonaise etc etc - Operas are an exception of course). whereas others aren't (how would you objectively define 'Music for 18 Musicians' by Steve Reich or '4.33' by Cage or even 'Pierrot Lunaire' by Schoenberg?) When it gets to popular music, it would seem that 'song' or 'instrumental' are almost meaningless as definitions. And here too it would seem that a Work Level definition is at too high a level and doesn't allow for instrumental versions of songs or vice versa. I think these definitions are best left to the likes of Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me that this can work as useful structured data. P -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria Sent: 11 August 2011 09:57 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Add work types 2011/8/11, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 08/09/2011 09:39 PM, Ryan Torchia wrote: Well songs, by definition, have singing. -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Song -- Works or pieces refer to a broader category, but that includes vocal and instrumental works. Hmm, Mendelssohn and Holst both have works entitled Song without words so it seems that in at least some cases there is a broader definition at play. In fact, that's given as an example in definition 2. True, but I did say that songs had *singing*, not that they necessarily had words. (And arguably, not that they'd have human beings singing.) But even those tend to be somewhat unusual cases. Pretty much any category we come up with is going to have some exception, given how many cultures we're trying to cover and how frequently artists try to blur boundaries. What is the purpose to all this, anyway? I'm not asking to be snarky -- if we have a clear idea how the data is going to be used functionally, we can design this to fit that purpose better. Right now it doesn't seem clear whether we're trying to use this field to define ensemble, structural form, function, or some other musical property. Yes, Rupert asked more or less the same question earlier in this thread and I believe it should be answered first. These informations are quite interesting and relevant to a music database and it would be nice being able to enter them somewhere, but is this the right place? And what about covers? If we are too specific here, there will probably be covers which we would have otherwise set under the same Work which we will have to separate because the Work Types differ. Actually, this could help defining the limits both of what constitutes a separate work and how specific work types should be. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Works and remixes/covers
thanks Paul! i still think the criteria for a remix becoming a work rather than a recording need a bit more discussion. credits for additional lyrics or compositions on such things are going to be the exception rather than the rule. in fact i would argue that in the vast majority of cases remixes will introduce additional material, yet very rarely is the remixer given a composition credit. so my feeling is that by default a remix a should be a new work (a different duration is usually a giveaway). those cases where we are merely dealing with just a rebalancing of the material (ie a remix in the strict sense of the word) then could be a recording-recording relationship (in the same way a remastered recording might). am i being too philosophical here? :-) From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Paul C. Bryan Sent: 08 June 2011 23:46 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Works and remixes/covers On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 16:16 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote: This makes my head hurt, but here's a couple of questions just to make sure I'm kind of understanding it Take 2 ARs and call us in the morning. ;-) 1) how do we ascertain that a remix has enough new content to make it a new work? (it's going to be the exception rather than the rule to have new lyricist/composer credits). it would seem to me that most contemporary remixes would fall under that category. some are almost indistinguishable from the original (Aphex Twin has been known to pass off completely original new works as remixes) I suggest it be when the derivative work has work attributions that are distinct from the original (e.g. additional composer or lyricist). 2) wouldn't the relationship be to a recording, not a work? so the remix is a work extrapolated from a recording? Yes, it would be too. It wouldn't be a remix if it did not contain recordings from the original it is a remix of. The issue is that a remix can contain additional work of another artist. Paul ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Works and remixes/covers
This makes my head hurt, but here's a couple of questions just to make sure I'm kind of understanding it 1) how do we ascertain that a remix has enough new content to make it a new work? (it's going to be the exception rather than the rule to have new lyricist/composer credits). it would seem to me that most contemporary remixes would fall under that category. some are almost indistinguishable from the original (Aphex Twin has been known to pass off completely original new works as remixes) 2) wouldn't the relationship be to a recording, not a work? so the remix is a work extrapolated from a recording? cheers P -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Calvin Walton Sent: 07 June 2011 12:28 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Works and remixes/covers On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 23:50 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan pbr...@anode.ca wrote: Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game-real life has been demanding much of my time lately. I would suggest the test could boil-down to whether a new artist work AR is required to distinguish one remix from another (if a particular remix contains new content, and has additional composer/lyricist/etc. credit). If so, then a separate (but related) work would seem to be in order. If not, then the original work would be used. Thoughts? Pretty much what I think too. It has the benefit of being a very straight-forward test based on clear technical grounds (do I need an AR specific to this mix -- Yes, add a new work). Now it would be nice if we actually had a work to work remix AR to go with that... One thing that concerns me a bit with a work→work remix ar: Remixes are typically based on a specific recording of a work. How do we represent this in Musicbrainz? Should we continue to use the recording→recording AR alongside the work→work AR on any remixes which are based on a specific recording, but also add e.g. new lyrics? -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca ___ 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] NGS guidelines
I support the complete overhaul and that the normal process has been circumvented. Most of the old guidelines don't make sense with NGS, and doing such a big change by RFC/RFV would have been extremely painful. I think we're much better off taking the rewrite and working from there. I couldn't agree more. (I know, I've tried). ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] NGS guidelines
and IMHO it would have been impossible to get the guidelines right in advance I think it would have been possible, but we would still be waiting for NGS two or three years down the line. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] CSG: Less VA?
/ gets a +1 from me... p -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nikki Sent: 20 May 2011 09:28 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] CSG: Less VA? Lukáš Lalinský wrote: I'd suggest / , as that's what we use to separate other things and I'd like to start using it for tracks with multiple artists (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/TracksWithMultipleArtists). Exactly what I was thinking. I would use for tracks with multiple artists and split releases too. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] CSG: Work aliases
looks sensible to me, though I'm imagining that Urtexts for some composers/works might be hard to find. and with Mozart for instance...would Köchel numbers go into the comment field for diambiguation too (as they're not Mozart's) but be allowed in aliases? cheers p -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of symphonick Sent: 18 May 2011 10:36 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] CSG: Work aliases On Wed, 18 May 2011 08:04:45 +0200, caramel carame...@ymail.com wrote: For me, Work name should be Klavierkonzert Nr. 5 Es-Dur op. 73: III Rondo: Allegro ma non troppo in German and without Emperor, name not given by Beethoven. Concerto for Piano and Orchestra No. 5 in E-flat major, Op. 73 Emperor: III. Rondo. Allegro could be an alias even if would prefer Piano Concerto No. 5 Emperor in E-flat major, Op. 73: III Rondo: Allegro (ma non troppo?) et Concerto pour piano no 5 L'Empereur en mi b majeur, op. 73: III Rondo: Allegro ma non troppo There's no point in storing both variants for searching, right? English aliases: Concerto for Piano and Orchestra No. 5 in E-flat major, Op. 73 Emperor: III. Rondo. Allegro Piano Concerto No. 5 in E-flat major, Op. 73 Emperor: III. Rondo. Allegro I'm not sure I'd even bother with it for tagging anymore. My vote is for limiting CSG Work Aliases to standardized [1] titles. Track Titles are a perfectly good place to store the non-standardized variants. So can we say that aliases should be translated versions of the official standardized workname, or the local version(s) of the name; don't translate an English common name that's not used in France? Which leads us to: can we agree on a strategy for language for the official workname? Just brainstorming: 1. Urtext or first performance/first published or manuscript title? 2. catalogue language? 3. composer's language? at the time? Some things to remember: It may not be possible to tag from Work names. It may not be possible to tag from Work aliases. It will be possible to tag from recording names. For now, recording names don't have aliases. Let's assume that default work title = recording title. One example from Beethoven (Könemann Urtext): Joseph Edlem von Sonnenfels gewidmet Grande Sonate pour le pianoforte It has number 15 Op. 28 1801. The tempo marking is allegro the key is D major. Dedication goes into annotation I assume there's a field for date. Artificial movement number could go in comment field for disambiguation. the urtext title: Grande Sonate pour le pianoforte, Op. 28: Allegro (needs French caps? 15 doesn't fit is not by Beethoven, would have to go in comment field) title looks French to me, so I think a French standardized title is next in line (just an approximation, I took German in school): Sonate pour Piano no. 15 [+key], op. 28: Allegro what's next, cataloguer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalogues_of_Beethoven_compositions looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven it's opus by publisher for this work. http://www.raptusassociation.org/son15e.html says it's A. Crantz, Hamburg. Sonate für Klavier Nr. 15 D-Dur Op. 28: Allegro What's your opinion on this? /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] CSG: Work aliases
it wasn't a suggestion to add them to comments - just looking for clarification based on your Beethoven example. are dedicated catalogue number fields on any roadmap, do we know? cheers p -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of symphonick Sent: 18 May 2011 12:03 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] CSG: Work aliases On Wed, 18 May 2011 12:51:00 +0200, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk wrote: looks sensible to me, though I'm imagining that Urtexts for some composers/works might be hard to find. and with Mozart for instance...would Köchel numbers go into the comment field for diambiguation too (as they're not Mozart's) but be allowed in aliases? In an ideal world we will have fields to add all catalogue numbers. (I think you're the first to suggest using the comment field). I suppose we will continue like before add opus/our choosen catalogue (Köchel for Mozart) to the titles. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Extends Wikipedia Relationship Type to entity Work
+1. absolutely essential! -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Maurits Meulenbelt Sent: 18 May 2011 13:52 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Extends Wikipedia Relationship Type to entity Work Just came across the same limitation, +1 from me. Op 18-5-2011 14:49, Nikki schreef: Definitely +1 Nikki Aurélien Mino wrote: It seems pretty obvious: Wikipedia has a lot of pages about songs that should really be linked on Work level. Any objections? - Aurélien / murdos ___ 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] CGS: Comment field for recording names disambiguation
+1 -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of symphonick Sent: 18 May 2011 17:10 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: [mb-style] CGS: Comment field for recording names disambiguation Title says it all, really. Can we agree on using the comment field on recordings for performer disambiguation, instead of entering performers in recording names? Here's a small example: http://ngs.musicbrainz.org/work/ed31a76e-6b51-3939-9c32-72c0004f5206/rel ationships If we use the same names for works recording and don't do anything, we will get a list w. identical titles. IMO it's at least a better workaround than the last. I hope we can get a real solution to this someday. Can we also try and encourage people to try and keep the information in the comment field to a minimum? /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] IRC Chat re: Works: Mon. Dec. 20 @ 7PM GMT
i'm definitely up for this...any opportunity to discuss concept albums is too good to miss. :-) From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Paul C. Bryan Sent: 15 December 2010 19:54 To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: [mb-style] IRC Chat re: Works: Mon. Dec. 20 @ 7PM GMT I'd like to moderate an IRC chat to discuss works in the next-generation schema, namely to address the following issues: * What should be and what should not be a work? * What level(s) of granularity should works have? (e.g. concept albums, opus, composition, movement, song...) * What hierarchy (if any) should works have? * Implications of opera and classical music tracks. The goal of this discussion will be to have enough material to draft a style guideline for works, and continue its refinement with the style council in the mailing list. I propose we meet in #musicbrainz-style on irc.freenode.net on Monday, December 20 at 7 PM GMT, 8 PM CET, 11 AM PST http://bit.ly/gVQqRk . Please let me know if you can attend. Thanks, Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Artist Credits for Works
Q1. Should a work have an primary artist credit (AC) or are advanced
relationships (ARs) more appropriate?
ARs.
Q2. What is your rationale for your answer to Q1?
As Brian and others have pointed out, it's hard to quantify who is the
artist 'most associated' with a work. Who would you associate with 'Mr
Tambourine Man', for instance? The Byrds or Bob Dylan? Answers to such
questions depend on your age and geographical location. When it comes to
standards ('Summertime', 'All The Things You Are', 'Body and Soul' etc
etc) the problem becomes even more insoluble. I thought MusicBrainz was
about verifiable facts, and this doesn't seem to be about that.
Q3. Under what circumstances would you be willing to accept the opposite
of what you answered in response to Q1?
I'm not sure there are any.
Q4. If you answered that there should be ACs in response to Q1, what
should the primary artist for a work be?
N/A
Peter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on
it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC/RFV delay (was: RFV3: Writer Relationship Type)
I suggest that a minimum delay be applied between the last answer to a RFC and the RFV. This would avoid frustration for the champion. +1 to that idea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] New release types?
hi brian Live Compilation would be for compilations of live tracks. i think this could do with a bit of expansion. do you mean various artists? (eg woodstock, live at the roxy etc) or would this kind of thing count as well? (even though none of the tracks had been previously issued) http://musicbrainz.org/release/70a251f1-3bfa-4f77-9ade-8a189386e987.html http://musicbrainz.org/release/70a251f1-3bfa-4f77-9ade-8a189386e987.htm l technically aren't most live albums compilations, in that they will usually feature recordings taken from different gigs or tours? (a philosophical point, maybe...) cheers p http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Re-add [traditional]
that is a really nice (in the true sense of the word) definition. +1 From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of SwissChris Sent: 11 October 2010 18:25 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Re-add [traditional] Yes! +1 great job On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Jeroen Latour f.j.lat...@gmail.com wrote: +1. Beautiful work. - Jeroen Op 11 okt. 2010 om 17:57 heeft caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com het volgende geschreven: Hi all, On 10/11/2010 04:16 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: 2010/10/10 torn mailto:m.strzalkow...@gmail.com m.strzalkow...@gmail.com So, the [traditional] AR should be applied to works, where there's no definite original source, there are many versions of the work of which each one could be the original and there are many possible authors throughout extended period of time. I share Brian's concerns about the distinction being hard to make. However, I like Michał's definition. My preference would be that Michał tries to craft an alternative definition (like above) to be added to the proposal page. This is how I understand the intent of the [traditional] SPA. [unknown] A canonical version of the work exists, written and/or composed by one individual (or several, in collaboration) whose identity is unknown, but is potentially discoverable with further research. Please do some research before using this artist; this artist should not be used simply as a lazy easy solution to an artist you don't happen to know offhand. [anonymous] A canonical version of the work exists, written and/or composed by one individual (or several, in collaboration) whose identity is both unknown and unknowable. [traditional] No canonical version of the work exists, as it was originally passed down from musician to musician in non-written, non-recorded form. The work often exists in multiple variations, representing the contributions of generations of artists rather than one [unknown] or [anonymous] writer/composer. best, Alex / caller#6 ___ 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV2: Music can be streamed for free at
hi my feeling is that video is outside the scope of this AR and that if video is included the AR becomes so generalised and vague as to be useless. there's already a youtube channel AR, isn't there? if that's not seen as adequate for outr YT needs then why not expand or alter that AR? cheers P I suggest we just link to Artist's YouTube pages (as we would for MySpace pages), where applicable. Example URI: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMarsVoltaVEVO (The Mars Volta VEVO user page.) Failing that, if the artist has a label on YouTube, and that label has published a playlist for that artist, use that. Example URI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajwxt_BZJNAp=FFCA9C7B5E07B876playnext=1 index=2 (Epitaph Records' Fear Before playlist.) These URIs, when entered, would be automatically formed to look like the above examples (I'm not sure if index=2 in the second example is necessary, though). Ideally, the AR's wording would change, depending on the type of link. Well, the other option, which occurred to me today, would be to make this AR not just a part of the Get Music class, but also the External Website class. That would make the YouTube AR the correct one, rather than both, or just this one, as the External Website ARs External Information ARs guideline ( http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Category:External_Information_Relationship_C lass#Guidelines ) would then kick in. One other thought would be to add a video attribute to this AR, to allow IDing if the AR links to a video stream, rather than just a (default) audio-only stream, so that for any (non-YouTube) video stream URL, those can be easily differentiated - say you want only the music, or you do only want the music video for a given song... Brian http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at'
Hi Brian Yes, the original intent was a deep link to the stream, but it is within the context of a service; you would end up a page on the Spotify/We7 or whatever's player. The services that host those streams offer users the opportunity to share and link to those streams, so I think we can assume that the artists/labels are ok with that. Spotify and other services are regularly linked to all over t'internet as far as i can see. Obviously with artist pages and other sites there will be a page available to link to. I wouldn't argue that those should be deep links that would open in your media player, if that's what you're assuming. Best Peter From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Brian Schweitzer Sent: 25 August 2010 03:41 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' I'm only confused by one thing in your prior reply. If I understand correctly, your intent is that the AR be used to link to the stream, not the page on which the stream can be found. Am I misunderstanding, or is this correct? If it is correct, I'd disagree, with similar rationale - the artist makes the stream available, and while I think it's fair to assume that there's an inherent grant of permission to link to the page with the stream, I don't think I could support the same rationale for a deep link to the stream - unless the artist/label expressly grants that permission. They may want to provide stream users with other info, etc. (I'd note that the same is actually true of the other online music ARs; it's somewhat unclear as to whether the free download should be the mp3, or the page with the mp3's link, for example.) Brian On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Hello I've removed the Whitelist from the proposal... http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free_ at any other feedback welcomed...I've kept Nikki's link phrasing on the URL as it's consistent with existing ARs which makes sense to me... -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Conkling Sent: 20 August 2010 14:25 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:57, Brian Schweitzer wrote: Does this AR really need a whitelist? Many labels' and artists' pages that I run across these days are have streaming music. Isn't it a fair assumption to think that, if a label or artist is providing streamed music, it's safe to assume they'd want people to know about it - ie, to link back to them? Yet going through the whole permission whitelisting and RFC for each and every such URL would be sufficiently troublesome that I know I'd never do it. Totally agreed; I feel the same way about cover art (though I realize that's a bit of a different animal). Since we're not doing anything with the streaming music actually on our site (just linking to it), I don't see why a whitelist would be that necessary. Pete, I think linking to artist sites might also be useful; I'd say it's better to keep this AR broader. Regarding a whitelist, I'd think a hyperlink would be acceptable without a whitelist (since we're not doing anything but linking), except in particular cases? ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at'
We're not linking to the stream directly and the AR has never been intended for that purpose. The whitelist was there in order to both focus the types of links in and to mitigate against dodgy and potentially illegal services. example destination from WE7 http://www.we7.com/#/song/The-Fall/Mr-Pharmacist -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Mark Woodson Sent: 25 August 2010 15:46 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' Wouldn't that depend on the service? Implying intent would seem a dangerous game to play. I would think that using deep links would require inspecting each services ToS/AUP. If the assumption is that it's deep linked to the stream directly then I think it has to be white listed, no? I'd assumed throughout this discussion that we were talking about linking to the landing pages for the streams, not the stream directly. -Mark / InSinU8 On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I was thinking of those little embedded Flash players; I'd doubt they're intended to be deep-linked... After all, theoretically, you can download from those, as well, but I'd suspect that most artists never intend that either, so I'd not add that Flash-embedded mp3's url as a download link. But yes, for a stream service which is as you describe - essentially the rss version of a stream, then I'd agree, because of the implicit permission grant. Brian On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Hi Brian Yes, the original intent was a deep link to the stream, but it is within the context of a service; you would end up a page on the Spotify/We7 or whatever's player. The services that host those streams offer users the opportunity to share and link to those streams, so I think we can assume that the artists/labels are ok with that. Spotify and other services are regularly linked to all over t'internet as far as i can see. Obviously with artist pages and other sites there will be a page available to link to. I wouldn't argue that those should be deep links that would open in your media player, if that's what you're assuming. Best Peter From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Brian Schweitzer Sent: 25 August 2010 03:41 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' I'm only confused by one thing in your prior reply. If I understand correctly, your intent is that the AR be used to link to the stream, not the page on which the stream can be found. Am I misunderstanding, or is this correct? If it is correct, I'd disagree, with similar rationale - the artist makes the stream available, and while I think it's fair to assume that there's an inherent grant of permission to link to the page with the stream, I don't think I could support the same rationale for a deep link to the stream - unless the artist/label expressly grants that permission. They may want to provide stream users with other info, etc. (I'd note that the same is actually true of the other online music ARs; it's somewhat unclear as to whether the free download should be the mp3, or the page with the mp3's link, for example.) Brian On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Hello I've removed the Whitelist from the proposal... http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_f ree_ at any other feedback welcomed...I've kept Nikki's link phrasing on the URL as it's consistent with existing ARs which makes sense to me... -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Conkling Sent: 20 August 2010 14:25 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:57, Brian Schweitzer wrote: Does this AR really need a whitelist? Many labels' and artists' pages that I run across these days are have streaming music. Isn't it a fair assumption to think that, if a label or artist is providing streamed music, it's safe to assume they'd want people to know about it - ie, to link back to them? Yet going through the whole permission whitelisting and RFC for each and every such URL would be sufficiently troublesome that I know I'd never do it. Totally agreed; I feel the same way about cover art (though I realize that's a bit of a different animal). Since we're not doing anything with the streaming music actually on our site (just linking to it), I don't see why a whitelist would
Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at'
Hello I've removed the Whitelist from the proposal... http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free_ at any other feedback welcomed...I've kept Nikki's link phrasing on the URL as it's consistent with existing ARs which makes sense to me... -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Conkling Sent: 20 August 2010 14:25 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:57, Brian Schweitzer wrote: Does this AR really need a whitelist? Many labels' and artists' pages that I run across these days are have streaming music. Isn't it a fair assumption to think that, if a label or artist is providing streamed music, it's safe to assume they'd want people to know about it - ie, to link back to them? Yet going through the whole permission whitelisting and RFC for each and every such URL would be sufficiently troublesome that I know I'd never do it. Totally agreed; I feel the same way about cover art (though I realize that's a bit of a different animal). Since we're not doing anything with the streaming music actually on our site (just linking to it), I don't see why a whitelist would be that necessary. Pete, I think linking to artist sites might also be useful; I'd say it's better to keep this AR broader. Regarding a whitelist, I'd think a hyperlink would be acceptable without a whitelist (since we're not doing anything but linking), except in particular cases? ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at'
I think that artist pages/sites that carry streaming music are covered well enough by other ARs to official sites/myspace etc. As you say, most artists sites will offer streaming, but the location of the streaming might be such that it's impossible to link to (a java player that sits on every page, for example) or they don't have much longevity/stability as URLs. The intention here is to link to services rather than artist sites. So I'd say yes, it does need a whitelist. And I think Jamendo and Archive.org are good additions. I would say that Wikimedia commons content is a bit patchy and also covered by the standard Wikipedia entry URL? best Peter From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Brian Schweitzer Sent: 20 August 2010 10:57 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' Does this AR really need a whitelist? Many labels' and artists' pages that I run across these days are have streaming music. Isn't it a fair assumption to think that, if a label or artist is providing streamed music, it's safe to assume they'd want people to know about it - ie, to link back to them? Yet going through the whole permission whitelisting and RFC for each and every such URL would be sufficiently troublesome that I know I'd never do it. Re non-artist/label streaming sites, I'd also suggest Jamendo, Wikimedia Commons, and Archive.org be added to that list. Re the wording, I'd agree that Artist music can be streamed for free at URL is awkward. Perhaps Artist has music which can be streamed for free at URL? Brian On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Conkling and...@andrewski.net wrote: On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:40, Nikki wrote: jacobbrett wrote: I think Artist music can be streamed for free at URL looks odd, shouldn't it be Artist's music can be streamed for free at URL? It's not possible to do that because link phrases always have a space before and after. The download and purchase links use artist music can be ... at url which is why I suggested the current wording. artist has music that can be streamed for free at URL sounds more natural, IMO. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at'
1. Expected Passage Date - 20/08/10 2. The proposal is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free_ at and is essentially unchanged from the initial proposal apart from some clarification around the Whitelist. Peter Peter Marsh | BBC Music Interactive | Room 718 | Henry Wood House | 3 - 6 Langham Place London W1B 3DF | 020 7765 2949 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/jazz ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at'
Hi I think Artist music can be streamed for free at URL looks odd, shouldn't it be Artist's music can be streamed for free at URL? I think you're probably right there. and thanks for fixing the URL (worked ok for me!) I'd add that NPR should be on the whitelist. As was pointed out before they have a large body of music available for streaming online and the content remains up. Again, that seems fine with me. My initial thought was that this AR would deal with commercially available catalogue rather than live sessions (which i'm assuming makes up most of the NPR content). Hence the release and recording level relationships. But unless we want to make two separate ARs for sessions and catalogue, I think NPR would be a good candidate. As would this, maybe! http://www.daytrotter.com/al/artists/alphabetical.html Peter -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Mark Woodson Sent: 18 August 2010 15:13 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' I'd add that NPR should be on the whitelist. As was pointed out before they have a large body of music available for streaming online and the content remains up. -Mark / InSinU8 On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:56 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: I think Artist music can be streamed for free at URL looks odd, shouldn't it be Artist's music can be streamed for free at URL? Also, your link was broken; this works: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_fre e_at ;) -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFV-Add-Music-c an-be-streamed-for-free-at-tp5436230p5436374.html Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music can be streamed forfree at
Hi Alex Sorry, missed your mail somehow so apologies for the delay. Where's the emphasis? music, longevity, or large catalog? I think all three. My thoughts were to do with specifically covering 'commercially available' recordings from streaming services rather than say, interviews or live sessions from broadcasters. The AR title excludes spoken word by implication anyhow. Maybe live sessions should have their own AR? Not sure. Best P -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Alex Mauer Sent: 12 August 2010 18:55 To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music can be streamed forfree at On 08/12/2010 12:04 PM, Pete Marsh wrote: services that have a large catalogue of legally available streamed music [...] with a reasonable longevity to that content. Where's the emphasis? music, longevity, or large catalog? NPR for example has streamable archives of some shows going back to about 2000 or so. That covers longevity and large catalog. Of course, it's mostly spokenword stuff, but there's some music as well. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for fre at
I didn't know they'd got rid of that... do they not let people stream any full tracks now? no, not on demand anyhow. you can listen to full tracks as part of a radio station or playing your library, but you can't determine which track unless you're a subscriber, when you can create a playlist. they are apparently bringing back full track streams for what they call 'indie artists', so i guess we should put it on the list? http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/617074 and thanks for putting it in the template. -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nikki Sent: 13 August 2010 00:36 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for fre at Pete Marsh wrote: Thanks Nikki I think a whitelist would be the most sensible option. That works for me. Last FM was one of those, but now they've got rid of full track streaming on demand I don't think they'd fit either! I didn't know they'd got rid of that... do they not let people stream any full tracks now? I'm (obviously) quite happy for you to do the shoehorning for the template, but let me know if you change your mind or if you need anything else. Ok, I've edited the page so that it's using the template. If I've accidentally changed the meaning of something, feel free edit it yourself or let me know. :) If you're happy with it, I'll give it a +1. Does anyone else think any sites should be added before the RFV? I don't use sites like that so I'm not sure what other options are out there. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for fre at
Thanks Nikki I think a whitelist would be the most sensible option. I wasn't imagining that YouTube and MySpace would be appropriate, mainly as they have their own URL relationships already. And they're not quite streaming services in the sense I was thinking. Last FM was one of those, but now they've got rid of full track streaming on demand I don't think they'd fit either! Those link phrases look absolutely fine. Thanks. I'm (obviously) quite happy for you to do the shoehorning for the template, but let me know if you change your mind or if you need anything else. Thanks again Peter -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nikki Sent: 12 August 2010 01:39 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for fre at Pete Marsh wrote: RFC Expires 22/07/10 The purpose of this AR is to allow linkage from Artist Pages and Release Group/Releases or Tracks/Recordings to free streaming music services such as Spotify or we7. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_fre e_ at Are you intending this to have a whitelist (like the lyrics and cover art relationships) where people have to request new sites, or is it supposed to be like most of the other relationships (e.g. free download relationship) where we suggest sites but people can link to anything within reason? I get the feeling that people will try to link to YouTube videos, Last.fm and MySpace using this relationship. What's your thoughts on that? Are they ok or should they be excluded? The relationship needs link phrases for us to use on the site. For artists I'd suggest artist music can be streamed for free at URL URL is a free music streaming page for artist Then for releases and tracks I'd suggest: release/track can be streamed for free at URL URL is a free music streaming page for release/track Are they ok? The last thing is that we need to shoehorn the information on the page that we need into the template we use for relationship pages [1] so that we've got a page that will be part of the documentation. I can try doing that though with the answers to the above questions if you want. Nikki [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Template:Relationship ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for freat
I'm thinking primarily of services that have a large catalogue of legally available streamed music like Spotify, We7 etc with a reasonable longevity to that content. So NPR, Paste and Stereogum wouldn't be on the list as far as I was concerned... -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Mark Woodson Sent: 12 August 2010 17:47 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for freat I've got questions about what's going to be on the whitelist. Paste? NPR? Stereogum? etc. etc. etc. -Mark/InSinU8 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Thanks Nikki I think a whitelist would be the most sensible option. I wasn't imagining that YouTube and MySpace would be appropriate, mainly as they have their own URL relationships already. And they're not quite streaming services in the sense I was thinking. Last FM was one of those, but now they've got rid of full track streaming on demand I don't think they'd fit either! Those link phrases look absolutely fine. Thanks. I'm (obviously) quite happy for you to do the shoehorning for the template, but let me know if you change your mind or if you need anything else. Thanks again Peter -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nikki Sent: 12 August 2010 01:39 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for fre at Pete Marsh wrote: RFC Expires 22/07/10 The purpose of this AR is to allow linkage from Artist Pages and Release Group/Releases or Tracks/Recordings to free streaming music services such as Spotify or we7. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_fr e e_ at Are you intending this to have a whitelist (like the lyrics and cover art relationships) where people have to request new sites, or is it supposed to be like most of the other relationships (e.g. free download relationship) where we suggest sites but people can link to anything within reason? I get the feeling that people will try to link to YouTube videos, Last.fm and MySpace using this relationship. What's your thoughts on that? Are they ok or should they be excluded? The relationship needs link phrases for us to use on the site. For artists I'd suggest artist music can be streamed for free at URL URL is a free music streaming page for artist Then for releases and tracks I'd suggest: release/track can be streamed for free at URL URL is a free music streaming page for release/track Are they ok? The last thing is that we need to shoehorn the information on the page that we need into the template we use for relationship pages [1] so that we've got a page that will be part of the documentation. I can try doing that though with the answers to the above questions if you want. Nikki [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Template:Relationship ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for fre at
RFC Expires 22/07/10 The purpose of this AR is to allow linkage from Artist Pages and Release Group/Releases or Tracks/Recordings to free streaming music services such as Spotify or we7. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free_ at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free _at Thanks all - this my first bash at a proposal, so hints/tips/advice/abuse welcomed! Peter Peter Marsh | BBC Music Interactive | Room 718 | Henry Wood House | 3 - 6 Langham Place London W1B 3DF | 020 7765 2949 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/jazz http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
