Re: [mb-style] Japanese name guidelines
Den tisdagen den 20:e augusti 2013 skrev Rachel Dwight: > > That will just encourage people to be lazy. > There's nothing formally wrong with being lazy. As far as all inputted information is correct, that's really all we can ask of the editors. Some have more time/experience/energy to go extra miles in digging up more information on artists and releases, but as long as Everything put in is corrrect, there's no way (and shouldn't be) to force someone to do more work for MB than they already do. //[bnw] ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] second RFC: add “slipcase” to packaging types
I like this criteria of selection. //[bnw] On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 07/05/2011 04:35 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote: >>> So if a release has two different packaging types, it should be placed >>> in neither of them? That doesn’t make much sense to me. >> >> *shrug* Neither does this innermost rule to me. :-) > > It’s really very very simple: put the release in the packaging that > holds it. > > Examples: > As mentioned previously on the list, we have the cassette single with a > 4-sided slip case. 1 Medium, 1 packaging type, very simple. > > This release[1], 4 jewel cases inside a 5-sided slipcase. Since the > mediums are each in a different jewel case, it’s not correct to say that > the entire release is in a jewel case, so we need to look at the > packaging that covers the entire release: a slipcase. > > This release[2], 1 jewel case (on right, liner notes bottom middle) > inside a slipcase (top left). 1 medium, 2 packaging types. Since the > jewel case is the innermost and holds the one medium, use that. If at > some point MB gains multiple packaging types per release, we can use > both types. > >> No, I meant criteria for adding new types of packaging. > > Oh, OK. I’m pretty sure we have the RFC/RFV system for that. > > —Alex Mauer “hawke” > > 1. http://991.com/Buy/ProductInformation.aspx?StockNumber=140284 > 2. http://img.mercadolivre.com.br/jm/img?s=MLB&f=168653329_6493.jpg&v=E > > > ___ > 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] Typographically-correct punctuation and sortname style
Problem. In swedish Å, Ä and Ö are not diacritics, thery are individual letters on their own right that are at the end of the alphabet. ...XYZÅÄÖ, ...xyzåäö (please note that they are not in the ascii order, which I believe is ÄÅÖ). In german however, they (ä and ö anyway) are considered diacriticts, and are sorted as a regular A or O. //[bnw] On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:53 PM, SwissChris wrote: > While I don't see a real problem here (I never actually saw such a case, > which – if necessary – can easily be resolved by one simple edit replacing > the ASCII character in the sortname by the typographically correct one ;-) > we do have a more acute problem with sortnames. Right now the guidelines > asks for maintaining all sorts of diacritics for the sortname: This leads to > some absurd results: right now bands using diacritics like "Die Ärzte", > "Àgua na boca" or "Les Épis noirs" sort after "Renato Zero", "Warren Zevon" > or "Zucchero" (and "Gilbert Bécaud" after "Carla Bruni"). "Chris de Burgh" > (sortname "de Burgh, Chris") also (because of the lower case initial) sorts > after all "Z"-Names. Any chance to get this sort routine corrected? > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Nikki wrote: >> >> In my opinion, it's a problem with the music player if it can't sort >> unicode characters properly and I would just use what's in the artist >> name. We already permit a huge range of characters (mainly accented >> ones) which would be problematic for something which doesn't know how to >> sort non-ASCII characters. Plus, replacing the characters in sortnames >> when tagging with Picard can be done in exactly the same way as >> replacing them in artist names if it's a problem for someone. ;) >> >> Nikki >> >> Bogdan Butnaru wrote: >> > Hello everyone! >> > >> > I don’t recall seeing this subject mentioned, but I wasn’t always >> > along for the whole discussion on RFV2-294. >> > >> > I’ve been looking through Sortname Style and I don’t notice any >> > specific mention of punctuation; there’s only the general rule about >> > “stylized names”. So as far as I can tell, the current Miscellaneous >> > Guideline applies to sortnames, in the sense that correct punctuation >> > is preferred to ASCII but not mandatory. >> > >> > While that is in itself an acceptable policy, it does potentially >> > break the implied intent of a sortname. Imagine the scenario of these >> > four bands existing (each name starting after the colon): >> > >> > 1: X’s a >> > 2: X’s aa >> > 3: X’s b >> > 4: X’s bb >> > >> > As I understand it, Sortname Style is intended to lead to these four >> > names being sorted as above (1-2-3-4). However, if for some reason 1 >> > and 3 use one kind of apostrophe and 2 and 4 use a different kind, a >> > sorting algorithm that doesn’t collate the two apostrophes as >> > identical can sort them as 1-3-2-4 or 2-4-1-3. Similar things can >> > happen with the other punctuation marks, but I imagine they’re less >> > common in names (as opposed to titles); even if they do happen, it’s >> > less likely that they happen several times in the same position. >> > >> > So, does anyone else think we need to discuss this? >> > >> > (Even if we decide that we don’t care and we just leave the option to >> > the editors, we should probably mention that explicitly in the >> > Sortname Style page; I had to read it several times to decide that >> > both ASCII and “correct” punctuation is allowed, and I’m still not >> > 100% sure. >> > >> > Also note that even if the MusicBrainz server uses a collation that >> > treats the various apostrophes as identical, other systems like music >> > players might not.) >> > >> > -- Bogdan Butnaru >> > >> > ___ >> > 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 > ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Does death end a marriage?
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 1:58 AM, SwissChris wrote:
> You didn't react to my first point: I still believe that legally, officially
> '''and''' religiously ("…till death does us part") marriage ends with the
> death of one of the partners. I don't think MB should install a guideline
> that goes against general understanding and common sense.
This is my opinion as well. The other interpretation seems like
someone who has gotten stuck in an unhealthy way into their sorrow.
Plus it's really strange that you can do or not do something today
that introduces an unrelated date in the past for an AR.
//[bnw]
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Brian Schweitzer
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM, SwissChris wrote:
>>>
>>> ''Philosophically'' this is an interesting concept. But ''legally'',
>>> ''officially'' death obviously ends a marriage with your marital status
>>> changing from ''married'' to ''widowed''.
>>> On a side note: Do we have (do we need?) guidelines for same-sex
>>> marriages? (Or, since the term "marriage" is often avoided, for ''officially
>>> recognized same-sex partnerships'')
>>
>> I don't think so, personally. I think the current language is vague
>> enough to allow any marriage, so long as a "marriage" exists/existed.
>>
>> Side note to the side note: While cleaning up and templatizing this one, I
>> made one minor change; if there's a sense that it needs an RFC, I'd be happy
>> to revert it out and RFC it. The old language specified a marriage as "This
>> links two artists who were married." I changed it to simply "This links
>> artists who were married.", to not cause problems in those rare cases of
>> polygamous marriage.
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Brian Schweitzer
>>> wrote:
The AR currently does not define the end of a marriage when it says that
the end date fields should indicate when a marriage ended.
This is easy to get from a divorce. But does death also equate to the
end of a marriage? The AR's example is Yoko Ono and John Lennon:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/artist/relationships.html?artistid=815 "John
Lennon is/was married to Yoko Ono from 1969-03-20 until 1980-12-08".
However, many widowers consider themselves to still be married, even if
their partner has died.
Rather than the vague:
"This indicates the date that a marriage ended."
how about something like:
"This indicates the date that a marriage ended. This occurs when:
# a marriage is annulled; the end date is the date of the annulment
# a couple divorces; the end date is the date the divorce takes effect
# one artist dies '''and''' the surviving artist remarries; the end date
is the date of the death of the first artist.
If the surviving artist does not remarry, or both artists die at the
same time, the end date should be left blank."
This would mean that for Yoko, the following would be the possible valid
ARs and dates (based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoko_Ono and
http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/p/johnlennon.htm ):
Toshi Ichiyanagi from 1956 to 1962 (divorce clause)
Anthony Cox from 1962-11-28 to 1963-03-1 (annullment clause)
Anthony Cox from 1963-06-06 to 1969-02-02 (divorce clause)
John Lennon from 1969-03-20 to 1980-12-18 (death of one person, and Yoko
remarried afterwards)
Sam Havadtoy from 1981 to 2002 (divorce)
Had she not remarried after John's death, then the valid ARs instead
would be:
Toshi Ichiyanagi from 1956 to 1962 (divorce clause)
Anthony Cox from 1962-11-28 to 1963-03-1 (annullment clause)
Anthony Cox from 1963-06-06 to 1969-02-02 (divorce clause)
John Lennon from 1969-03-20 to ___ (no remarriage, so no end date)
Brian
___
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
>
>
> ___
> 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] Pre-RFC: Block direct in-law relationships
I'm not sure I support this.
Possibly it's a language thing, but I'd think "brother" and
"brother-in-law" are two completely separate phenomena, only threy use
a few of the same letters in their names. Adding this clarification to
the sibling class seems to me pretty much the same as adding "The
sibling class should not be used on two people who are only bound
together by their common liking of the same taste milkshake". It just
seems like extra clutter that doesn't add sometihing.
Plus it seems like your suggestion supports adding non-artists as an
artist just in order to link these two together.
//[bnw]
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Brian Schweitzer
wrote:
> This would block direct in-law personal association relationships.
>
> Add the following after the exception clause on Personal Association
> Relationship Class:
>
> * Relationships created by marriage ('in-laws') should '''not''' be directly
> represented using these relationship types. Instead, the above exception
> should be used, with the linking individual added as an artist, and the
> appropriate relationship types being created between that individual and
> each of the two artists.
> :* Example: Given that (Artist1) is the brother-in-law of (Artist2),
> (Artist1) is '''not''' the sibling of (Artist2). '''Instead''', (Artist1)
> is the sibling of (Artist1's sibling), '''and''' (Artist1's sibling) was
> married to (Artist2)
>
> If anyone can think of a way to say this simpler, I'd welcome it! :D It
> doesn't encourage the creation of the ARs, it only simplifies the possible
> interpretations of the ARs when someone does decide to enter them by taking
> relationships-by-marriage out of the picture.
>
> Brian
>
> ___
> 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] 1 CD/digital = 2 X LP = 2 disc?
It creates real value in the database in that it models the reality. There exist releases with these tracks in this order on this many discs. And we want to model the reality regarding music releases as acurately as possible. Disc IDs isn't important for anything else than CD releases (and pergaps DVDs and whatnot...). Releases only released on vinyl or cassette won't have them either. //[bnw] > When the track listings are identical, the catalog numbers are > identical and it's been broken across multiple discs because of > limitations in the media with vinyl, I'd argue that it doesn't create > any real value in the database. There is never going to be a disc id > to attach to these things. Most often a download is provided with the > purchase, and so PUID's would have to be manually linked to this weird > multi-disc edition. It just seems kind of an unnecessary waste. > > Has this issue been considered recently? > > -Mark / InSinU8 > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistSortName w. trios, quartets, quintets, etc.
How about only when the person name starts the band name (except for "The")? Goodman, Benny Quartet, The. Guaraldi, Vince Trio, The. Sensational Alex Harvey Band, The. Hendrix, Jimi Experience, The. To not have The Sensational Alex Harvey Band at S seems just about too weird. //[bnw]] On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote: > This one has been stuck in my mind for a while now. > > According to ArtistSortName, "Think of the sort name as being the name > that would place the artist where you would expect to find it > alphabetically (e.g. in a record shop)." > > Okay, if I were looking for something by the Benny Goodman Quartet, > would I look under "B" or "G"? I'd look under G for Goodman. What about > the Vince Guaraldi Trio? Under "G" for Guaraldi. > > Sort name for these artists currently show up under "B" (Benny Goodman > Quartet) and "V" (Vince Guaraldi Trio). This is unfortunately consistent > with SortNameStyle. > > According to SortNameStyle, 'Artist names that contain a person's name > (usually bands) do not sort as persons, but as ficticious names. > Examples: "The Sensational Alex Harvey Band" has sort name "Sensational > Alex Harvey Band, The". "The Jimi Hendrix Experience" has sort name > "Jimi Hendrix Experience, The".' > > A change to SortNameStyle I'd like you to consider is: > > 'Artist names that contain a person's name (usually bands) should sort > in a manner consistent with the person's name as an artist. Examples: > "The Sensational Alex Harvey Band" has the sort name "Harvey, Alex, > Sensational, Band, The". "The Jimi Hendrix Experience" has sort name > "Hendrix, Jimi, Experience, The".' > > Uglier? Yes, but useful. The downside is a somewhat more complex artist > sort name. The upside is artist sorting more consistent with what I > would expect to see in record stores and libraries. > > In my examples, the band names would sort as "Goodman, Benny, Quartet, > The" and "Guaraldi, Vince, Trio" respectively. > > If this change is too extreme, would a suitable compromise make sense > for trios, quartets, quintents, etc? > > Paul > > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Wording change on BonusDisc (was: [mb-users], Bonus discs: "Official" or "Promotion"?)
I have loads of releases with prints like that that I wouldn't (but maybe you?) consider promos. They're all self-released CD-Rs and casettes where the artist in question didn't bother to clear samples ans such, because they know they're not going to make any money on it anyway. //[bnw] On 7/6/08, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/3/08, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > a promo is a something distributed (for free) to promote a certain > > release/label/artist(s). if it's repacked into a retail release by a > > store (they often do this - especially indepenedent mail order shops) > > then it's not a bonus disc of that release, because the disc wasn't > > released (by the label) in that context. if it somehow was, then it > > wouldn't be a promo, IMO. > > I disagree that promo releases are always distributed freely. > > Club and DJ samplers are primarily subscription only, but you have to > prove to the service that you are in fact a DJ or employ DJ's to even > get your hands on them. They are inarguably promo releases though > (one of the biggest of these services is in fact 'Promo Only', but > there's several others.) > > Magazine inserts, Newspaper giveaways, and the freebies that small > labels/bands often throw in for their fan club members or preorder > customers are all nominally for sale, but they often say 'for > promotional purposes only' and 'not for resale' on the cover; in fact, > that's my personal guideline if it's otherwise unclear. I disregard > the mode of distribution if the cover clearly says it's a promotional > release, then it is one. > > -- > Lauri Watts > > ___ > 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] A two-in-one album
But they're always bundled together, or? Is it possible to get Era One without Lesson in magic? It's not always sure that MB bonus discs are the same as real world bonus discs (which really aren't that well-defined anyway). //[bnw] On 6/27/07, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Because at least some editions have a big nice sticker on the cover saying "Includes the bonus CD Lesson in Magic": http://www.blackmetal.com/scans0606/samael_era.jpg (sorry for the small picture, but it's legible). http://www.blackmetal.com/scans0606/samael_era.jpg Also, it's called bonus disc pretty much everywhere. On 6/27/07, Thomas Tholén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably B with a variant; since it's not a bonus disc, why not just use the > normal (disc X: title) format? > Era One (disc 1) > Era One (disc 2: Lesson in Magic #1) > > //[bnw] > > > On 6/22/07, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > > > I have an unusual case and I'd like to know the group's opinion about it: > > > > Samael(1) released last year a kind of double album. It is "sort of" > > titled Era One (2), and it came together with a "bonus disc" titled > > "Lesson in Magic #1" (3), which contains a sort of side-project by one > > of the band members. > > > > (1) > http://musicbrainz.org/artist/6a2ca1ac-408d-49b0-a7f6-cd608f2f684f.html > > (2) > http://musicbrainz.org/release/f3b2b3cb-cd52-4c54-bc42-8666c26c94c8.html > > (3) > http://musicbrainz.org/release/654bb2cf-18e0-4f29-a69d-1ea4dc061938.html > > > > I've seen this referred to as "Era One - Lesson in Magic #1" pretty > > much everywhere (except Amazon, who calls it "Era One + Lesson in > > Magic"), including on the band's site. However, the cover (4) calls it > > quite clearly "Era One". I've even seen one (5) with a sticker saying > > "includes the bonus CD Lesson in Magic" (small picture, sorry). As a > > counter-however, though, apparently both discs are in the same case, > > and the back cover lists both track lists. (To my knowledge, they've > > never been released separately.) > > > > (4) http://www.metalstorm.de/bilder/review/era.jpg > > (5) > http://www.blackmetal.com/cgi-bin/gold/category.cgi?item=CM8325DCD > > > > The two are entered in the database as "Era One / Lesson in Magic #1 > > (disc 1: Era One)" and "Era One / Lesson in Magic #1 (disc 2: Lesson > > in Magic #1)". > > > > Now, this looks like it matches the guidelines, but it seems a very > > bad match to me. For one, it's very redundant. This is often done > > here, though, and it's probably not grounds enough for an exception in > > itself. > > > > However, since (i) the front cover clearly says only "Era One" (4) and > > (ii) the second disc is only listed as a bonus (5), I think it's not > > the best way to enter it ---and, of course, I don't like how it looks > > ;-) > > > > I was considering two options: > > > > (A) Rename the discs to just "Era One" and "Lesson in Magic #1". This > > looks best but leaves out the fact that they've only been released > > together. (Personally, I think that's the annotation's job, but it > > doesn't match the guidelines as tight as many editors like.) > > > > (B) As a compromise, rename the first disc to "Era One" and the second > > to "Era One (bonus disc: Lesson in Magic #1)". This would clearly (i) > > mark the first disc's status as "main album" as the cover says and > > (ii) mark the second disc as clearly sold together with the first. > > > > I'd like to see your opinions before I enter any edits. What do you think? > > > > -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O. > > > > PS: This leaves aside the question of which artist to credit with the > > second disc, since the site (6) mentions quite clearly it's "composed > > and performed by Xy[tras]"---there's a precedent (7). Since the cover > > only credits Samael directly (the other one was sold separately) I'd > > leave it as it is. > > > > (6) http://www.samael.info/rol/era_one.htm > > (7) > http://musicbrainz.org/release/1981e91c-12e7-49c3-9dab-3a79d2acbbf5.html > > > > ___ > > 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 > -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] A two-in-one album
Probably B with a variant; since it's not a bonus disc, why not just use the normal (disc X: title) format? Era One (disc 1) Era One (disc 2: Lesson in Magic #1) //[bnw] On 6/22/07, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello! I have an unusual case and I'd like to know the group's opinion about it: Samael(1) released last year a kind of double album. It is "sort of" titled Era One (2), and it came together with a "bonus disc" titled "Lesson in Magic #1" (3), which contains a sort of side-project by one of the band members. (1) http://musicbrainz.org/artist/6a2ca1ac-408d-49b0-a7f6-cd608f2f684f.html (2) http://musicbrainz.org/release/f3b2b3cb-cd52-4c54-bc42-8666c26c94c8.html (3) http://musicbrainz.org/release/654bb2cf-18e0-4f29-a69d-1ea4dc061938.html I've seen this referred to as "Era One - Lesson in Magic #1" pretty much everywhere (except Amazon, who calls it "Era One + Lesson in Magic"), including on the band's site. However, the cover (4) calls it quite clearly "Era One". I've even seen one (5) with a sticker saying "includes the bonus CD Lesson in Magic" (small picture, sorry). As a counter-however, though, apparently both discs are in the same case, and the back cover lists both track lists. (To my knowledge, they've never been released separately.) (4) http://www.metalstorm.de/bilder/review/era.jpg (5) http://www.blackmetal.com/cgi-bin/gold/category.cgi?item=CM8325DCD The two are entered in the database as "Era One / Lesson in Magic #1 (disc 1: Era One)" and "Era One / Lesson in Magic #1 (disc 2: Lesson in Magic #1)". Now, this looks like it matches the guidelines, but it seems a very bad match to me. For one, it's very redundant. This is often done here, though, and it's probably not grounds enough for an exception in itself. However, since (i) the front cover clearly says only "Era One" (4) and (ii) the second disc is only listed as a bonus (5), I think it's not the best way to enter it ---and, of course, I don't like how it looks ;-) I was considering two options: (A) Rename the discs to just "Era One" and "Lesson in Magic #1". This looks best but leaves out the fact that they've only been released together. (Personally, I think that's the annotation's job, but it doesn't match the guidelines as tight as many editors like.) (B) As a compromise, rename the first disc to "Era One" and the second to "Era One (bonus disc: Lesson in Magic #1)". This would clearly (i) mark the first disc's status as "main album" as the cover says and (ii) mark the second disc as clearly sold together with the first. I'd like to see your opinions before I enter any edits. What do you think? -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O. PS: This leaves aside the question of which artist to credit with the second disc, since the site (6) mentions quite clearly it's "composed and performed by Xy[tras]"---there's a precedent (7). Since the cover only credits Samael directly (the other one was sold separately) I'd leave it as it is. (6) http://www.samael.info/rol/era_one.htm (7) http://musicbrainz.org/release/1981e91c-12e7-49c3-9dab-3a79d2acbbf5.html ___ 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] Concert Recordings & Release Dates
I don't see the point in messing up the fields by using them for anything else than what they're meant for. They should only keep the date of the concert if it's in fact available on the date of the concert (which I believe is quite unlikely? Or did I get your Pearl Jam example wrong?). //[bnw] On 12/2/06, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey everyone, Some fukker (hehe) got me thinking about concert recordings and how we date them here on MB. You may be aware that Metallica has been recording their concerts for a few years now and releasing them on www.livemetallica.com for purchase to download. Several other artists are doing this same thing (... ummm ... Pearl Jam! They record their shows and give out CD copies after the show) and I bet this practice will only become more common as it becomes easier to deliver concert recordings to fans. What I want to propose is that we use the concert's Performance Date as the release date ONLY for official concert recordings that the band sells/gives out on a regular basis. The term "regular basis" isn't hashed out very well at all, so maybe that's something we can discuss. I think, in cases such as Metallica's and Pearl Jam's, it is reasonable to use the performance date as the release date. Any thoughts? -- -Aaron ___ 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] Classical releases titles should be sleeves' title or reflect the whole content of release ?
I can't see how we would want anything else that the title (that would be what's printed on the release, IMO) in the title field. If the release is called different things in different places, then that's a problem of course, but those are best solved case-by-case, and preferably by chosing one of the possible titles, not by making up a completely new one only because releases with the same music usually are called that way. That will make it more difficult to find your exact release than necessary. //[bnw]On 10/20/06, mll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello there,Thsi edit http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5821124 brings this mail.Frenquently, while a classical CD bears several works, only one is featured on the sleeve.Example: http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B27O4P whose sleeve onlymentions Bach's magnificat while ther's also a cantate in it. So what should the title be, 1) "J.S. Bach: Magnificat" as per the sleeve,or something like 2) "Magnificat BWV 243 / Cantate BWV 80" ?My take would be that, often a release may bear different sleeves with different titles according to the country where it's released, or the dateof re-release, so I think choice 2 is better.Your opinion ?MLL___ Musicbrainz-style mailing listMusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.orghttp://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Torrents as Releases (Was: Billboard's "topwhatever")
Citerar Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. Well... MB isn't only about tagging. There's also the completeness aspect of it, and the question wether these releases are needed for the database to be considered coplete or not. //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Is french silly? :p (French capitalization rules)
> Now, let us look at the problem from another point of view, Olivier. > What would you do if a similar system was chosen for a widely used > language (english, german, italian, spanish...) which you don't > understand but you will want to enter titles in? Will you > 1-enter the tracks wrongly, hoping another user will correct them afterwards > 2-call a reference user to help you > 3-learn the language > 4-...? Any one of those will work I suppose. There's not really much meaning to have caps rules that works for people having no clue whatsoever about the language in question. They wouldn't even know which words are names, so they couldn't ever do anything better that just blindly guess anyway. //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: FW: [mb-style] What defines a Soundtrack?
Also there are the actual game discs which sometimes have cd-player-playable music tracks on them. There are loads of them in the database, usually with a quite massive datatrack as track one, and then some music tracks at the end. //[bnw] Citerar Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 7/27/06, Beth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does anyone else have any more "types" of soundtracks? I know > > they can be added later. Just figured I'd get as many outlooks as I > > could before drawing up the wiki for it. > > Here're a few cases of game soundtracks I encountered: > > *) Official soundtracks: audio CD with music from the game, usually > adapted in some way. > > *) Direct rips of the game's music files. These can be mp3/ogg/wav, or > some sort of midi format (for older games usually). The midi format is > interesting because it often sounds very different on different > "sequencers". > > *) Related to the above, we have mp3s (or similar) recordings of the > midi files played on a certain model of sequencer. For different > people the particular sequencer used may be interesting (it's a very > good model, nostalgia) or not (they just don't have one, and want > mp3s). > > *) Similar to the above, there are recordings (or reinterpretations) > of a game's soundtrack, either on the computer or played by humans > with physical instruments. (I think there's a band specialized in > playing songs from games.) These are probably classified as covers, > but some may be faithful enough to the original music that they need > be classified as soundtracks (I really don't know, just presenting the > possibilities.) > > *) The last case I know is the Overclocked Remixes: they "remix" > (though I'm sure this doesn't always include any orginal sound > material) tracks from games. They are interesting because they even > released a double-cd album of 'reinterpretations' of many of the song > in a single game (not sure if all of them are covered). This is close > enough to the soundtrack concept that I think is useful at least for > providing a bound. > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_Phobos > > -- Bogdan Butnaru â [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." â O. > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Is french silly? :p (French capitalization rules)
Citerar Mangled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2006/7/27, Thomas Tholén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Sorry for the ignorance, but > > A) What's a "verbal phrase"? > > errr... now you criticize my english :D Nonono, I criticize my own english. I just simply didn't know what they meant. Thanks! //[bnw] > > "The panda eat bamboo last sunday" is a verbal phrase, a sentence. > "The Mangled Panda" is not. > > > B) What's a "proper noun"? > > "My name is Olivier" > "My name is not panda" > > ___ > 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] Is french silly? :p (French capitalization rules)
Sorry for the ignorance, but A) What's a "verbal phrase"? B) What's a "proper noun"? //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Re: split artist release title
I don't really have an opinion on "split" or not, I'd just like to pont out that this case is quite far from equivalent with V/A releases. In all cases I can think of V/A releases already have a name, and this is about constructing a (MB purpose) name for something that doesn't already have one. //[bnw] Citerar Jan van Thiel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 7/4/06, Stefan Kestenholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > /me thinks it would be great if you could revisit > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseTypeRestructuringProposal > > and bring it into a state where we can just develop this feature in the > most > > straightforward manner. I think it needs some additional work, from that > > point on the discussions about the current release attributes will be > > irrelevant. > > I agree. > > And I'd like to have this proposal implemented regardless whether we > have a release attribute 'Split' or not. I think 'Split' shouldn't be > part of the title, the same as we don't add 'Various Artists' or > something equal to VA releases. > > -- > Jan van Thiel (zout) > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: new AR type "was digital engineered by"
While on the subject... Who can explain to me the difference of sound engineering and audio engineering? Seems like the same thing in two different languages. //[bnw] Citerar Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 7/2/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Isn't digital engineering just the same as sound engineering using > > computers? Do we really need to split that apart? And if we do, should > > we not also split "analogue engineered" or something? > > > > Well, I think analogue engineered is implied... but what makes digital > engineering "sound engineering"? Why isn't digital engineering "audio > engineering"? I just thought there wasn't much distinction between > them, so it wouldn't hurt to use another AR for different terminology. > > -- > -Aaron > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: new AR type "was digital engineered by"
I don't feel strongly about it either way, but maybe it would work as a checkbox for engineered? //[bnw] > Right now we have engineered, sound engineered, and audio engineered, > but I think we need a digital engineered option as many bands now > record digitally using applications like ProTools. One example is > Metallica's "St. Anger" that was "digitally engineered" by Mike > Gillies. Right now, I have Mike Gillies as simply "engineered" St. > Anger. (See http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=5105091) > > Any thoughts? > > -- > -Aaron > > ___ > 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] "(album version)"
Citerar Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If we decided to, sure why not? Then we would know the live songs are > (live), but it isn't super critical because in most cases, the live > recording is of the original recording. One exception to this is when > a band plays only a portion of the original recording, like Metallica > only playing the first half of Master of Puppets. In this case, most > people call the song "Master of Puppets (jam/excerpt/etc)" or even a > fan-given name of the Master of Puppets/Welcome Home (Sanitarium) > medley... which is escaping me at the moment. I don't follow this at all. I /might/ understand what you're saying if I replace 'recording' with 'song', is that what you're meaning? I think it's extremely important to keep the terminology consistent when discussing this, otherwise noone will know what anyone is talking about. A band can't play a recording live, that's a contradiction (or playback). Could we please keep to 'songs' and 'tracks'? > > > By the way, we do have the > > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameTrackRelationshipType to clarify the > > > identical tracks. > > > > See, we can link identical tracks together, so we don't need the name to > be > > the same as we can already store the fact they're identical. This argument > > is used in other places, so why can't it apply here? It just seems to be a > > load of whining about "My tags! They're not the same!" which applies to > > other things too but those aren't changed to make tagging easier because > we > > simply state "MusicBrainz isn't just for tagging". > > At this time linking tracks has no practical application and seems > useless to me. I do hope that we will be able to use this information > in the ARs some day, but I don't want to have to go through all of > Metallica's bootlegs and say "X is a live recording of Y" just to have > that relationship - I don't think anyone wants to! If there is a way to do it without completely maiming the track titles and people would be just too lazy to do it, then that would really piss me off. //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] "(album version)"
Citerar Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think it is easily assumed that any track on a Single release > without any special attributes (live)/(acoustic)/(demo)/(remix)/(edit) > is a song which has been previously recorded or is not live/acoustic/a > demo/remixed/edited version of the orginal. I think this is obvious > because Albums are the primary releases of ~99% of artists and a > Single usually highlights a specific song from an existing album. I'd say about 50% of the singles (of album releasing artists) comes out before the album, and the rest 50% after the album has been released. > I just think the original release is the most important, so its seems > ridiculous to have an identical song released on a single and have it > titled with (album version). Just think about a Single that has 3 or > 4 songs from an existing album - which is not overly rare. We will > have a single with titles: "St. Anger (edit)", "St. Anger (album > version)", "The Unnamed Feeling (album version)", "Some Kind of > Monster (album version)", "Frantic (album version)", "St. Anger > (live)". Wouldn't that seem crazy? I never saw such a single, did you? But anuhoo, if those are the titles that are put on the release, then I can see no reason to not let them in to out database. We're aiming for correctness, no? But if they're not there (and even if they happen to be the same tracks as are also on an album), then noone's suggesting to make up a version-name and put it there. Just go with the way the tracks are named on the particular release. //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] "(album version)"
Citerar Paula Callesøe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. Not part of the song title obviously, but part of the track title (important distinction). feat. is a whole different ballgame. That is part of the really useful style guidelines that talks about how to press real life releases into the not always so flexible database. We are/were not able to have two artists as perfomers of the same track, but it does frequently happen in the real world, therefore we need a way to put this in the database. This is done by appending a "feat." parenthesis. Compare it to other necessary guidelines as for example how to group discs that belong to one release together (this is done by appending (disc X) parenthesis to the title). //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] "(album version)"
>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] > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas > Tholén > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:28 AM > To: MusicBrainz style discussion > Subject: Re: [mb-style] "(album version)" > > You'll never git reid of the fact that same tracks have different names in > different contexts. For example live tracks will have the same effect. > > To sort out which tracks are exactly the same you need somethin else. An"is > the > same track as"-AR (Do we already have one of those?) > > 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. > > //[bnw] > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] "(album version)"
You'll never git reid of the fact that same tracks have different names in different contexts. For example live tracks will have the same effect. To sort out which tracks are exactly the same you need somethin else. An"is the same track as"-AR (Do we already have one of those?) 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. //[bnw] > 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 > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] "(album version)"
What she said. Really. I can't phrase it any better than what Nikki did, but those are words straight out of my heart as well. It's so totally arbitrary that it sickens me, and we're losing information over it all the time which will be if not impossible, take lots and lots and lots of work to get back. Can't we just nuke the stupid (album version) rule once and for all? Please? //[bnw] Citerar Nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says "If the > release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the album > version". I think this is completely wrong. A single does not necessarily > have to include an album version and to me, the 'default' version on a > single is the *single* version, given that it's, well, a single. Also, an > album also does not necessarily have to include all songs from a single, so > there may not even *be* an album version in existence. A single also need > not include a single version, and if it does, it doesn't necessarily have > to be labelled as such. By removing '(album version)', we're making it > completely ambiguous. Is it an unlabelled single version? Is it an album > version? Is it a mistakenly unlabelled remix, edit or live version? > > We're also being inconsistent, LiveTrackStyle says tracks should not > contain (live) as the release status is live. Surely, by this logic, we > should not remove (album version) from singles and remove (single version) > instead. I personally don't like removing any of the version information > from singles, they can and do contain so many different versions (single, > album, live, radio edit, etc.) that you can't really say any particular > version is the default. > > So why should album version be assumed to be the default version for > singles and not live albums? > > --Nikki > > P.S. Won't we have to go back and add (album version) back to all the > singles once we have NGS? > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] albums and single with the same title
Citerar Brian Gurtler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I might be out of line here, because I don't really know the tag system, but it seems like you're talking about different things. You're talking exclusively about "album title" and "track title" tags, while he's talking about all the tags (wherein i suppose there's room for track numbers and the like), and that some players maybe take that into account aswell. //[bnw] > > > Steve Wyles wrote: > > On Thu, 4 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote: > > > >> Steve Wyles wrote: > >>> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote: > >>> > Steve Wyles wrote: > > On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote: > > > >> i think we need a way to differentiate singles form albums with the > >> same > >> name. > >> For example Morphine has an album titled "Cure for Pain" they also > >> have > >> a single "Cure for Pain" as well. > >> I have both ripped and tagged but they end up in the same folder. > >> Also > >> if i physically move one of them to another folder they end up in the > >> same album in my music player library anyway because they have the > >> same > >> title information in their tags. > >> > >> what can we do to prevent this from happening? > >> > >> can we add "(single)" to singles that have the same title as albums? > >> would anyone be opposed to that? > > > > Why replicate the information in the title when it is already held in > > the release type? Use the album type in the filename (%type in picard) > > to make it unique. > > > > Steve (inhouseuk) > > > > right, but the tag will still be non-unique. > >>> > >>> They'll be unique if you take the track numbers into account. > >>> Especially, if you store them as x/y where y is the total number of > >>> tracks on the release. > >>> > >>> Steve (inhouseuk) > >>> > >> > >> no. they won't be unique. they will all be tagged with the same album > >> title. that's not unique and therefore (I'd guess depending on what > >> music player used) will end up all in the same album in the library. > >> you can store them however you want but anything tagged with Morphine as > >> an artist and Cure for Pain as the album title (wither it's a single or > >> an album) will end up in the "Cure for Pain" album in the library > >> regardless of the track number or any other tagged information or file > >> structure. > >> > > > > So use the additional data that is already available to make it unique. > > > > You asked for advice as to how to deal with the situation, this has been > > given. There is a way to ensure they are unique taking the information > > that is available. It is not a problem of the way it is stored in the > > database, it is a problem in the way that data is being interpreted on > > the client. > > > > There is zero point in duplicating that data in other fields and it will > > not be done. > > > > Steve (inhouseuk) > > > > you must be confusing tags with file names or something because you're > making this way more complicated than it has to be or is. > i'm pretty sure everyone else that posted to this thread understood what > i was getting at. > > you currently CANT use the data already available to make the tags unique. > the way to ensure that they ARE unique involves manual editing of the > album tags of the file or waiting for TaggerScript and have it be able > to insert thingys into tags. > If it's not going to be done on the DB side, that's totally fine. I'm > not even arguing for it or anything. But eventually there does needs to > be a way for picard to make these tags unique for artists that have > multiple releases with the same name. > > if you currently have a way for %type to be included in an albums _tag_ > via picard, please don't hold out.. let me in on it! :) > > http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3685/screenshotbobbypreviteanthemfo.png > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
> the fact that they are very often credited seperately "ie 'written and
> composed by X' on liners should be reason enough. i tried to explain
> the differences in more detail on the wiki page - hope that helps.
Would that not mean that the lyrics (written) and music (composed) was written
by X?
//[bnw]
>
> On 02/05/06, Simon Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Chris Bransden wrote:
> > > New AR time!
> > >
> > > "artist {additionally} {guest} wrote {lyrics:lyrics for}OR{music:
> > > music for} album or track"
> >
> > To me the writer of the music was always the composer.
> >
> > Simon (Shepard)
> >
> > ___
> > Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> >
>
> ___
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] language of descriptions for untitled tracks
My thoughts exactly. //[bnw] > > I'm not too thrilled about the whole concept of adding > > pseudo-titles, but if we're going to do it it should work > > like this (imho of course). > > > > The reason we're doing it is to give so information on what > > the track contains (when it doesn't have a title). And this > > information should be useable for all of the MB population, > > and should therefore use the official MB language of > > information; english. > > > > //[bnw] > > Why are we even considering pseudo-titles at all? We already have [1] > UntitledTrackStyle which says use "[untitled]". If the only reason is to add > descriptive information, that can be done in an annotation. Since there > aren't two versions we don't "need" descriptive information like with > remixes. > > The other thing that comes to mind is the only tag that this information > would naturally be associated with is Comment not title so again this really > should be an annotation. > > Cristov (wolfsong) > > [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/UntitledTrackStyle > > > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] language of descriptions for untitled tracks
I heard this before, and I find it weird. Am I the only one who listens to and enjoys music in languages I don't understand? //[bnw] > I disagree, I think we should enter this kind of information at whatever is > the album language, we should not care about the whole MB population because > > I think that the whole MB population is not going to be interested at an > artist whose track and album titles are all in another language than > english, I think that those interested in this artist do have at least a > minimal knowledge of his language, such as to make them recognise > information like a drum solo, if a track is instrumental or if we have a > "(feat. ). > > > > ___ > 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] language of descriptions for untitled tracks
Maybe so, but I think the way tom handle that would be to code it possible to showe up in different languages for whoever wants what. Until that day I think english works better. To use MB as it stands today toy have to be able to understand english. To change that will take a boatload of coding work, and to start making things only available to cerftain people before that change is done seems to me like starting in the wrong end. //[bnw] > Thomas Tholén wrote: > > I didn't see it stated anywhere either, but it clearly is. The wohle > website is > > in english (all text, instructions, style guides, ARs...), the wiki is in > > english, (almost) all mod note communication is in english, and all > > communication over the mailing lists is in english. > > > > I fail to see the relevance of your links (probably because I'm not > familiar > > with the languages), but remix names, version names and the likes doesn't > apply > > here, as those are the actual titles and shouldn't be changed. > > I messed up the second link, was supposed to be > http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=%E3%82%AB%E3%83%A9%E3%82%AA%E3%82%B1&type=track > > They were of the common words "version" and "karaoke" > > Anyway, making rules that stuff must be in English based off the fact > that most of the site is in English now seems like a good way to make > sure it stays that way forever. It also goes against our stated goals > in http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/InterNationalization - if we're aiming to > provide MB in people's native languages then mandating English due to > its prevalence seems counterproductive. > > > > ___ > 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] language of descriptions for untitled tracks
I didn't see it stated anywhere either, but it clearly is. The wohle website is in english (all text, instructions, style guides, ARs...), the wiki is in english, (almost) all mod note communication is in english, and all communication over the mailing lists is in english. I fail to see the relevance of your links (probably because I'm not familiar with the languages), but remix names, version names and the likes doesn't apply here, as those are the actual titles and shouldn't be changed. //[bnw] > Thomas Tholén wrote: > > I'm not too thrilled about the whole concept of adding pseudo-titles, but > if > > we're going to do it it should work like this (imho of course). > > > > The reason we're doing it is to give so information on what the track > contains > > (when it doesn't have a title). And this information should be useable for > all > > of the MB population, and should therefore use the official MB language of > > information; english. > > > Is English our official language of information? I hadn't seen that > anywhere before. And if it is, why? I see lots of version information > in the DB that isn't in English, see searches like > http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3&type=track > > and > http://musicbrainz.org/search/textsearch.html?query=%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3&type=track > > > ___ > 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] language of descriptions for untitled tracks
I'm not too thrilled about the whole concept of adding pseudo-titles, but if we're going to do it it should work like this (imho of course). The reason we're doing it is to give so information on what the track contains (when it doesn't have a title). And this information should be useable for all of the MB population, and should therefore use the official MB language of information; english. //[bnw] > Hi! > > Please take a look at mods [1] and [2]. The tracks do not have titles > (it's a DVD rip, here is a link [3]) and the original modder added > their descriptions as titles. > > [1] http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4660395 > [2] http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4660390 > [3] http://www.avalanch.net/cien_veces/ > > According to UntitledTrackStyle [4], these should be added in square > brackets, in lowercase. However, there is no mention there of the > language to be used: English or whatever is the language of the album? > > I expect we won't have a clear consensus, but still I'd like to know. > So, unless this has been discussed before, perhaps we could make an > informal vote: just reply with whatever you think and perhaps a > reason, I'll make a tally after a while. > > If this has been discussed before, please drop me a link; we should > mention the result on the wiki too. > > Thanks, > -- Bogdan Butnaru â [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." â O. > > PS: on a somewhat unrelated note: when I subscribed to this list I was > told to send mail to musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org but the > reply-to address for all the messages I receive is > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (1) What's the difference and (2) do I have to use both? > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] obnoxiously misspelled TEST post
Consider it tested. //[bnw] > testy testy test! > > ~ mo the tester > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Instrumental Style
What would that mean? You can't have an AR between a track and nothing else. Maybe you mean a checkbox, but as far as I know we don't have those yet, even if they have been talked about a while. But even if there was a checkbox, that would be about as stupid as never putting the trailing questionmark in the track title but instead check the box titled "ends with questionmark". //[bnw] > > There's no way in hell to get back the information wether those tracks in > > reality are named "Queer" and "Trip My Wire" or "Queer (album version)" > and > > "Trip My Wire (album version)". This loses data and makes the database > less > > useful. > > Off-topic, but Isn't there an AR for this? > > -- Bogdan Butnaru â [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." â O. > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Instrumental Style
> No, this information _is_ irrelevant! You do not need to have one track > labeled (album version), even if some other versions of that song are on > the disc, because the other versions will have a version identifier. > Here's the first single I came across, and I'm pretty sure everyone can > see which one is the album version: > http://musicbrainz.org/album/0bb39765-5ed4-4292-9a98-93d526609e82.html > > derGraph There's no way in hell to get back the information wether those tracks in reality are named "Queer" and "Trip My Wire" or "Queer (album version)" and "Trip My Wire (album version)". This loses data and makes the database less useful. //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] change 'Recording Engineer' to 'Recorded By'
> I disagree. The person who handles the sound board is the engineer recording > the tracks. They are the same thing. While a producer might well be manning > the board there isn't someone recording and someone else engineering. > > Cristov (wolfsong) Yet still there are lots of examples in liner notes where engineered by and recorded by credits are given to different persons. Personally I have no idea how the two roles differ, they sound very much like the same thing to me. //[bnw] - hopefully back on the mailing lists now after a long break. Loads of stuff to read through now... ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Vinyl style
> >> * Do we store every side of a vinyl medium as a separate album or both > >> as one album object in the database? > >> After asking in chat the later seems the most common usage and it > >> seems ok to me. Also later CD releases of such releases combine all > >> tracks on one CD I guess. > > IMHO, one vinyl equals one CD (both sides=1 release). Almost all > releases in the MBDB are like that. Agree. > >> * So if we do the later, do we store multiple vinyl media in multiple > >> album objects or really all tracks of a vinyl release in one album? > >> About this there does not seem to be clarity. It was said in chat that > >> 4x LPs are often stored as one album in the database. An example is > >> http://musicbrainz.org/album/e3fff2c2-58be-40e4-ad6c-c01f2e4bab62.html > >> (also look at the Discogs entry). > > If 2x LPs "are often stored as one album in the database", I thinnk they > are often stored wrong. The album you mentioned should be "Universal > Indicator Green (disc 1)" - "Universal Indicator Green (disc 3)" in my > opinion. Strongly agree. The behaviour should differ as little as possible between the different formats. //[bnw] ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
