Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-282: add "mini-album" primary type
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
> That's why, given that our definition is circular ("it's an EP if it's an
> EP") I can't see how it can be used to block mini-album. Saying "Usually
> it
> should only be assumed that a release is a mini-album if the artist/label
> defines it as such" seems perfectly valid.
What i'm saying is that mini-album and EP are the same thing with a
different name. Why should we have 2 categories that represent the same
thing?
Albums are sometimes called LP's. Should the fact that we have a category
"Album" block us from adding a new category "LP", well no, but it doesn't
make much sense to me to have 2 different categories to represent the same
thing.
drsaunde
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-282-add-mini-album-primary-type-tp4661637p4661880.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-282: add "mini-album" primary type
drsaunde wrote > And what about those that are the same release but called Mini-Album in > Japan and EP in North America > or > what about releases that meet our definition or are categorized elsewhere > as and EP or mini-album, but aren't called either on the release...what do > we call them then? > drsaunde or when they're called mini-album EPs? http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2221791 -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-282-add-mini-album-primary-type-tp4661637p4661876.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-282: add "mini-album" primary type
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote >> You can have a 42 minute, 8 track EP: >> >> http://musicbrainz.org/release/95f94241-8568-4d6f-aeb1-3d8da18e5120 >> >> And you can have a 37 minute, 8 track album: >> >> http://musicbrainz.org/release/d38d37ed-7da8-3105-bc4f-2e7661667126 >> >> The only difference is what the artist/label calls it. So how do you >> justify >> objecting on the basis of lack of a measurable difference? What >> measurable >> difference is there between single/EP/album that is lacking in relation >> to >> mini-album? >> > > That's pretty much my view of this too, yes. Given our definition of EP is > "it's an EP if called an EP", something called "mini-album" isn't an EP. What's the difference between Album, EP & Single? These are common terms used in every music related site. Do people really not know these differences? Sometimes artist will take what we would normally define one of these categories and calls it another one of the categories. Artists are like that, they are "creative" and like to mess with us discographers concerned with order These exceptions still don't impact our general definitions of what a single/EP/Album is And what about those that are the same release but called Mini-Album in Japan and EP in North America or what about releases that meet our definition or are categorized elsewhere as and EP or mini-album, but aren't called either on the release...what do we call them then? I still don't see any value to have 2 terms for the same thing. drsaunde -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-282-add-mini-album-primary-type-tp4661637p4661875.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-282: add "mini-album" primary type
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote > Not really - proposals pass if they're not vetoed. kuno specifically said > he wasn't vetoing this - I'm not sure about drsaunde so let's wait a bit > and see if he clarifies it :) Don't proposals require at least a +1 from someone other than the proposer? In this case that didn't happen as the minuses cancel out the plusses, so it should fail whether I veto or not. If that's not the case then fine I will veto. Based on the examples provided and the proposal, I cannot find any measurable difference between a mini-album and an EP, so I don't see why we need 2 categories for the same thing. A possible solution would be to rename the "EP" category to "EP/Mini-Album" that would make more sense to me. drsaunde -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-282-add-mini-album-primary-type-tp4661637p4661814.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-282: add "mini-album" primary type
Mihai Spinei wrote > Got a couple of +1s for mini-albums, so I'd suggest to add just them for > now, will debate maxi-singles later. RFV > > ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-282 > wiki: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:D4rkie/Release_Group/Type#Mini-Album > > Expires of 2014-01-25 > ___ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -1 for me as well. I asked a question whether these mini-albums weren`t also released in other countries using different termanology, and never received a response that addresses that. Perhaps providing some examples as to what is a mini-album (which we haven`t been given) that could show this is more than just regional termanology drsaunde We shouldn`t be u -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-282-add-mini-album-primary-type-tp4661637p4661661.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Missing primary types for Asian releases
Mihai Spinei wrote > Hi, > > In Asia, particularly Japan and South Korea, CD albums which have up to 6 > songs are called Mini-Albums, and 8+ songs - Full Albums. In iTunes > Mini-Albums are set as EPs. For reference, the Japanese wiki has this > entry for Mini-Albums: > ... > Also, singles are usually up to 2 songs. Sometimes, in Asian countries, > singles which contain 4 songs (2 songs + their karaoke versions) are > called just singles. Singles with more than 2 songs are called > Maxi-Singles, apparently in West as well: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxi_single Are these releases currently in the same release group with other releases that aren't Mini-albums or Maxi-Singles? if so then I don't think we should be diluting our release group concepts due to regional termanology (like for example in Canada some cassette singles were called Cassingles (i know genius right) I wouldn't want regional termanology like that causing separate release groups for stuff that would otherwise be the same) I'm not against adding something like this, but it should be at a release level and not release group drsaunde -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Missing-primary-types-for-Asian-releases-tp4661387p4661483.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline
Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > (I wish I had've noticed that all traditional compositions would become > unknown before it happened) >> > > That proposal started on August 31, 2009. It went through three RFCs. It > did not close until February 22, 2010. Are you seriously suggesting that > in > that *5 month* period you never noticed any of the discussion, RFC > announcements, or RFV announcements? I've just now counted; from > discussion > to passage, there were *39* emails on that proposal, just on the style > list, > not even counting the few in users beforehand. I'm sorry, but if 5 months > and 39 emails weren't enough to catch your eye, then I really have no idea > what would be. I would suggest that that proposal is exactly an example > of > the process working as it should, however long it takes for a decent > proposal to happen, be it 9 days or 5 months. > > Brian > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > Hum, maybe because the proposal included HUNDREDS of SPAs, it might be easy to miss one specific one lost within hundreds perhaps??? Especially when somebody else raised my concerns over traditional. If someone else expresses your concerns after the 2nd email, are you really gonna read thru 39 more (i'm not if i'm busy especially when 99% of those emails were for one of the other hundred spa's) -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/RFC-Make-Don-t-Make-Relationship-Clusters-history-and-no-longer-an-official-guideline-tp1593054p1595819.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline
Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > drsaunde, I'm confused. From every way i look at it, this guideline only > became an official guideline because of the old broken process and the > page > sitting around so long that it sortof accidentally became one. This > proposal does *exactly* what your comment in 2008 talked about doing. So > what are the reasons that you now want to keep it as an official > guideline? > My misunderstanding as most of these seem to be to add guidelines, so then i guess why do we need to go through this process to remove a guideline that was never a guideline to begin with and should not even be in the wiki, just delete it for the crap it is instead of going thru this bullshit for a mistake. -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/RFC-Make-Don-t-Make-Relationship-Clusters-history-and-no-longer-an-official-guideline-tp1593054p1595808.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline
Veto. No time to provide reasons but they will be with the original proposal. There is a reason many proposals stalled, because they are crap. Are you even dealing with original concerns issues with proposals before ramming all this crap through (I wish I had've noticed that all traditional compositions would become unknown before it happened) -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/RFC-Make-Don-t-Make-Relationship-Clusters-history-and-no-longer-an-official-guideline-tp1593054p1594847.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Revise SortNameStyle to establish single delimiter for multiple artists
I will second the request to please provide examples. It's hard to determine your proposal without any. Also I think in this case a semi-colon makes more sense than the ampersand -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RFV%3A-Revise-SortNameStyle-to-establish-single-delimiter-for-multiple-artists-tp23164250s2885p23167022.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Correct spelling of "('Til) I Kissed You"
Aaron Cooper-3 wrote:
>
> Right now we have many variations of the spelling of this song's title:
>
> Til I Kissed You
> 'Til I Kissed You
> (Til) I Kissed You
> ('Til) I Kissed You
> (Til') I Kissed You (obviously wrong)
> ('til) I Kissed You
>
> Which one is correct? Discogs has the single listed as "('Til) I
> Kissed You" here: http://www.discogs.com/release/475320 unfortunately
> with no cover art.
>
> -Aaron
>
> ___
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
>
The original London single has it as "('Til) I Kissed You"
scan link:
http://www.quasimodobell.com/MusicData/%20E/EVERLY%20BROTHERS`%20THE/(%27TIL)%20I%20KISSED%20YOU%20[uk],%20AUG,%201959,%20LONDON,%20SINGLE%207,%20HLA%208934,%20VINYL,%20,%20SEP%2011%201959,%202,%2015,%20HLA%208934/(%27TIL)%20I%20KISSED%20YOU%20uk%207%20-%2001.jpg
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Correct-spelling-of-%22%28%27Til%29-I-Kissed-You%22-tp14385102s2885p14395590.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] What to do with Sun Ra
Olivier-10 wrote: > > So, where is drsaunde? > My ears are burning, I would say I generally agree with what Laurie said, to file each release under its different unique name and to merge all the almost the sames (like the "and the" and "and his" and ones without "and") I would liken Sun-Ra to Fela Kuti in the naming (or even Uwe Schmidt or Peter Kuhlmann or others i can't think of) For re-releases or compilations released under different variations of the name I would suggest they be handled by using the re-release name for the release artist (provided that name is already in use) and the proper original track artist for each of the track artists. drsaunde -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-to-do-with-Sun-Ra-tp14364626s2885p14370266.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] At which level do we enter AR's
bramvandijk wrote: > > Hi, > I recently added AR's of Nick Cave singing on every track of his album > Murder Ballads at the track level. I was corrected that this credit > should have been at the album level, though it turned out that there was > no guideline (yet) which told that. > I personally think the concept is pretty simple, if a credit is for an entire release it is added on the release level, if it is only for specific tracks then it is added to those tracks. When you start adding exceptions, or trying to make things not fit, everything becomes a lot more difficult for people to edit (when do I apply the standardsis this a corner case..etc). I would always vote for the way that is simplest and can be applied across all releases, and that wouldn't be applying the same credit to every track. Cheers DRS PS. I need Laurie back posting on here as she usually would state my opinion succintly without me having to fumble for words. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/At-which-level-do-we-enter-AR%27s-tf4727493s2885.html#a13533460 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Change Default Data Quality
Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > I'd like to try and > go for upgrading this to an RFV on this Saturday upcoming. I really didn't want to get into this discussion, but I never thought it would get this far. I will also preface by saying I haven't read all of the comments and notes regarding this discussion (really who wants to read posts that are pages long). I will start with a music "fact" provided by Alan Cross: There are 3000 new releases every week for Canada only. That means many many more worldwide, part of the best feature of MusicBrainz is that we are able to cast a very wide net to get as many releases as we can. By labeling a person's add release as "unvoted" or "unverified", generally giving their edits a lower weight or lower status based on something they have no control over, seems to be a very large discouragement to any new or casual user. I think musicbrainz should be open and welcoming to these users and not the other way around. Consider that I will V and RFV drsaunde David Saunders -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RFC%3A-Change-Default-Data-Quality-tf4010182s2885.html#a11392822 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Suggestion: Has Tribute Album AR
I just entered a "tribute album" EP, and I know tribute album compilations exits. Doesn't this phrase go against our current terminology? Shouldn't the AR phrase be "has tribute release(s)"? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Suggestion%3A-Has-Tribute-Album-AR-tf3148805s2885.html#a8729181 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
Well put! I would only like to add that I agree 100% with this. Lauri Watts wrote: > > On 10/12/06, Joan Whittaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The Travelling Wilbury's is a classic example, although if Roy Orbison >> had >> not died and the band folded, might not have qualified.. > > This is where I am with Don, and didn't like this proposal to start with. > > We're talking about going from something almost entirely objective, > (there's either one person, or there's more than one) to something > entirely subjective. Project means something entirely different to > different people. > > I can't see any way that Travelling Wilbury's doesn't qualify as a > band, indeed you even use the word in the description. That only one > album was released doesn't magically turn it into a project. Artists > use the terms band, group, and project almost interchangeably > themselves sometimes; I've seen articles and interviews with Trent > Reznor or other participants describing NiN as all the above, over the > years. > > We've already had edit wars over collaboration vs member of edits, > people already can not agree on whether some artist entities are a > band or a collaboration. This whole project thing just seems deeply > flawed and unthought out to me. > >> The Alan Parsons Project, although it might have started off with the >> intention of being so, is definitely not a project within the above >> definition. Another one that comes to mind as not qualifying is Enigma, >> which started off as a project, but now with six albums or so behind them >> and four compilations cannot claim any type of exclusivity, which to my >> mind >> marks a project. > > Why do you think exclusivity is what marks a project? As mentioned, > folks like Ayreon have released many many albums, but are very clear > that they have a project, not a band. Ayreon can legitimately be > called a 'group' though, because there are always multiple musicians > involved, the distinction between group and person is very clear cut. > >> Group & Orchestra in 1969.. This, I think, is a definite project but it >> breaks the rules whereby he did involve the members of the band of which >> he >> was a member at the time, namely Deep Purple. Following up on this in >> 1970 > > Practically every electronic project that could possibly be called one > (a project that is) involves musicians who are currently also members > of another band (or project) together. By that rule, the one genre > that consistently uses project to describe work outside their main > band, would actually not qualify as a project on MB. Good luck > explaining that to electronica afficionados. It's usually easy to > tell if things are groups or solo though. > > I just can't like this idea, no matter how hard I try, so I'm going to > shut up about it now, y'all know where I stand. > > Regards, > -- > Lauri Watts > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/artist-type%3A-project-tf2419753s2885.html#a6792114 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
Using the same reasoning does not apply to other artists however, I will mention the Alan Parsons Project, with the project in the name, I'm sure that I will be classified as a "project" by someone if that was an option and it would be completely wrong IMO. drsaunde joan WHITTAKER wrote: > > Given that it was Beth and I who originally put forward this idea, and at > the moment Beth is ill and unable to be on mb, then I would be more than > willing to be champion for this idea. > > To reiterate my original reasoning: > > Roger Glover is and has been for a long time a part of Deep Purple. > However, in 1973 he left the group and produced for other artists. One > particular project was his alone: > > http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290 > > Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and > participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio, > Jimmy > Helms, John Gustafson, etc. > > This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album, > without even the other artists featuring. To be able to mark this as a > project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by > Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a > simple collaboration or even a VA. > > Deep Purple were not involved in this project and it could not be even > remotely included in their discography. > > Joan > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Kaye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "MusicBrainz style discussion" > > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project > > >> >> On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Don Redman wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote: >> > >> >> Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like >> >> to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak >> >> up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. >> >> Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. >> > >> > VETO for formal reasons >> > >> > Please issue an RFV when the (kind of) RFC discussion has either >> > died out or trailed off into tangents. Not when it is in mid course. >> >> Ok, fine. Its clear that this is not a done deal -- I was hoping to >> write some code, but it looks like wrangling discussions more is in >> order. Do we have a champion for this idea who can work to get >> consensus? >> >> -- >> >> --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. >> >> Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/artist-type%3A-project-tf2419753s2885.html#a6781965 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
