Re: [mb-style] Guest performances again
I only use guest if the artist is credited as guest. I dislike assumed credits. Stick to what the credits are printed on the release. Once you start assumptions you get away from facts and start getting bogus credits. I see far too many additional guest vocal credits for what is credited on the release as simply vocals. Mud On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Bram van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PerformerRelationshipType says literally that *additional and guest* There is no guideline yet that specifies what /exactly/ these two are for. These seem to overlap a little. I suppose that *additional* should designate performers who did not play a main role in the performance. While *guest* designates performers who are not usual members of the group that performed, say, the whole release, but only appear on one track. So, personally, I only add them if the liners explicitly say guest or additional. Bram / jongetje Philip Jägenstedt schreef: Very well, if nobody really cares either way then I will edit the way that looks pretty to me. Philip On 3/3/08, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Philip Jägenstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I understand the both of you correctly, we have a situation where different editors are interpreting this differently. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but let's assume that Madonna doesn't have a standard group of musicians which record all her albums and that different drummer are used on different albums. Chris would use performed guest drums AR:s while Lauri would use performed drums on Madonna's albums. Correct? To me, guest drums in such a situation is about as sensible as guest composed. I think guest should imply at least some level of special status, even if not necessarily noted as guest in the liners. If the artist is somehow noted on the cover (duet with Artist Foo) then that would probably be guest (and a feat. in most cases). I don't know if I'm making any sense, does anybody else see a problem here? I don't really think this one's a big problem. I don't think most of us really care if the 'guest' or not is used, nor if the attribute disappeared entirely or was retroactively automatically applied to every AR that doesn't have it. Sometimes it's unclear what we'll need when a new feature is implemented, and things we think will be vital turn out to not be, after a few thousand edits are done. I suspect this is one of them. In hindsight, I don't know why we didn't make 'featured' one of the attributes. Picard is certainly smart enough now to pick that up (it already does from the track titles, with the appropriate plugin.) I've never seen anyone arguing about the guest attribute though (and we certainly like to argue about things around here.) -- 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 ___ 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: Edited By
Yes, I see this credited quite often on electro releases. From: Chris B [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussionmusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: [mb-style] RFC: New AR Type: Edited By Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 00:21:36 +0100 See http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType # artist edited release or track # release or track was edited by artist The editor is responsible for either connecting disparate elements of the audio recording, or otherwise redistributing material recorded in the sessions. This is usually secondary, or additional to the work done by the mix engineer. In many ways it is the audio-only equivalent of film editing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_editing ). this kinda follows on from Lukz's RFC for a 'music editor' AR but that seems to have petered out, and although the original proposed wiki page has since been deleted or something, from the wording of the original thread i'm not sure he was talking about the same role as me anyway :) anyway, thoughts? i'm not sure how good my definition is. i do know that it's specified on releases reasonably often, and alongside 'remix', 'mixed by' and 'engineer' credits, so isn't the same thing. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _ Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/ ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Re: Serbia Montenegro
From: Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussionmusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: [mb-style] Re: Serbia Montenegro Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:43:54 +0200 It seems there were a few more changes to ISO 3166, I think we should keep our list updated. The red rows in this table indicate the changes: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseCountry On Pi, 2007-03-30 at 18:58 +0200, Lukáš Lalinský wrote: Hi, I think there isn't much to discuss here, but I'm posting it to the mailing list instead of a private mail. Rob, can you please add Serbia and Montenegro to the list of countries? * Name: Serbia ISO code: RS * Name: Montenegro ISO code: ME and probably also rename Serbia and Montenegro to Serbia and Montenegro (historical, 2003-2006). Though, I'd rather like to see the historical parts removed from the other country names. -Lukáš signature.asc Also Federal Republic of Yugoslavia needs to be added. What Yugoslavia became 1992-2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia Mud _ MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail http://ideas.live.co.uk ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle - seems to have passed!
Personally, I think an automod such as ojnkpjg should have more respect for the work that is done on the list, and I think drumming up more no votes on the IRC (rather than bringing his beef here) is inappropriate behavior. -DS Sorry, I think you're way out of order. Asking for advice or opinions about an edit on IRC is not inappropriate. He never asked anyone to vote. Mud _ Download the new Windows Live Toolbar, including Desktop search! http://toolbar.live.com/?mkt=en-gb ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Setting DJs as owners of DJ mix CDs
Yes, if they are obviously credited as such, like the Tiesto releases. But not if the DJ mix is just a minor credit or guest appearance, such as the Gatecrasher series, Tunnel Trance Force series, DJ Networx series and other releases similar. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] (album version)
I agree totally with removing the album version rule. To answer a few points raised. Identical tracks should always (in theory) all be identically titled, but in reality this will never happen. A live track will have (live) added to the title if its released as a track on a studio recorded release, the same with a demo track. Now I would expect a track that appears on an album to be the album version, and I would expect the same track appearing on a single to be the single version (unless otherwise titled). But if a track appears on a release and is titled track (album version) then it should be titled as such no matter what it is released on. Albums are NOT the primary release of every artist, there are a lot of dance/techno artists in MB who have never released an album, yet have a huge discography listed, so suggesting that an album version is the original/primary version is incorrect. And the single version is not always an edited version of the album version. Using the single Lift by 808 State as an example This single has been released in multiple versions and include the following versions of the track Lift: Lift Lift (7 mix) Lift (12 mix) Lift (Justin Strauss remix) Lift (Metro mix) Lift (Lift Up dub) Lift (7 version) Lift (Heavy mix) Lift (LP version) Now if we start removing (LP version) from the last track listed, how are supposed to differenciate between the original Lift and the LP version? Removing version info from any of these tracks could lead to the wrong PUID be attached to the wrong version, making PUID identification worthless. Also I don't see that how a media player sorts files should have any impact on how we record data, we are meant to be building an accurate database of music, not creating user friendly playlists for mp3 players. Mudcrow ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] AR philosophy
From: Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussionmusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [mb-style] AR philosophy Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:32:36 +0200 Hi, I have some questions about linking philosophy which I think need to be generally clearified because if every moderator follows their own concepts then we don't have consistent data. 1. Link performers to releases: a) always, including members of bands b) only if they are guest performers / are the line-up for a project or solo-album of an artist. a) If I have a release that credits all the members and guests with specific roles, then I'll add an AR for for each member/guest credited. If a release has no credits, then I won't add any. The exception to this is artists only credited with a first name or initials that I dont recognise, an example is The Birthday Party credit Pierre on two releases, I have no idea who Pierre is. So adding an AR link for Pierre IMO is worthless as I have no way of verfiying which Pierre he may be or if it's even the same Pierre on both releases. 2. Link artists to releases when they performed on / wrote / engineered / otherwise worked on: a) all tracks / the whole release b) the majority of tracks c) one track and more. d) only the tracks they are credited as having worked on. Which can be very time consuming and tedious adding track level ARs, but I think it's incorrect to credit an artist as working on a whole release if they didnt actually work on every single track. 3. For different releases of one album, link all artists to: a) all of them b) the original releases only (including special editions being released at the same time as regular editions) c) the regular original release only. - How do we link special editions to regular editions if they were released on the same day? d) Only the release I actually own or can verfiy from a trusted source 4. Link artists to tracks they worked on: a) always b) only if there isn't a relationship of the same type between artist and release already. b) Mud Spoiler warning! ;) My own approach at the moment is: 1. b) 2. a) 3. d) := the release I own ;) 4. b) but I am unsure and tend to other approaches from time to time. 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
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
those closer we reflect liners, those more factual and useful the database becomes. i'm tired of discogs shitting on us in this regard :( I agree that we should be entering the credits as they are listed on the liner notes, not what we interpret the credit to be. If its says music written by that's exactly what we should be crediting it as, not guessing that it may mean something else. Same goes for recorded, engineered and every other credit. We spend far too much time argueing over ARs and what they mean. The problem is that not every release uses the sames terminology for the same role. So either we guess (which is wrong) or we create a more flexible AR system that allows credits to be entered exactly as they appear on the liner notes. You could argue that this will mean we will have loads of incorrect ARs, but we have loads of incorrect ARs now, because people are trying to guess when matching the actual liner notes with the limited ARs we have. And we do have a voting system to catch anything that is obviously wrong. oh, and discogs isn't that great itself, I could pick holes in almost every punk release they have listed there :p At least we get new submissions entered without waiting 3 months for someone to vote no on some petty error. Mud ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType
I thought the point was to create an accurate music database. Guessing that a credit for written means the same as composed, or a credit for recorded means the same as engineered is not collecting accurate data. If someone is credited as being an assistant co-producer, I want to see them credited as such, not have the credit changed to whatever we think that may mean. I would rather see multiple ARs which say the same thing, then have what we have now, which is limited ARs which are not accurate. I find it very frustrating to add ARs, especially for production and having no idea what AR I should use as none match the actual credits given. I usually resort to adding info in an annotation, which then makes the whole point of ARs redundant. I disagree that new AR's should be added as a last resort, we should be trying to create some way of expanding ARs and making the data more usable and more accurate, not restricting it. Mud From: Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussionmusicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org CC: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 08:51:40 -0700 Why should we create different ARs that say exactly the same thing because different credits are used across different releases. That's not scalable and AFAIK isn't the point of AR or MB in general. The wiki docs that correspond to the relationship should detail the circumstances and the variations under which a particular AR should be used. Otherwise we just end up creating more and more ARs that have no common denominator. The StyleGuide is meant to clarify the information in the database. Creating new ARs should only be done as a last resort when no options exist. If one exists we should clarify it's usage. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: mud crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] WriterRelationshipType Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:41:35 +0100 those closer we reflect liners, those more factual and useful the database becomes. i'm tired of discogs shitting on us in this regard :( I agree that we should be entering the credits as they are listed on the liner notes, not what we interpret the credit to be. If its says music written by that's exactly what we should be crediting it as, not guessing that it may mean something else. Same goes for recorded, engineered and every other credit. We spend far too much time argueing over ARs and what they mean. The problem is that not every release uses the sames terminology for the same role. So either we guess (which is wrong) or we create a more flexible AR system that allows credits to be entered exactly as they appear on the liner notes. You could argue that this will mean we will have loads of incorrect ARs, but we have loads of incorrect ARs now, because people are trying to guess when matching the actual liner notes with the limited ARs we have. And we do have a voting system to catch anything that is obviously wrong. oh, and discogs isn't that great itself, I could pick holes in almost every punk release they have listed there :p At least we get new submissions entered without waiting 3 months for someone to vote no on some petty error. Mud ___ 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] Bootleg locations
I'd go with Netherlands. From: Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussion[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [mb-style] Bootleg locations Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:42:13 +0100 On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 09:52:41PM +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote: Holland is definitely wrong. I usually use 'The Netherlands' and probably am responsible for renaming most titles ;) I think 'The' should be included, to indicate it's plural and because I like it better. I do think the Netherlands sounds better, but I would also say the UK, the USA and the Ukraine. I had a look at what albums' titles were when they were first added since you said you'd changed a lot, and it does seem that just 'Netherlands' is actually slightly more popular than 'The Netherlands' (with about half as many as 'Holland' and a handful of 'NL'). Hmm! Does anyone else have an opinion? --Nikki ___ 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] Europe vs EU vs STFU
The EU has the European Music Office, whose aim is ...the objectives aim to facilitate the mobility of artists and the circulation of their works. see http://www.emo.org/index.html also a quick google brings up quite a lot of albums marked as EU releases http://www.euronet.nl/~marbak/rollo/rdet_robdougan.htm#fa_cd_eu http://www.tearsforfears.de/tffnewbestof.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22The_Perfect_Drug%22_Versions http://www.euronet.nl/~marbak/rollo/rdet_fait04.htm The EU is a defined area, which makes more sense to me. Also you could argue that any album released in any EU country is an EU release. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] DVD in album titles
From: Luká Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussion[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [mb-style] DVD in album titles Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:50:45 +0100 mud crow wrote: I think you are all looking at this from the wrong angle. If I own a DVD I can simply type the track details into MB, no need to rip anything or copy anything, exactly as I do with vinyl or tape. Or I could enter more precise data and rip the dvd and add times to the tracks as well. That isn't bootlegging, nor piracy. MB is only collecting text data, how someone store's their media shouldn't be our concern. Ok, example (and it isn't a DVD, just a CD): Official - http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=46904 Bootleg - http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=235358 And this is for me the difference between the DVD rip where one chapter = one track and the DVD rip (manually splitted) where one chapter = one song. The former is official, the later is bootleg, IMO. You could then say the same thing for live cassette tapes or vinyl albums, they usually have only one track per side but are then split into seperate tracks when entered into MB. Isn't this more an issue on how such data should be entered? Rather than whether its a bootleg or not. Mud ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] DVD in album titles
From: Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussion[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [mb-style] DVD in album titles Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:01:15 +0100 Hi! DVDs again, this time about the album titles, not the release status. If you look at http://musicbrainz.org/newsearch.html?limit=0table=albumsearch=dvd we have quite a mess there. I'm not calling for an official style guideline since I think this is more a provisional thing until we have media type attributes, but it would be nice to have something like a common agreement. And I don't think we can ignore DVDs since we have a lot of them in the database already. So things I observe from this list: Title DVD DVD Title Title (DVD) Title (DVD single) Title (bonus DVD) Title (DVD bonus tracks) Title (DVD-AUDIO) Title (DVD/CD) (wtf?) Title (Dvd Edition) Title (DVD Audio) Title (live DVD Rip 2004) Title (DVD Audio, disc 1) Title (disc 4: Live DVD) and many other variants. One perhaps to mention because it is so funny: Rude Awakening CD/DVD (disc 1: CD) Rude Awakening CD/DVD (disc 2: DVD) Simple question: what of all that do you think we need? My personal opinion: Title (DVD) makes sense and I can see a need to combine it with DiscNumberStyle and BonusDiscStyle. And just to remind you of it: I'm not asking for a guideline, just for opinions. :) Simon (Shepard) I dislike the idea of having DVD in an album title, it's only another form of media and should be (for now) added as an annotation. I don't see any reason to have a different rule for album titles for a DVD release. Vinyl, 7, 12, cassette, CD, etc. aren't included in titles so why should DVD be an exception? I think the word disc should suffice for DiscNumberStyle no matter what the actual media is. Mud ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] Request for Comment: Roman Volume Numbers
From: Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussion[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz Style [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [mb-style] Request for Comment: Roman Volume Numbers Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:18:19 +0100 Zout has just added this comment to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/VolumeNumberStyle. Note that releases that do not use arabic numbers, but e.g. Roman numerals or letters, they should be kept and '''not''' be changed to arabic numbers. I would request some comments. Is this current practice? Was this decided somehwere? Is this good? Should it become official (it is currently listed under discussions)? DonRedman That releates to a query I brought up on IRC, whether an album series that has roman numerals should stay in roman or be converted into arabic numerals. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SeriesNumberStyle mentions roman numerals (and keeping them) while no mention was made in VolumeNumberStyle. Mud ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
