Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:29:17 +0200, Cristov Russell wrote: Errr I'm not sure if MP3 software really matters. None of what I'm talking about impacts tagging without TaggerScript. Yes, it does matter. Using ARs instead of the ArtistAlias might not change the schema of the database, but is a change in semantics. What Chris pointed out is that many MP3 players (and the tagger, too BTW) implicitly rely upon these semantics of "one artist to group them all". Indeed MB provides an important _service_ to these apps by providing such an artist. Whatever more flexible system you propose, IMO it should still provide this service of a grouping single artist. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
No I'd rather have the ability to link multipe artists to a track/release but since doing so involves a fair amount of development some sort of consistency is better than none and proposing we go back to X (feat. Y) will only start a bigger debate (although in the short term it's far more sensible IMO until we can actually link multiple artists). Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:52:11 +0100 On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:19:56AM -0700, Cristov Russell wrote: > Yes but the problem is that the Alias field is not solely used for > literal aliases; it's also (and possibly more commonly) used for > misspellings. That is why I suggest we rename the Alias field and us AR > for true aliases. So you'd rather see two artists with slightly different names with half of their albums duplicated? I'd rather see Alex's proposal for stating what the alias is than splitting one artist into more than one artist because they legally couldn't use a particular name in one country. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:19:56AM -0700, Cristov Russell wrote: > Yes but the problem is that the Alias field is not solely used for > literal aliases; it's also (and possibly more commonly) used for > misspellings. That is why I suggest we rename the Alias field and us AR > for true aliases. So you'd rather see two artists with slightly different names with half of their albums duplicated? I'd rather see Alex's proposal for stating what the alias is than splitting one artist into more than one artist because they legally couldn't use a particular name in one country. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
Errr I'm not sure if MP3 software really matters. None of what I'm talking about impacts tagging without TaggerScript. AKA ARs would only link to a performance name (the original) and not to each other or back to Real Name ARs. The Alias field should be renamed to something like "Spelling Variants" or something along those lines. It's function is still absolutely valid. I would say yes to the last one. There are several ways to spin this and all of them use terms (artist intent, what's on the cover, user expectation) I think are vastly abused and overused but in this case I think they are valid. I will however avoid a long explanantion since I'm sure that any interested party would understand what I mean here; if not I'll be happy to explain. :-) Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Chris Bransden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "MusicBrainz style discussion" Subject: Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:48:17 +0100 yeah i saw that but it hurt my head thinking about it :) i'm not so sure that splitting up artists in this way (AKA link or not) is the way to go. on the tagging front, considering that most (?) MP3 software (or people's file structures) operate on an X:\Artist\Release\Song.mp3 heriarchy, unifying artists in the way we do currently is beneficial. eg, the back catalogue of 'A Silver Mt. Zion' would be near impossible to select on iTunes if we listed all AKAs as seperate artists, rather than aliases ( http://musicbrainz.org/showaliases.html?artistid=39340 ). also, what would be the difference between AKAs and performance names? 'Aphex Twin', 'AFX', etc, are performance names of 'Richard D. James' - would there also be AKA links between all these as well? secondly, what would be the correct usage of the alias function, if we had an AKA? for typos? slight varyations? and finally, would this mean we duplicate albums that were released under one name, then repressed once the artist changed their name? cheers, chris / gecks On 24/05/06, Cristov Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think a new a.k.a. AR is needed. I actually raised this a few weeks ago > with no comment[1]. > > Cristov (wolfsong) > > [1] > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-May/002619.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
Yes but the problem is that the Alias field is not solely used for literal aliases; it's also (and possibly more commonly) used for misspellings. That is why I suggest we rename the Alias field and us AR for true aliases. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:27:00 +0100 On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:55:07AM +0200, Schika wrote: > For example the UK band "System 7", cause Apple Computer owns the rights > for this name, the band has to perform & release in the USA as "777". > Also the german techno act "Der Dritte Raum" has released in the US as > "The Third Room" (just a translation of the original german name). In all the cases I'm aware of, they're aliases. For example, Puffy (known as Puffy AmiYumi in America), Suede (known as The London Suede in America), t.A.T.u. (originally known as Тату in Russia) and, of course, Yazoo (known as Yaz in America). --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] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
yeah i saw that but it hurt my head thinking about it :) i'm not so sure that splitting up artists in this way (AKA link or not) is the way to go. on the tagging front, considering that most (?) MP3 software (or people's file structures) operate on an X:\Artist\Release\Song.mp3 heriarchy, unifying artists in the way we do currently is beneficial. eg, the back catalogue of 'A Silver Mt. Zion' would be near impossible to select on iTunes if we listed all AKAs as seperate artists, rather than aliases ( http://musicbrainz.org/showaliases.html?artistid=39340 ). also, what would be the difference between AKAs and performance names? 'Aphex Twin', 'AFX', etc, are performance names of 'Richard D. James' - would there also be AKA links between all these as well? secondly, what would be the correct usage of the alias function, if we had an AKA? for typos? slight varyations? and finally, would this mean we duplicate albums that were released under one name, then repressed once the artist changed their name? cheers, chris / gecks On 24/05/06, Cristov Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think a new a.k.a. AR is needed. I actually raised this a few weeks ago with no comment[1]. Cristov (wolfsong) [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-May/002619.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:55:07AM +0200, Schika wrote: > For example the UK band "System 7", cause Apple Computer owns the rights > for this name, the band has to perform & release in the USA as "777". > Also the german techno act "Der Dritte Raum" has released in the US as > "The Third Room" (just a translation of the original german name). In all the cases I'm aware of, they're aliases. For example, Puffy (known as Puffy AmiYumi in America), Suede (known as The London Suede in America), t.A.T.u. (originally known as Тату in Russia) and, of course, Yazoo (known as Yaz in America). --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
Not sure if this is meant with A.K.A. AR but some AR is needed to link different artist entries: For example the UK band "System 7", cause Apple Computer owns the rights for this name, the band has to perform & release in the USA as "777".Also the german techno act "Der Dritte Raum" has released in the US as "The Third Room" (just a translation of the original german name). -- .: NOP AND NIL :..: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
I think a new a.k.a. AR is needed. I actually raised this a few weeks ago with
no comment[1].
Cristov (wolfsong)
[1]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-May/002619.html
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Chris Bransden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "MusicBrainz style discussion"
Subject: [mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What
makes an Alias?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 17:26:39 +0100
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistAlias indicates that certain name
changes are considered new aliases, rather than new artist entries
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PerformanceNameStyle says "if a band
changes their name, it's considered to be a new band, and the
relationship between them is indicated by their common membership
(MemberOfBandRelationshipType). If a band goes under several different
names simultaneously, one name should be chosen to be the primary name
and the others should be aliases." - ie, all name changes should be
seperate artists, unless they are used simultaneously.
which is right? i have to say that i agree with
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistAlias - it makes more sense for
tagging and artist pages. eg:
'dinosaur jr.' were originally known as 'dinosaur' until they had
legal problems with another band, and added the 'jr.'. the first few
albums were released under the old name, but subsequently reissued
under the new one, so it makes sense to have them all in the one
artist (rather than dupe albums for both). (nb, they are currently
listed as Dinosaur Jr on MBz)
'godspeed you! black emperor' originally had their exclamation mark at
the end ('godspeed you black emperor!'), but changed it because it was
grammatically incorrect before (it's the english translation of a
japanese biker flicks title). the old albums are still available under
the old name, but they are still listed here under the new one, cos
that's the artists current intent.
and what sparked this - 'T. Rex' -
http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4874772 explains pretty much
everything
also it's pissing annoying to have to remember what name the same band
peformed under when routing through your mp3s. in itunes i like to
type in 'xyz' and get the bands entire output. i don't mind for cases
like Aphex Twin vs AFX when there's a thematic difference between the
performance names (incidently, if we followed PeformanceNameStyle's
rule, they would be merged, which i'd totally disagree with!), but i
think for general name changes, we should merge together, as i believe
is the current practice (despite the wiki!).
thoughts?
chris / gecks
___
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
[mb-style] ArtistAlias and PerformanceNameStyle conflict / What makes an Alias?
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistAlias indicates that certain name
changes are considered new aliases, rather than new artist entries
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PerformanceNameStyle says "if a band
changes their name, it's considered to be a new band, and the
relationship between them is indicated by their common membership
(MemberOfBandRelationshipType). If a band goes under several different
names simultaneously, one name should be chosen to be the primary name
and the others should be aliases." - ie, all name changes should be
seperate artists, unless they are used simultaneously.
which is right? i have to say that i agree with
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistAlias - it makes more sense for
tagging and artist pages. eg:
'dinosaur jr.' were originally known as 'dinosaur' until they had
legal problems with another band, and added the 'jr.'. the first few
albums were released under the old name, but subsequently reissued
under the new one, so it makes sense to have them all in the one
artist (rather than dupe albums for both). (nb, they are currently
listed as Dinosaur Jr on MBz)
'godspeed you! black emperor' originally had their exclamation mark at
the end ('godspeed you black emperor!'), but changed it because it was
grammatically incorrect before (it's the english translation of a
japanese biker flicks title). the old albums are still available under
the old name, but they are still listed here under the new one, cos
that's the artists current intent.
and what sparked this - 'T. Rex' -
http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4874772 explains pretty much
everything
also it's pissing annoying to have to remember what name the same band
peformed under when routing through your mp3s. in itunes i like to
type in 'xyz' and get the bands entire output. i don't mind for cases
like Aphex Twin vs AFX when there's a thematic difference between the
performance names (incidently, if we followed PeformanceNameStyle's
rule, they would be merged, which i'd totally disagree with!), but i
think for general name changes, we should merge together, as i believe
is the current practice (despite the wiki!).
thoughts?
chris / gecks
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
