Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Hmm, would work. It would need renaming to X is an instrumental version of Y, but would work. Maybe X is [an a cappella / an instrumental / a karaoke] version of Y could be made to encompass it all? I'm putting karaoke by itself because I suspect they are credited as such and might be nice to have them like that. Are there karaoke versions which do have vocals, but mixed down so they are just like background for helping you sing? I'd swear I saw that somewhere, but maybe it was in some movie and they don't actually exist. If they do, maybe X is [an a cappella / an instrumental] [karaoke] version of Y could be used instead. Can this be done? Like Calvin said, some karaoke versions do have backing vocals (but not all of them). The way they're credited varies, both instrumental and karaoke are common (as well as other things), and just because it says instrumental it doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any backing vocals. Occasionally there are singles which contain both a karaoke and an instrumental version though. I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting for the relationships... One relationship with three attributes? Do we want to distinguish between tracks which are just the vocal/instrumental parts of a recording and completely new performances which just happen to be a cappella or instrumental? If we do, we need to figure out how to try and avoid people using the wrong relationships. I think it would be easier in NGS since the vocal/instrumental parts could be linked using recording-recording relationships, and new performances could be linked using work-recording relationships, but still, it seems like it would be easy for people to use the wrong one. The other thing (and this is more a question for Calvin ;)), if instrumental and karaoke are separate, should a Japanese karaoke/instrumental track that's completely instrumental still use karaoke*? I would hope so, since I don't want to have to listen to every single track just to find out whether backing vocals were left in or not before I can add a relationship... * not including those where there is a distinction between karaoke and instrumental of course All this is a (quite nice) way to solve a problem that I didn't realize we had before, which leaves the two original problems still standing. What do we do with remixes where the whole music changes keeping only the vocals, or where extra vocals by someone else are added? Maybe we could have them as separate works, with separate producing / lyrics credits, linked to the original work with an AR? In NGS, only the works and releases have lyricists, so if the lyricists are different, they would need be different works (linked to the original somehow), I imagine it would be similar if the music changes. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 21:03 +0100, Nikki wrote: The other thing (and this is more a question for Calvin ;)), if instrumental and karaoke are separate, should a Japanese karaoke/instrumental track that's completely instrumental still use karaoke*? I would hope so, since I don't want to have to listen to every single track just to find out whether backing vocals were left in or not before I can add a relationship... * not including those where there is a distinction between karaoke and instrumental of course I don't really have any set rules on how I've been handling this, and at the moment it relies on listening to the tracks, but here goes: The specific thing that I use to identify a karaoke track is that the vocal melody line has been removed; but has not been replaced with anything else. This leaves the song feeling incomplete. An instrumental version is typically a slightly altered arrangement, with at the very least an instrumental portion replacing the vocal melody. An example of both versions shows up in http://musicbrainz.org/release/a9f14b0f-634a-42af-8fbd-0bf9ff636da6.html where track 5 is a karaoke version of track 1 (The only change is the removal of lead vocals). However, track 4 is actually an instrumental version of track 2, where the vocal melody has been replaced. They do credit them differently, at least. One thing I think is that any proposed relation should be general enough to handle a few more interesting cases, e.g. the first 4 tracks of http://musicbrainz.org/release/60bfbf7c-fbc1-4c32-b9e0-d6164530706a.html Which have one of the /instruments/ removed from the track with the intention that you could play along. (Sheet music for the track was included), or http://musicbrainz.org/release/66e18211-0675-42dc-b128-2a09575a9791.html Where each of the tracks removes the contribution of one person from the mix; vocals, guitar, drums, etc. -- kepstin Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@gmail.com ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Some kind of created the beat for AR could be added, but even though it would be a good description, it is not the way it is usually credited anywhere, so it might be confusing. Putting a flag on the Producer AR that makes it go to work level would be nice... but I have no idea on how we could word it in a way that made it distinct enough to ensure no-one used it by mistake but people who had to use it did. Would something like beat produced by/beat producer work? (I think a separate relationship would probably be easier to move to work level than an attribute by the way) Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 04:30 +0100, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Right now, we have a track-track karaoke version relationship for them. In NGS, the relationship is kept between the recordings, and both recordings are linked to the same work. Maybe it would work... I have absolutely no experience with hip hop though. :) Hmm, would work. It would need renaming to X is an instrumental version of Y, but would work. Maybe X is [an a cappella / an instrumental / a karaoke] version of Y could be made to encompass it all? I'm putting karaoke by itself because I suspect they are credited as such and might be nice to have them like that. Are there karaoke versions which do have vocals, but mixed down so they are just like background for helping you sing? I'd swear I saw that somewhere, but maybe it was in some movie and they don't actually exist. If they do, maybe X is [an a cappella / an instrumental] [karaoke] version of Y could be used instead. Can this be done? I know I've seen credits for karaoke versions with 'guide vocals' - http://www.ivesound.jp/karaoke/index.html lists a couple of those. (Look for ガイドボーカル付き) As far as I know these haven't been released directly to consumers, they are only available to karaoke companies. Far more common are 'karaoke' versions of songs where the primary vocalist is removed, but chorus and background vocals are left in. All this is a (quite nice) way to solve a problem that I didn't realize we had before, which leaves the two original problems still standing. What do we do with remixes where the whole music changes keeping only the vocals, or where extra vocals by someone else are added? Maybe we could have them as separate works, with separate producing / lyrics credits, linked to the original work with an AR? Nikki -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@gmail.com ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Some kind of created the beat for AR could be added, but even though it would be a good description, it is not the way it is usually credited anywhere, so it might be confusing. Putting a flag on the Producer AR that makes it go to work level would be nice... but I have no idea on how we could word it in a way that made it distinct enough to ensure no-one used it by mistake but people who had to use it did. Would something like beat produced by/beat producer work? (I think a separate relationship would probably be easier to move to work level than an attribute by the way) Yeah, I think it would work. The wording should probably indicate to use it only when the producer is not credited also as writer or composer, though. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: In hip hop, it is usual that the person who creates the music is credited as producer. In some electronic music records the person who creates the music is also credited as producer, while in other cases appears as writer. This wasn't a big problem before, as people working on a hip hop release usually know what producer means in that context. But now I've seen in NGS producer will be a recording-based AR, while composer will be a work-based AR. So the info about who created the music will not be linked to the work if we keep true to the liner notes. What can we do about it? Well, there's no reason why we can't have a producer relationship on works, if people think that's what makes sense. I've seen some US hip hop booklets this week and it seems they mainly credit producers as both produced and written by (BTW, please please please agree on some wording for written by, it is impossible to take most releases to a HQ level without it). So... we could ask people to use also written by for hip hop producers, but this would involve an amount of guessing that I feel a lot of people here won't be happy with. Some kind of created the beat for AR could be added, but even though it would be a good description, it is not the way it is usually credited anywhere, so it might be confusing. Putting a flag on the Producer AR that makes it go to work level would be nice... but I have no idea on how we could word it in a way that made it distinct enough to ensure no-one used it by mistake but people who had to use it did. The worst part is that sometimes the person credited as producer in these albums both puts the beat together (or even composes it) and does the standard producer stuff, while other times he's just a guy who made a beat and sold it through the internet or whatever and didn't interact with the finished song at all apart from that -and usually there is no clear way of knowing which is the case by looking at the cover. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:21:14 +0530, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe some of this has been debated before, but as this mailing list is horribly annoying to search in, I'll just ask. In hip hop, it is usual that the person who creates the music is credited as producer. In some electronic music records the person who creates the music is also credited as producer, while in other cases appears as writer. This wasn't a big problem before, as people working on a hip hop release usually know what producer means in that context. But now I've seen in NGS producer will be a recording-based AR, while composer will be a work-based AR. So the info about who created the music will not be linked to the work if we keep true to the liner notes. What can we do about it? I'm not really sure that I agree that Hip-Hop producers should be equated with composers. I checked a few random albums, and they're not certainly not devoid of differing compositional credits. That said, many probably omit it and list only producers, not much we can do about that. Like with most things I think we just have to leave it to editors to sort out on an individual basis. Searching PROs and other places for clues shouldn't be that hard. In some cases I've seen albums which include Music by and Produced by, but producer is the most common term. I haven't seen a lot of mainstream US hip hop physical releases so maybe there the liner notes are different there, but I can tell you in Spain it is extremely rare to have producer mean anything else than guy who made the beat. If that is a composer in the standard sense or not can vary (some beats are sample-based so the composer as such for some of the elements in the beat was not the producer, while an increasing part of them are created from scratch through the same programs used to create electronic music). In any of those cases, though, the producer still created the music for the track. Another doubt that may merit a different thread, but I'll ask here first... in hip-hop it is not strange that (remix) is used to mark a version of a work that keeps the vocal track over a completely new musical track: that would mean the lyricist is the same but the producer (composer?) is different. In other cases (remix) implies the same musical track with guest vocalists. That would mean the producer (composer?) doesn't change, but the lyricists do. Should these remixes be new works, or just new recordings? What should we do with those ARs in these cases? Remixes are always new works AFAIK. It's a bit of a bastard attribute, but I don't see any huge problems with what you describe. If people choose to label a work as as a remix then that's their business, it's hard for us to know whether or not they were inspired by the original music, though that certainly is the standard for practically all remixes I've listened to. From the Next Generation Schema wiki page: Recording Represents unique audio data. Has title, artist credit, duration, list of PUIDs http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PUID and ISRCshttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ISRC. Examples (all are different Recordings): - Album version of the track *Into the Blue* by *Moby* - Remix *Into the Blue (Buzz Boys Main Room Mayhem mix)* by *Moby* - Remix *Into the Blue (Underground mix)* by *Moby* [edithttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Next_Generation_Schemaaction=editsection=10 ]Work One layer above recordings (song, composition, etc.). While recording represents audio data, work represents the composition behind the recording. - Song *Into the Blue* by *Moby* -- all the recordings listed above will be linked to this object While I agree that -in this case at least- remixes are more like new works than new recordings, that's not what the manual says (unless this is contradicted somewhere else). The least bad way I can see of working with all this would be having 2 different works for every standard hip hop recording. One for the vocal track and another for the beat / instrumental track, and think of the songs as if they were mashups in a way. After all, it is quite common to release the instrumental track on its own, just without the vocal track (and even to release wholly instrumental versions of complete albums, just without vocal tracks) and not strange to release just the a cappella version of the track, which is just the vocal track on its own. Other things like scratches and such could be added in a per-recording basis. I realise this sounds like a nightmarish amount of work (no pun intended) to do once NGS kicks in, so I would love to hear other simpler, easier ideas. -- Per / Wizzcat ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: The least bad way I can see of working with all this would be having 2 different works for every standard hip hop recording. One for the vocal track and another for the beat / instrumental track, and think of the songs as if they were mashups in a way. After all, it is quite common to release the instrumental track on its own, just without the vocal track (and even to release wholly instrumental versions of complete albums, just without vocal tracks) and not strange to release just the a cappella version of the track, which is just the vocal track on its own. Other things like scratches and such could be added in a per-recording basis. From that description, I would handle those the same way as the karaoke versions are currently handled (since karaoke versions are common versions of the songs which are the same except the vocals are left out, and sometimes you get an entire disc which just contains karaoke versions). A cappella versions where the music is left out instead pop up from time to time too, but not often enough to bug me yet... Right now, we have a track-track karaoke version relationship for them. In NGS, the relationship is kept between the recordings, and both recordings are linked to the same work. Maybe it would work... I have absolutely no experience with hip hop though. :) Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: In hip hop, it is usual that the person who creates the music is credited as producer. In some electronic music records the person who creates the music is also credited as producer, while in other cases appears as writer. This wasn't a big problem before, as people working on a hip hop release usually know what producer means in that context. But now I've seen in NGS producer will be a recording-based AR, while composer will be a work-based AR. So the info about who created the music will not be linked to the work if we keep true to the liner notes. What can we do about it? Well, there's no reason why we can't have a producer relationship on works, if people think that's what makes sense. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
2010/11/21 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com Maybe some of this has been debated before, but as this mailing list is horribly annoying to search in, I'll just ask. In hip hop, it is usual that the person who creates the music is credited as producer. In some electronic music records the person who creates the music is also credited as producer, while in other cases appears as writer. This wasn't a big problem before, as people working on a hip hop release usually know what producer means in that context. But now I've seen in NGS producer will be a recording-based AR, while composer will be a work-based AR. So the info about who created the music will not be linked to the work if we keep true to the liner notes. What can we do about it? I believe the problem here is that our data model does not apply to this kind of music. I don't know hip hop at all, but am I wrong in guessing that here, work = recording? If so, maybe we could set up a special link (maybe a special AR) to express this. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/11/21 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com Maybe some of this has been debated before, but as this mailing list is horribly annoying to search in, I'll just ask. In hip hop, it is usual that the person who creates the music is credited as producer. In some electronic music records the person who creates the music is also credited as producer, while in other cases appears as writer. This wasn't a big problem before, as people working on a hip hop release usually know what producer means in that context. But now I've seen in NGS producer will be a recording-based AR, while composer will be a work-based AR. So the info about who created the music will not be linked to the work if we keep true to the liner notes. What can we do about it? I believe the problem here is that our data model does not apply to this kind of music. I don't know hip hop at all, but am I wrong in guessing that here, work = recording? If so, maybe we could set up a special link (maybe a special AR) to express this. Well, in most cases that is true... but there are live hip hop records which are different recordings of a work, tracks can be remastered (which might or might not be a new recording, but if I understood discussion on the list correctly, it is), etc. So it is not that easy. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren - reosarevok ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Producer vs Composer and remixes in hip hop music
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:21:14 +0530, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe some of this has been debated before, but as this mailing list is horribly annoying to search in, I'll just ask. In hip hop, it is usual that the person who creates the music is credited as producer. In some electronic music records the person who creates the music is also credited as producer, while in other cases appears as writer. This wasn't a big problem before, as people working on a hip hop release usually know what producer means in that context. But now I've seen in NGS producer will be a recording-based AR, while composer will be a work-based AR. So the info about who created the music will not be linked to the work if we keep true to the liner notes. What can we do about it? I'm not really sure that I agree that Hip-Hop producers should be equated with composers. I checked a few random albums, and they're not certainly not devoid of differing compositional credits. That said, many probably omit it and list only producers, not much we can do about that. Like with most things I think we just have to leave it to editors to sort out on an individual basis. Searching PROs and other places for clues shouldn't be that hard. Another doubt that may merit a different thread, but I'll ask here first... in hip-hop it is not strange that (remix) is used to mark a version of a work that keeps the vocal track over a completely new musical track: that would mean the lyricist is the same but the producer (composer?) is different. In other cases (remix) implies the same musical track with guest vocalists. That would mean the producer (composer?) doesn't change, but the lyricists do. Should these remixes be new works, or just new recordings? What should we do with those ARs in these cases? Remixes are always new works AFAIK. It's a bit of a bastard attribute, but I don't see any huge problems with what you describe. If people choose to label a work as as a remix then that's their business, it's hard for us to know whether or not they were inspired by the original music, though that certainly is the standard for practically all remixes I've listened to. -- Per / Wizzcat ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
