Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
I wonder about It is well-known whether the artist was responsible for the lyrics and/or the music. Most ARs aren't 'well-known'. I'd suggest dropping well-; it's confusing, and I think unneeded - the only requirement ought to be that the info is known at all, not how well known it is. Also, I question the need for In case of writing collaborations (e.g. 'Lennon/McCartney'), the track must be linked to each writer separately, not to the collaboration artist. This is true of ARs anyhow, and those workaround collab artists such as you're describing will be going away with NGS anyhow, so this text will become out of date. I'd suggest simply removing that sentence; you don't gain anything from it. Brian On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Thanks Brian, I changed both lines. SwissChris, do you agree with Paul's comments about erring on the side of a more general AR? Would you still like to propose a different example? Are there any objections to moving this to RFV? Regards, Jeroen On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder about It is well-known whether the artist was responsible for the lyrics and/or the music. Most ARs aren't 'well-known'. I'd suggest dropping well-; it's confusing, and I think unneeded - the only requirement ought to be that the info is known at all, not how well known it is. Also, I question the need for In case of writing collaborations (e.g. 'Lennon/McCartney'), the track must be linked to each writer separately, not to the collaboration artist. This is true of ARs anyhow, and those workaround collab artists such as you're describing will be going away with NGS anyhow, so this text will become out of date. I'd suggest simply removing that sentence; you don't gain anything from it. Brian On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
On 8 October 2010 10:57, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: Thanks Brian, I changed both lines. SwissChris, do you agree with Paul's comments about erring on the side of a more general AR? Would you still like to propose a different example? Are there any objections to moving this to RFV? None from me. I'd really like to see this go through. There are a lot of releases where the credit isn't specific, and I've had to abuse 'composed by' to represent these ARs in the past. With this, they'll be able to more closely match the release. Discogs already had this AR, so this is something that can then be mapped across. We also already have a very similar grouping to this in the performance/vocal performance/instrument performance set. While we can reword the guideline ad nauseum, there will be bad edits regardless.Already, there are still releases being created with bad use of capitalisation, featured artists, etc. This is generally done by new users who don't read lists like this or the guidelines. It's not ideal, but I don't see a way of avoiding it. The best thing to do about is to keep an eye on releases and set people right when they go wrong. Regards, Jeroen On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder about It is well-known whether the artist was responsible for the lyrics and/or the music. Most ARs aren't 'well-known'. I'd suggest dropping well-; it's confusing, and I think unneeded - the only requirement ought to be that the info is known at all, not how well known it is. Also, I question the need for In case of writing collaborations (e.g. 'Lennon/McCartney'), the track must be linked to each writer separately, not to the collaboration artist. This is true of ARs anyhow, and those workaround collab artists such as you're describing will be going away with NGS anyhow, so this text will become out of date. I'd suggest simply removing that sentence; you don't gain anything from it. Brian On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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 -- Andrew :-) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: Thanks Brian, I changed both lines. Thanks; I fixed a few minor grammar nits and wiki/AR page stylistic stuff - nothing major, just a heads up. :) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Typediff=41895oldid=41894 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Typediff=41895oldid=41894 Brian ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Since everybody (but me) seems to be comfortable with the fuzziness of the wrote concept, I will not block the process, even If the checkbox button or drop-down menu solution (as suggested by Per and Alex) would be a much more elegant (and less error-prone) solution. As for the example I still think it should be changed: In the case of She loves you it is actually known (from the artists themselves as quoted on wikipedia) who composed (both!) and who wrote the lyrics (both!) and thus, following the guidelines: (It is known whether the artist was responsible for the lyrics and/or the music) the wrote-AR should not be used here. I can't find a better example – and don't have the time to search for one right now. Chris On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: Thanks Brian, I changed both lines. SwissChris, do you agree with Paul's comments about erring on the side of a more general AR? Would you still like to propose a different example? Are there any objections to moving this to RFV? Regards, Jeroen On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder about It is well-known whether the artist was responsible for the lyrics and/or the music. Most ARs aren't 'well-known'. I'd suggest dropping well-; it's confusing, and I think unneeded - the only requirement ought to be that the info is known at all, not how well known it is. Also, I question the need for In case of writing collaborations (e.g. 'Lennon/McCartney'), the track must be linked to each writer separately, not to the collaboration artist. This is true of ARs anyhow, and those workaround collab artists such as you're describing will be going away with NGS anyhow, so this text will become out of date. I'd suggest simply removing that sentence; you don't gain anything from it. Brian On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
As for the example I still think it should be changed: In the case of She loves you it is actually known (from the artists themselves as quoted on wikipedia) who composed (both!) and who wrote the lyrics (both!) and thus, following the guidelines: (It is known whether the artist was responsible for the lyrics and/or the music) the wrote-AR should not be used here. I can't find a better example – and don't have the time to search for one right now. I understand what you mean, but I think the very nature of the AR would make any example only correct in the short term - theoretically, any writer AR will be clarified to lyricist and/or composer someday, so any example will eventually have this problem. With the Wikipedia citation as the sole source, I think the example works as a well known case, even though there's many other sources which could also be used to clarify from writer to composer and/or lyricist, in that case. Brian ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
But why, among the many Lennon/McCartney songs from which we may probably never know what part John and/or Paul had exactly in the collaboration, pick one where we do have such an explicit quote? Take instead maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Days_a_Week_(song) On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: As for the example I still think it should be changed: In the case of She loves you it is actually known (from the artists themselves as quoted on wikipedia) who composed (both!) and who wrote the lyrics (both!) and thus, following the guidelines: (It is known whether the artist was responsible for the lyrics and/or the music) the wrote-AR should not be used here. I can't find a better example – and don't have the time to search for one right now. I understand what you mean, but I think the very nature of the AR would make any example only correct in the short term - theoretically, any writer AR will be clarified to lyricist and/or composer someday, so any example will eventually have this problem. With the Wikipedia citation as the sole source, I think the example works as a well known case, even though there's many other sources which could also be used to clarify from writer to composer and/or lyricist, in that case. 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] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Perfect, thanks! I'll try to send out the RFV tonight. Regards, Jeroen On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote: But why, among the many Lennon/McCartney songs from which we may probably never know what part John and/or Paul had exactly in the collaboration, pick one where we do have such an explicit quote? Take instead maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Days_a_Week_(song) On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: As for the example I still think it should be changed: In the case of She loves you it is actually known (from the artists themselves as quoted on wikipedia) who composed (both!) and who wrote the lyrics (both!) and thus, following the guidelines: (It is known whether the artist was responsible for the lyrics and/or the music) the wrote-AR should not be used here. I can't find a better example – and don't have the time to search for one right now. I understand what you mean, but I think the very nature of the AR would make any example only correct in the short term - theoretically, any writer AR will be clarified to lyricist and/or composer someday, so any example will eventually have this problem. With the Wikipedia citation as the sole source, I think the example works as a well known case, even though there's many other sources which could also be used to clarify from writer to composer and/or lyricist, in that case. 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
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com wrote: That's exactly what I fear will happen. To avoid that happening maybe the user interface should present was written by explicitly as four choices: [x] Unknown role [ ] Wrote the text [ ] Composed the music [ ] Wrote the text and composed the music so it is very clear that one choice is only applicable when you don't know more. +1 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Hi Per, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com wrote: That's exactly what I fear will happen. To avoid that happening maybe the user interface should present was written by explicitly as four choices: [x] Unknown role [ ] Wrote the text [ ] Composed the music [ ] Wrote the text and composed the music so it is very clear that one choice is only applicable when you don't know more. The only concern I have with that is that it would make the UI for this relationship type very different from the UI for all other types. Currently we have a generic system, where admins can set up the relationship types. This would partially abandon that separation between the UI and the relationship data. Perhaps someone involved in development can comment on whether this is a problem? Regards, Jeroen ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
2010/10/5 Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen Quite unimportant, but I'd write This relationship is used to link an entity http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Entity to the artisthttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artistwho wrote it instead of This relationship is used to link an entity http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Entity to the artisthttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artistwho wrote the song since the AR may apply to a Release. Also, I don't think this would apply to any entity, only to - pre-NGS: Release, Release Group, Track - post-NGS: Recording, Release, Release Group, Track, Work -- 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] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Hi Frederic, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: Quite unimportant, but I'd write This relationship is used to link an entity http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Entity to the artisthttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artistwho wrote it instead of This relationship is used to link an entity http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Entity to the artisthttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artistwho wrote the song since the AR may apply to a Release. Also, I don't think this would apply to any entity, only to - pre-NGS: Release, Release Group, Track - post-NGS: Recording, Release, Release Group, Track, Work Currently it's only Release and Track, to match the approach taken with composer and lyricist. I could add Release Group, but then we should probably also add it to composer/lyricist. Post-NGS, shouldn't this become a works-only AR? By the way, if the passing of this RFC depends on a change of UI, I doubt it's going to be introduced pre-NGS anyway. Regards, Jeroen ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
2010/10/6 Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la Hi Frederic, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: Quite unimportant, but I'd write This relationship is used to link an entity http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Entity to the artisthttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artistwho wrote it instead of This relationship is used to link an entity http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Entity to the artisthttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artistwho wrote the song since the AR may apply to a Release. Also, I don't think this would apply to any entity, only to - pre-NGS: Release, Release Group, Track - post-NGS: Recording, Release, Release Group, Track, Work Currently it's only Release and Track, to match the approach taken with composer and lyricist. I could add Release Group, but then we should probably also add it to composer/lyricist. Post-NGS, shouldn't this become a works-only AR? By the way, if the passing of this RFC depends on a change of UI, I doubt it's going to be introduced pre-NGS anyway. You are right, post-NGS it definitely will not be Track-Artist. But an additional AR for a recording, maybe. It depends on where we draw the line between works. If an artist adds a few verses in his cover of a song, will this be a separate Work? If the answer is yes, no problem, but if not, shouldn't he be credited in MB? Then we would need to enable this AR for Recordings too. -- 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] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: You are right, post-NGS it definitely will not be Track-Artist. But an additional AR for a recording, maybe. It depends on where we draw the line between works. If an artist adds a few verses in his cover of a song, will this be a separate Work? If the answer is yes, no problem, but if not, shouldn't he be credited in MB? Then we would need to enable this AR for Recordings too. I would expect that this is a separate work. If not, then the Lyricist should also be made applicable to a recording. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Next_Generation_Schema/Track_Relationships_Conversion says that Arranger is a Artist-Work relation, for now. I would expect your case to be handled the same way. Regards, Jeroen ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
In actual fact, are both artists given composer and lyricist credit for this song? As far as I've ever seen, it's been credited as Lennon/McCartney with no further attribution. I actually have no idea who performed what role and to what extent. If we don't actually know the specific role each artist played in producing the work, isn't written by actually better than a dubious dual-composer/lyrcist role for each? I'd rather have stricter criteria for crediting as composer or lyricist, and less strict for written-by. Paul -Original Message- From: SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com Reply-to: MusicBrainz Style Discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 02:27:52 +0200 Still no. Bad example. That's exactly what I fear will happen. Having ARs saying She loves you was ''written'' by John Lennon and Paul McCarney, while in my understanding it should read (from all the sources I know, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She_Loves_You): was composed by AND has lyrics by John and Paul. So written by should only occur when it is unknown who of several people had which part in writing and/or composing. And should explicitly be excluded as a shortcut for composed the music AND wrote the text like in your example. On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote: +1 -Original Message- From: Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la Reply-to: MusicBrainz Style Discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:01:17 +0200 On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
On 10/06/2010 02:54 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: Hi Per, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Per Starbäckper.starb...@gmail.com wrote: That's exactly what I fear will happen. To avoid that happening maybe the user interface should present was written by explicitly as four choices: [x] Unknown role [ ] Wrote the text [ ] Composed the music [ ] Wrote the text and composed the music The only concern I have with that is that it would make the UI for this relationship type very different from the UI for all other types. Would it? It doesn't have to be presented as a set of radio buttons; it could be a drop-down instead, which would be not so different from the UIs of other ARs. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Bear in mind that we won't be able to change the user interface for a while. Any changes to the way any relationships are added will more than likely be a post-NGS thing. All we can really do right now is have this relationship as the parent for composer and lyricist and have a note in the description about when to use it. Nikki Per Starbäck wrote: That's exactly what I fear will happen. To avoid that happening maybe the user interface should present was written by explicitly as four choices: [x] Unknown role [ ] Wrote the text [ ] Composed the music [ ] Wrote the text and composed the music so it is very clear that one choice is only applicable when you don't know more. ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Jeroen Latour wrote: I would expect that this is a separate work. If not, then the Lyricist should also be made applicable to a recording. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Next_Generation_Schema/Track_Relationships_Conversion says that Arranger is a Artist-Work relation, for now. I would expect your case to be handled the same way. Yeah, if not all of the lyricists are same, it would end up being a separate work. It's the same sort of thing as the translated versions I mentioned on that page, same song with different lyricists. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
2010/10/6 Nikki aei...@gmail.com Jeroen Latour wrote: I would expect that this is a separate work. If not, then the Lyricist should also be made applicable to a recording. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Next_Generation_Schema/Track_Relationships_Conversion says that Arranger is a Artist-Work relation, for now. I would expect your case to be handled the same way. Yeah, if not all of the lyricists are same, it would end up being a separate work. It's the same sort of thing as the translated versions I mentioned on that page, same song with different lyricists. It makes sense, and this would help defining when to separate works. If everyone agrees :-) Because when I try to transpose this to the music side instead of the lyrics side of the song, I have a hunch the line won't be as clear. -- 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] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
+1 -Original Message- From: Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la Reply-to: MusicBrainz Style Discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:01:17 +0200 On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Still no. Bad example. That's exactly what I fear will happen. Having ARs saying She loves you was ''written'' by John Lennon and Paul McCarney, while in my understanding it should read (from all the sources I know, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She_Loves_You): was composed by AND has lyrics by John and Paul. So written by should only occur when it is unknown who of several people had which part in writing and/or composing. And should explicitly be excluded as a shortcut for composed the music AND wrote the text like in your example. On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote: +1 -Original Message- From: Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la Reply-to: MusicBrainz Style Discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:01:17 +0200 On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your suggestion. The updated proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: October 8. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
That's exactly what I fear will happen. To avoid that happening maybe the user interface should present was written by explicitly as four choices: [x] Unknown role [ ] Wrote the text [ ] Composed the music [ ] Wrote the text and composed the music so it is very clear that one choice is only applicable when you don't know more. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Hi SwissChris, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:27 AM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote: Still no. Bad example. That's exactly what I fear will happen. Having ARs saying She loves you was ''written'' by John Lennon and Paul McCarney, while in my understanding it should read (from all the sources I know, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She_Loves_You): was composed by AND has lyrics by John and Paul. So written by should only occur when it is unknown who of several people had which part in writing and/or composing. And should explicitly be excluded as a shortcut for composed the music AND wrote the text like in your example. I picked a Lennon/McCartney song, because from this point on most songs from either were credited to both, regardless of who exactly did that. Even in this case, the Wikipedia page describes a joint writing process, but it's not really clear whether they were equally responsible for lyrics and music. However, I'm open to suggestions for a 'good example'. Regards, Jeroen ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Can you add some examples and clarification to address the things Per and SwissChris mentioned? Nikki Jeroen Latour wrote: Hi all, A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. To solve this issue, I've taken the Writer Relationship Type, and made it to be a generic relationship to be used when there is not enough information to add either Composer or Lyricist credits. I made the following changes from the original AR: 1. Instead of having attributes to indicate music and/or lyrics, I propose to create Composer and Lyricist ARs instead when this information is available. This was proposed earlier in http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org/msg08551.html. Personally, I don't like the distinction between songwriter and composing that was part of the original AR. 2. I dropped the 'guest' attribute, which was used when songwriters were invited to write for another artist. I have not seen any examples where this would be useful, but if anyone can suggest some I'll be happy to add it again. (In that case: should we do the same for composer/lyricist?) The RFC is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Writer_Relationship_Type. I propose to add this Relationship Type as a supertype to Lyricist and Composer, making Lyricist and Composer 'children' of this AR to express that they are more specific forms. (is that possible?) Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Yes. My schedule is full this week, but I won't send it for RFV before I do. I appreciate any suggestions for examples though. - Jeroen On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Can you add some examples and clarification to address the things Per and SwissChris mentioned? Nikki Jeroen Latour wrote: Hi all, A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. To solve this issue, I've taken the Writer Relationship Type, and made it to be a generic relationship to be used when there is not enough information to add either Composer or Lyricist credits. I made the following changes from the original AR: 1. Instead of having attributes to indicate music and/or lyrics, I propose to create Composer and Lyricist ARs instead when this information is available. This was proposed earlier in http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org/msg08551.html . Personally, I don't like the distinction between songwriter and composing that was part of the original AR. 2. I dropped the 'guest' attribute, which was used when songwriters were invited to write for another artist. I have not seen any examples where this would be useful, but if anyone can suggest some I'll be happy to add it again. (In that case: should we do the same for composer/lyricist?) The RFC is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Writer_Relationship_Type. I propose to add this Relationship Type as a supertype to Lyricist and Composer, making Lyricist and Composer 'children' of this AR to express that they are more specific forms. (is that possible?) Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Just for the record, presuming that there's no objections, this RFC expires on the 3rd of October. (+1 from me too) Nikki Jeroen Latour wrote: Hi all, A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. To solve this issue, I've taken the Writer Relationship Type, and made it to be a generic relationship to be used when there is not enough information to add either Composer or Lyricist credits. I made the following changes from the original AR: 1. Instead of having attributes to indicate music and/or lyrics, I propose to create Composer and Lyricist ARs instead when this information is available. This was proposed earlier in http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org/msg08551.html. Personally, I don't like the distinction between songwriter and composing that was part of the original AR. 2. I dropped the 'guest' attribute, which was used when songwriters were invited to write for another artist. I have not seen any examples where this would be useful, but if anyone can suggest some I'll be happy to add it again. (In that case: should we do the same for composer/lyricist?) The RFC is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Writer_Relationship_Type. I propose to add this Relationship Type as a supertype to Lyricist and Composer, making Lyricist and Composer 'children' of this AR to express that they are more specific forms. (is that possible?) Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Jeroen ___ 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: Did I miss something? Since this RFC did receive at least 1 +1, it can't expire? It has now the right to trigger a RFV. I used expire because that's what http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposals uses (not that it makes sense to me, I was told RFCs stay open indefinitely). All I meant was that's the date the RFV can be sent. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
2010/9/27 Nikki aei...@gmail.com Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: Did I miss something? Since this RFC did receive at least 1 +1, it can't expire? It has now the right to trigger a RFV. I used expire because that's what http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposals uses (not that it makes sense to me, I was told RFCs stay open indefinitely). All I meant was that's the date the RFV can be sent. Ah, ok. Thanks. -- 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] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Hold on. I'll probably veto this if the changes and clarifications suggested by Per are not added to the guidelines, with some *examples* showing at least that (a) the AR for a (vocal) track with one single writer should be entered as composer + lyricist (not as writer) and that (b) if one can not find out easily who, of several named people, wrote the music and who the lyrics, the wrote AR should go to each single artist, not to some collaboration duo or trio. And then (c) I would like to know first, before approving this, how the filiation (tickable modifiers?) will actually be handled, following jacobbretts remark. Without these precisions I'm afraid it's an open invitation to lazy editors to not do their job properly, with way too many suboptimal credits (I already fear the many written by George and Ira Gershwin ARs). On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/9/27 Nikki aei...@gmail.com Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: Did I miss something? Since this RFC did receive at least 1 +1, it can't expire? It has now the right to trigger a RFV. I used expire because that's what http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposals uses (not that it makes sense to me, I was told RFCs stay open indefinitely). All I meant was that's the date the RFV can be sent. Ah, ok. Thanks. -- 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 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
Hi all, A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. To solve this issue, I've taken the Writer Relationship Type, and made it to be a generic relationship to be used when there is not enough information to add either Composer or Lyricist credits. I made the following changes from the original AR: 1. Instead of having attributes to indicate music and/or lyrics, I propose to create Composer and Lyricist ARs instead when this information is available. This was proposed earlier in http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org/msg08551.html. Personally, I don't like the distinction between songwriter and composing that was part of the original AR. 2. I dropped the 'guest' attribute, which was used when songwriters were invited to write for another artist. I have not seen any examples where this would be useful, but if anyone can suggest some I'll be happy to add it again. (In that case: should we do the same for composer/lyricist?) The RFC is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Writer_Relationship_Type. I propose to add this Relationship Type as a supertype to Lyricist and Composer, making Lyricist and Composer 'children' of this AR to express that they are more specific forms. (is that possible?) Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Jeroen ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
I may not have huge amount of insight into the semantics and use of written vs. composer/lyricist, but this looks good to me. I'm also for having composer and lyricist as children, or perhaps better yet, as tickable modifiers. +1 -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-Writer-Relationship-Type-revival-tp5571995p5572598.html Sent from the Style discussions 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: Writer Relationship Type (revival)
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour t...@jeroen.la wrote: Hi all, A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two people might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other the lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on liner notes. +1 You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and lyricist). -- Per / Wizzcat ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
