Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
Well put! I would only like to add that I agree 100% with this. Lauri Watts wrote: On 10/12/06, Joan Whittaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Travelling Wilbury's is a classic example, although if Roy Orbison had not died and the band folded, might not have qualified.. This is where I am with Don, and didn't like this proposal to start with. We're talking about going from something almost entirely objective, (there's either one person, or there's more than one) to something entirely subjective. Project means something entirely different to different people. I can't see any way that Travelling Wilbury's doesn't qualify as a band, indeed you even use the word in the description. That only one album was released doesn't magically turn it into a project. Artists use the terms band, group, and project almost interchangeably themselves sometimes; I've seen articles and interviews with Trent Reznor or other participants describing NiN as all the above, over the years. We've already had edit wars over collaboration vs member of edits, people already can not agree on whether some artist entities are a band or a collaboration. This whole project thing just seems deeply flawed and unthought out to me. The Alan Parsons Project, although it might have started off with the intention of being so, is definitely not a project within the above definition. Another one that comes to mind as not qualifying is Enigma, which started off as a project, but now with six albums or so behind them and four compilations cannot claim any type of exclusivity, which to my mind marks a project. Why do you think exclusivity is what marks a project? As mentioned, folks like Ayreon have released many many albums, but are very clear that they have a project, not a band. Ayreon can legitimately be called a 'group' though, because there are always multiple musicians involved, the distinction between group and person is very clear cut. Group Orchestra in 1969.. This, I think, is a definite project but it breaks the rules whereby he did involve the members of the band of which he was a member at the time, namely Deep Purple. Following up on this in 1970 Practically every electronic project that could possibly be called one (a project that is) involves musicians who are currently also members of another band (or project) together. By that rule, the one genre that consistently uses project to describe work outside their main band, would actually not qualify as a project on MB. Good luck explaining that to electronica afficionados. It's usually easy to tell if things are groups or solo though. I just can't like this idea, no matter how hard I try, so I'm going to shut up about it now, y'all know where I stand. Regards, -- Lauri Watts ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/artist-type%3A-project-tf2419753s2885.html#a6792114 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
I'm just curious, if the project artist type were to go through how would this release be changed? Would the artist become: The Roger Glover Project Artist Type: Project or Roger Glover Artist Type: Project Not to be confused with Roger Glover Artist Type: Person I can see the definite use for project, but it's hard to find the difference between a collaboration with multiple artists that can be handled better with AR's or a new artist(group) name. Perhaps Project can be defined as multiple artists (usually more than two) that regularly perform together as a group and may have a flexible or changing roster of artists, but as a project always play the music of the project. But I'm having a problem thinking of good examples that can't also fall under the definition of group. Perhaps the Traveling Wilbury's but many groups are made of people that have produced music solo or with other groups. I was thinking that a regularly changing roster could define a project but many projects are stable and many groups change. It's just relly hard defining what the difference is between a project and a group. -Dustin (Kerensky97) joan WHITTAKER wrote: Given that it was Beth and I who originally put forward this idea, and at the moment Beth is ill and unable to be on mb, then I would be more than willing to be champion for this idea. To reiterate my original reasoning: Roger Glover is and has been for a long time a part of Deep Purple. However, in 1973 he left the group and produced for other artists. One particular project was his alone: http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290 Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio, Jimmy Helms, John Gustafson, etc. This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album, without even the other artists featuring. To be able to mark this as a project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a simple collaboration or even a VA. Deep Purple were not involved in this project and it could not be even remotely included in their discography. Joan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/artist-type%3A-project-tf2419753s2885.html#a6781853 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
Using the same reasoning does not apply to other artists however, I will mention the Alan Parsons Project, with the project in the name, I'm sure that I will be classified as a project by someone if that was an option and it would be completely wrong IMO. drsaunde joan WHITTAKER wrote: Given that it was Beth and I who originally put forward this idea, and at the moment Beth is ill and unable to be on mb, then I would be more than willing to be champion for this idea. To reiterate my original reasoning: Roger Glover is and has been for a long time a part of Deep Purple. However, in 1973 he left the group and produced for other artists. One particular project was his alone: http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290 Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio, Jimmy Helms, John Gustafson, etc. This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album, without even the other artists featuring. To be able to mark this as a project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a simple collaboration or even a VA. Deep Purple were not involved in this project and it could not be even remotely included in their discography. Joan - Original Message - From: Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Don Redman wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. VETO for formal reasons Please issue an RFV when the (kind of) RFC discussion has either died out or trailed off into tangents. Not when it is in mid course. Ok, fine. Its clear that this is not a done deal -- I was hoping to write some code, but it looks like wrangling discussions more is in order. Do we have a champion for this idea who can work to get consensus? -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/artist-type%3A-project-tf2419753s2885.html#a6781965 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
I would see it as the second: Roger Glover Artist Type: Project (Roger Glover was not a member of Deep Purple when he undertook this work, having left the group. The criteria that I think must be used for such a definition is that the project is outside the normal range of activities of the person. That he would not normally involve members of the band with which he is a regular member, and that it cannot be classed as a normal solo album. The Travelling Wilbury's is a classic example, although if Roy Orbison had not died and the band folded, might not have qualified.. The Alan Parsons Project, although it might have started off with the intention of being so, is definitely not a project within the above definition. Another one that comes to mind as not qualifying is Enigma, which started off as a project, but now with six albums or so behind them and four compilations cannot claim any type of exclusivity, which to my mind marks a project. Era is another musical project that is teetering on the brink of project and normal release. There is, of course, one album that is very definitely a project (i.e. a labour of love for the artist involved) and that is Jon Lord's Concerto for Group Orchestra in 1969.. This, I think, is a definite project but it breaks the rules whereby he did involve the members of the band of which he was a member at the time, namely Deep Purple. Following up on this in 1970 he decided to write a piece which took as its theme the five members of Deep Purple. There would be five solo movements, each written to reflect the style of the particular member and named after their star-sign. Purple performed this at the Royal Festival Hall, London in September 1970 with the Orchestra of the Light Music Society, with Malcolm Arnold conducting. It was later released as an album. From this it will be seen that this needs to be monitored very carefully and strict guidelines applied. Sorry for the length of this - I just wanted to highlight the pros and cons. Joan - Original Message - From: Kerensky97 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project I'm just curious, if the project artist type were to go through how would this release be changed? Would the artist become: The Roger Glover Project Artist Type: Project or Roger Glover Artist Type: Project Not to be confused with Roger Glover Artist Type: Person I can see the definite use for project, but it's hard to find the difference between a collaboration with multiple artists that can be handled better with AR's or a new artist(group) name. Perhaps Project can be defined as multiple artists (usually more than two) that regularly perform together as a group and may have a flexible or changing roster of artists, but as a project always play the music of the project. But I'm having a problem thinking of good examples that can't also fall under the definition of group. Perhaps the Traveling Wilbury's but many groups are made of people that have produced music solo or with other groups. I was thinking that a regularly changing roster could define a project but many projects are stable and many groups change. It's just relly hard defining what the difference is between a project and a group. -Dustin (Kerensky97) joan WHITTAKER wrote: Given that it was Beth and I who originally put forward this idea, and at the moment Beth is ill and unable to be on mb, then I would be more than willing to be champion for this idea. To reiterate my original reasoning: Roger Glover is and has been for a long time a part of Deep Purple. However, in 1973 he left the group and produced for other artists. One particular project was his alone: http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290 Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio, Jimmy Helms, John Gustafson, etc. This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album, without even the other artists featuring. To be able to mark this as a project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a simple collaboration or even a VA. Deep Purple were not involved in this project and it could not be even remotely included in their discography. Joan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/artist-type%3A-project-tf2419753s2885.html#a6781853 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
i would say that bringing an old RFC that IMO never reached consensus, and then 35 mins later going to RFV is moving too quickly. based on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistTypeProject, any band that has changed it's lineup could be changed to a project: Or is a mixture of both: it has one or more creative forces behind it, who stay consistent over several releases, but changing performers. - so a band that changes drummers every so often, but always maintains the same guitar+bass player is a project? not veto-ing though, as i think that people seem to have an idea what constitutes a 'real' project, even if i don't :) On 10/10/06, Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. Thanks! ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. VETO for formal reasons Please issue an RFV when the (kind of) RFC discussion has either died out or trailed off into tangents. Not when it is in mid course. And on topic: I strongly disagree with the second option. Where is the boundary to a group? Just because a band dissolved after their first albun they are a project? Note that according to Wikipedia Argyle Park is a band, just a very shortlived one. The problem is that you want to replace a purely objective criterion (singluar/plural) with one that has *meaning*. But that meaning is different to different people. Isuggest to either leave the objective criterion alone, or replace it with a full set of meningful artist types, but not mix the two. either: person, group. Period or: band, project, person, character, collaboration, orchestra, composer, ... DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs, the MusicBrainz documentation system. Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/SomeTerm (you might need to transform the term to singular) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Don Redman wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. VETO for formal reasons Please issue an RFV when the (kind of) RFC discussion has either died out or trailed off into tangents. Not when it is in mid course. Ok, fine. Its clear that this is not a done deal -- I was hoping to write some code, but it looks like wrangling discussions more is in order. Do we have a champion for this idea who can work to get consensus? -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project
Given that it was Beth and I who originally put forward this idea, and at the moment Beth is ill and unable to be on mb, then I would be more than willing to be champion for this idea. To reiterate my original reasoning: Roger Glover is and has been for a long time a part of Deep Purple. However, in 1973 he left the group and produced for other artists. One particular project was his alone: http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290 Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio, Jimmy Helms, John Gustafson, etc. This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album, without even the other artists featuring. To be able to mark this as a project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a simple collaboration or even a VA. Deep Purple were not involved in this project and it could not be even remotely included in their discography. Joan - Original Message - From: Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: Artist type: Project On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Don Redman wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote: Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring the code back for the next server release. VETO for formal reasons Please issue an RFV when the (kind of) RFC discussion has either died out or trailed off into tangents. Not when it is in mid course. Ok, fine. Its clear that this is not a done deal -- I was hoping to write some code, but it looks like wrangling discussions more is in order. Do we have a champion for this idea who can work to get consensus? -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
