Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
On 19/10/2010 02:15, Brian Schweitzer wrote: Ok, here's another approach to try... What if we make single from only RG-RG, and supporting release only R-R, and at the same time, make the two ARs totally standalone (ie, neither a subtype of the other)? I admit, I like the simplicity of that - all the variations on these ARs is itself confusing, and seems likely to simply be the source for lots of edit debates if passed as it is now. Doing this, we would lose the degree of precision in the single from AR which concerned jacobbrett, but I think the benefit from simplicity outweighs any benefit from AR precision. In any case, if we define a single taken from an album as simply it's a single that has a track on it which was also on album Foo, then it remains true even if the single and the album are released 10 years apart. +1000 I'm glad to see that we're finally on the same page ;-) In terms of the supporting release AR, this also would simplify things there; that AR generally is talking about one specific RE of a Release supporting a specific RE of another Release anyhow, and the AR can be drafted such that it wouldn't prevent multiple ARs whenever one RE supports more than 1 RE... That would avoid any potential cases, I think, where jacobbrett's concerns would more seriously affect the more vague supporting AR. As for neither being a subtype, I still think the example like the one nikki gave is a real cat-corner exception, but totally splitting the two would also make sense here, given that we'd now have one RG-RG AR, and one R-R AR. The only question then becomes whether the two should be exclusive. I.e, if a single from AR exists at the RG-RG level, do we then want to prevent superfluous R-R supporting release ARs? To that last question, personally, I'd say yes, but what about the rest of you? Would this work, and what would you say about the overlap of the ARs? I'm wondering if there's really a need for a supporting release AR type. Sure it can exist and express something true, but is that really something that has been requested by community and that will be used by editors? I'm not sure. I'm personally interested and plan to use only of these AR types, that is the single taken from AR type. So we should maybe finish the single taken from AR type, make it live, wait for NGS (since it'll then really change to a RG-RG AR type), and see if there's still a need for a supporting release AR type. - Aurélien ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
In any case, if we define a single taken from an album as simply it's a single that has a track on it which was also on album Foo, then it remains true even if the single and the album are released 10 years apart. But preferrably there'd be an AR between those *tracks* then. In that case, what is the point of this release-release relation which gives no more information? ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Aurélien Mino wrote: +1000 I'm glad to see that we're finally on the same page ;-) +1000 more I'm wondering if there's really a need for a supporting release AR type. Sure it can exist and express something true, but is that really something that has been requested by community and that will be used by editors? I'm not sure. I'm personally interested and plan to use only of these AR types, that is the single taken from AR type. Same here. I wouldn't have a problem with them not being submitted at the same time either. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
- Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com a écrit : In any case, if we define a single taken from an album as simply it's a single that has a track on it which was also on album Foo, then it remains true even if the single and the album are released 10 years apart. But preferrably there'd be an AR between those *tracks* then. In that case, what is the point of this release-release relation which gives no more information? In most cases you won't need an AR between these tracks in NGS, because it would be the same recording (or you may have an AR saying that one is a remix or an edit of the other one). But what we want to do with this release-group-release-group AR (that would have to be a release-release AR until we move to NGS) is to easily identify that a group of singles are related to an album, and vice-versa. That's what Wikipedia is doing e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind - Aurélien ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
That's my sense, re the 'Track From' AR part here, which I've mentioned but not yet drafted. That one, to me, seems specific to the single from AR, without the need for some track equivalent of the supporting release AR. I see it as a track-RG AR. I don't think this track AR would duplicate a single from release group AR. Yes, both would normally apply each time, but the use is different. ARs sometimes apply downwards, but they don't ever (iirc) apply upwards. Here, the meaning of each is different, as well. One is talking about the single, as a whole, being from the album. The other identifies which specific track(s) are the ones from that album. To take it to an extreme where the 2 ARs then don't both apply at the same time, theoretically, you could imagine a band releasing two albums at the same time, with overlapping singles from them. So SingleA could be from both AlbumA and AlbumB, but TrackN is only going to be from one of those 2 albums. I don't think this duplicates anything in the Recording entity either (post-NGS). That merges together the instances of tracks on different releases, but it won't help do anything where the version/recording of the track is not the same on the single and album. Work would like the tracks, but at an entirely different level, and with different meanings. Where it seems problematic, however, is in making the AR work post-NGS (hence my not drafting it yet). As a track-track AR, it works, though it has the problem of needing a new track-track AR for each new instance of a single. However, post-NGS, that track AR moves to the recording, which doesn't mean the same things here - you'd now have the recording, on the album, with an AR saying it was taken from the album... Brian On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.comwrote: In any case, if we define a single taken from an album as simply it's a single that has a track on it which was also on album Foo, then it remains true even if the single and the album are released 10 years apart. But preferrably there'd be an AR between those *tracks* then. In that case, what is the point of this release-release relation which gives no more information? ___ 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] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Single from as an RG-RG makes sense, at least in terms of usability. Ditto with Supporting release as an R-R (as the AR's wording may imply a specific temporal relationship). Tentatively agreed on keeping them seperate. Can we define some example usage cases? --Supporting Release Relationship Type (R-R, one/many to one)-- The Social Network: Five Track Sampler[1] was released in support of The Social Network[2] [1]http://musicbrainz.org/release/3b1c477a-0268-4d6e-a285-d2f60cad02f8.html [2]http://musicbrainz.org/release/998e28f9-ed94-4de1-af8e-8dc544c1ab31.html Barnum's Audiophonic Merchandisical Tie-In Collectionary[3] was released in support of Fable II[4] [3]http://musicbrainz.org/release/f809252e-30f0-4bd9-9c65-30da141c1e14.html [4]http://musicbrainz.org/release/d75d2697-01d4-44f6-975e-9b17741ac418.html Here's a more debatable one; the instrumental is a promo which I think is passed around to movie studios etc.: Elect the Dead (instrumental)[5] was released in support of Elect the Dead[6] [5]http://musicbrainz.org/release/25f1fbab-05e1-4fa9-939e-97ed534c5cb4.html [6]http://musicbrainz.org/release/07e161e6-4f56-4655-934f-bf7f425fba64.html N.B. It would seem that often, supporting releases are found in the same release group as their master. --Single From Release Relationship Type (RG-RG, one to one/many)-- Them Bones[7] is a single which was taken from Dirt[8] [7]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/795f20ee-8ac5-3737-ad17-74981fe5a9a5.html [8]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/92d8f0c4-8c64-3bee-bee1-812a70e77efa.html Bad Moon Rising[9] is a single which was taken from Green River[10], Green River / Cosmo's Factory[11] and Green River / Willy and the Poor Boys[12] [9]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/4f9eb8b6-a4cc-335e-9fe1-2b4636b3cd6d.html [10]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/6c08878c-d6a1-37b6-84c3-9566748545c1.html [11]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/19eeb41c-98d4-3528-ac65-b8f37b252106.html [12]http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/774703e5-0ae2-3f71-95cc-208dcc3d4e31.html Should EPs/remixes be included, or should they be supporting releases? Thoughts? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFV4-Supporting-Release-Relationship-Type-tp5493859p5650718.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] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
But what we want to do with this release-group-release-group AR (that would have to be a release-release AR until we move to NGS) is to easily identify that a group of singles are related to an album, and vice-versa. That's what Wikipedia is doing e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind I see, but I was commenting on if we define a single taken from an album as simply it's a single that has a track on it which was also on album Foo, and it still seems to me that if that is what is meant, then this AR would be redundant, and just a potential source for conflicting information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself But maybe I took that quote too literally. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:01 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: Single from as an RG-RG makes sense, at least in terms of usability. Ditto with Supporting release as an R-R (as the AR's wording may imply a specific temporal relationship). Tentatively agreed on keeping them seperate. Can we define some example usage cases? Perfect :) I can edit those into the proposals, unless you'd prefer to. --Supporting Release Relationship Type (R-R, one/many to one)-- snip Should EPs/remixes be included, or should they be supporting releases? I don't follow this last question. I think EPs and remix releases can be taken from an album/soundtrack in the same way as a single. My concern, w/r/t the single from AR is that is a single from should become is an EP from and something like that for remix, rather than that word 'single'. For the supporting release AR, I don't think there's that same precision/terminology issue, so I don't think we'll need that attribute on that AR. The single from AR could, I think, use examples of those instances though. Brian ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Brian Schweitzer wrote: The latter I'd agree with, but the former I don't, hence the hierarchy I've used. What cases can you think of where a single/EP identifies itself as being from an album/soundtrack, but was not released with promotion of the album as at least one rationale for the single/EP's release? I gave an example earlier in this thread: An example of the opposite would be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashimi_Twilight which was released in April 2007. The album it was on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_9_Disc - was released in March 2009, almost two years later. It would count as a single from an album (and as you can see, Wikipedia does include it on the album's page) because the single was later included on the album, but it makes absolutely no sense to say that it supported the album. The group had four singles, a cover album and a compilation between the release of the single and the album it was included on. While 2 years is a pretty extreme case, that sort of thing is pretty common in my experience for Japanese stuff. I disagree that this should be both a release-release AR and a release-group-release-group AR. It should be a release-release AR now, and a release-group-release-group AR in NGS. There was disagreement with that idea when it was last discussed. I agree with murdos here. The disagreement was about linking release groups while calling them supporting releases, but they're not being called supporting releases now. Maybe jacobbrett would like to comment (since he was the one initially objecting there). I don't like the remix attribute at the moment either, as described - it's too broad, in that even (single version) would trigger its use, which I see as wrong. However, however we do it, there are plenty of remix releases taken from another album - it doesn't make sense to plan this AR and not somehow support those. Perhaps it'd be best to simplify that one down to using the type to determine its use, as with the EP attribute. I'm pretty ambivalent about an EP attribute, but I'm struggling to think of anything where remix is really necessary and using single or EP would make no sense. The only things I can think of are remix singles (which are surely still singles even if we can only pick one type at the moment) and remixed versions of albums (which aren't really what this is intended for and they already have their own relationship type). Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
I'm pretty ambivalent about an EP attribute, but I'm struggling to think of anything where remix is really necessary and using single or EP would make no sense. The only things I can think of are remix singles (which are surely still singles even if we can only pick one type at the moment) and remixed versions of albums (which aren't really what this is intended for and they already have their own relationship type). I was thinking the same, then I recalled all the 8-10, even 12 track remix 12 LPs I used to see when I'd go hit the record shops. Less common, but there were still plenty of those - I can only call them mega-EPs - around. Even using EP for something that's more than 6 or 7 tracks seems like a big stretch. However, the remix type sidesteps that problem, hence why I'm thinking simply basic remix on type, rather than on modifier to single or EP, makes more sense re: flexability and comprehensive application of the AR... Brian ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Ok, here's another approach to try... What if we make single from only RG-RG, and supporting release only R-R, and at the same time, make the two ARs totally standalone (ie, neither a subtype of the other)? I admit, I like the simplicity of that - all the variations on these ARs is itself confusing, and seems likely to simply be the source for lots of edit debates if passed as it is now. Doing this, we would lose the degree of precision in the single from AR which concerned jacobbrett, but I think the benefit from simplicity outweighs any benefit from AR precision. In any case, if we define a single taken from an album as simply it's a single that has a track on it which was also on album Foo, then it remains true even if the single and the album are released 10 years apart. In terms of the supporting release AR, this also would simplify things there; that AR generally is talking about one specific RE of a Release supporting a specific RE of another Release anyhow, and the AR can be drafted such that it wouldn't prevent multiple ARs whenever one RE supports more than 1 RE... That would avoid any potential cases, I think, where jacobbrett's concerns would more seriously affect the more vague supporting AR. As for neither being a subtype, I still think the example like the one nikki gave is a real cat-corner exception, but totally splitting the two would also make sense here, given that we'd now have one RG-RG AR, and one R-R AR. The only question then becomes whether the two should be exclusive. I.e, if a single from AR exists at the RG-RG level, do we then want to prevent superfluous R-R supporting release ARs? To that last question, personally, I'd say yes, but what about the rest of you? Would this work, and what would you say about the overlap of the ARs? Brian On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Brian Schweitzer wrote: The latter I'd agree with, but the former I don't, hence the hierarchy I've used. What cases can you think of where a single/EP identifies itself as being from an album/soundtrack, but was not released with promotion of the album as at least one rationale for the single/EP's release? I gave an example earlier in this thread: An example of the opposite would be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashimi_Twilight which was released in April 2007. The album it was on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_9_Disc - was released in March 2009, almost two years later. It would count as a single from an album (and as you can see, Wikipedia does include it on the album's page) because the single was later included on the album, but it makes absolutely no sense to say that it supported the album. The group had four singles, a cover album and a compilation between the release of the single and the album it was included on. While 2 years is a pretty extreme case, that sort of thing is pretty common in my experience for Japanese stuff. I disagree that this should be both a release-release AR and a release-group-release-group AR. It should be a release-release AR now, and a release-group-release-group AR in NGS. There was disagreement with that idea when it was last discussed. I agree with murdos here. The disagreement was about linking release groups while calling them supporting releases, but they're not being called supporting releases now. Maybe jacobbrett would like to comment (since he was the one initially objecting there). I don't like the remix attribute at the moment either, as described - it's too broad, in that even (single version) would trigger its use, which I see as wrong. However, however we do it, there are plenty of remix releases taken from another album - it doesn't make sense to plan this AR and not somehow support those. Perhaps it'd be best to simplify that one down to using the type to determine its use, as with the EP attribute. I'm pretty ambivalent about an EP attribute, but I'm struggling to think of anything where remix is really necessary and using single or EP would make no sense. The only things I can think of are remix singles (which are surely still singles even if we can only pick one type at the moment) and remixed versions of albums (which aren't really what this is intended for and they already have their own relationship type). Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Supporting_Release_Relationship_Type also updated. Now I just have to draft the Track From proposal page. Nikki, murdos, and everyone else - do these, as split, make more sense to you? What about the text itself, for each? Brian On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: I'm still working on the Track From version, and on revising the proposal for Supporting Release, but I think I'm done tweaking the Single From proposed text. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposals/Single_From_Release_Relationship_Type Any thoughts? Brian On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, just needed new proposal pages to cover the separated ARs. When I get a chance, hopefully within the next few days, I'll draft both new pages and send out the revised RFC. Brian On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Where are we with this? Have my previous emails managed to convince you that separate relationships would be OK or not? Nikki Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Brian Schweitzer wrote: jacobbrett: Re RG vs release, we discussed that back around RFC2; I would generally agree with jacobbrett in that this AR makes more sense to me as a release-release AR, or RG-release (e.g. a single RG supporting an album Release) than as a RG-RG one, though there are some cases where RG-RG might make the most sense. However, I don't know that that distinction would ever be clear enough that we could hope to actually pull it off, esp if we perhaps had this (in NGS) in RG-RG, release-release, and release-RG forms. Iirc, however, the general sense of the list was that most would see this simply migrated from release-release to RG-RG, and disregard the minor errors such a flattening would occasionally create? Aurélien, I think that I'm not following the distinction you're making clearly, though I think I have a vague sense of what you mean. jacobbrett's distinction re the 2002 release is clear, but I don't follow the Dirt[2]/Dirt[3] difference, which I think is what you're referring to? The initial AR you're talking about is also the one I mainly think of, though I'd actually perhaps end up using it more for EPs than singles, hence my dislike for the single-specific language in single taken from - it de facto excludes EPs and remix releases. As for splitting the AR, again, I only vaguely am following the distinction you're drawing, but unless we can clarify it sufficiently, I think we'd only end up confusing both editors and voters if we split that AR off from this one, esp since the issues which I think you're talking about are (again, I think) simply the cat corner cases from the intended AR, which is the (single) taken from AR. I didn't really pay any attention to any of the previous RFCs, so apologies if I've missed something. My understanding is that: Single from album is simply a single where the main track was one of the songs included in the album. It doesn't matter when or where either was released and the single wasn't necessarily promoting the album in any way. If you ask Which album is the single Angry Chair from?, the answer is simply Dirt. It doesn't matter that there's a rerelease or a UK release, it's about the abstract release (i.e. release group). This one makes perfect sense to me as a release group relationship and it's the same as what Wikipedia does. Supporting release is a release which promotes another release and it implies a much closer relationship. A single released two years before the album can't have been released in support of the album. Singles released at the same time as the original release of an album can't be supporting a remastered version 10 years later. A single released in the UK can't be supporting an album released in the USA. It's no longer about the abstract release, but about specific release events. The US single was released in support of the US version of the album released around the same time, it wasn't creating publicity or increasing sales for the UK version nor for the rerelease 10 years later. To me, this one only really makes sense between specific releases. Clearly, there is some overlap and there'll be cases where something is both a single from album and a supporting release, but they're not identical. The Nas example is a good example of a supporting release which wasn't a single from album release. An example of the opposite would be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashimi_Twilight which was released in April 2007. The album it was on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_9_Disc - was released in March 2009, almost two years later. It would count as a
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
On 17/10/2010 00:49, Brian Schweitzer wrote: I'm still working on the Track From version, and on revising the proposal for Supporting Release, but I think I'm done tweaking the Single From proposed text. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposals/Single_From_Release_Relationship_Type Any thoughts? Brian It looks like way too complicated and not finished. This relationship type is a subtype of the Supporting Release Relationship Type. No, it's not. As nikki said, Not all singles from albums are supporting releases and not all supporting releases are singles from albums. The description seems to be the one for the Supporting Release AR type: This indicates that a release was released in support of another release. I disagree that this should be both a release-release AR and a release-group-release-group AR. It should be a release-release AR now, and a release-group-release-group AR in NGS. I don't like the EP attribute or the remix attribute. I won't include them at all. Guidelines: * Compilations and soundtracks cannot be from another release, though they can have singles from them. This guideline belongs the Supporting Release Relationship Type, not to the Single From Release Relationship Type. * Whichever version of this relationship is used, the appropriate Track From Relationship should also be used. What is a Track From Relationship? Until it's defined and official, I suggest to not mention it. In short I want something simple, not over-complicated, to relate an album/soundtrack/live, ... to its associate singles. It doesn't need to be extremely accurate (EP, remix, release-release AR in NGS). Do you want me to take this one in charge? It's the only one that is of interest for me, and then you could work on the other ones (Supporting Release and Track From). - Aurélien ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
It looks like way too complicated and not finished. This relationship type is a subtype of the Supporting Release Relationship Type. No, it's not. As nikki said, Not all singles from albums are supporting releases and not all supporting releases are singles from albums. The latter I'd agree with, but the former I don't, hence the hierarchy I've used. What cases can you think of where a single/EP identifies itself as being from an album/soundtrack, but was not released with promotion of the album as at least one rationale for the single/EP's release? The description seems to be the one for the Supporting Release AR type: This indicates that a release was released in support of another release. Fixed, thanks. I disagree that this should be both a release-release AR and a release-group-release-group AR. It should be a release-release AR now, and a release-group-release-group AR in NGS. There was disagreement with that idea when it was last discussed. If you recall, there was the example of a 1991 single for a 1991 album not also being taken from a 2010 reissue of that same album? Or the example of a UK single potentially not being released with thought for the US album, etc. That doesn't describe a RG-RG relationship, but rather a R-RG or R-R relationship. However, you could also have a worldwide single (iTunes, whatever) which *did* apply to every release of an album - the RG-RG version. I don't like the EP attribute or the remix attribute. I won't include them at all. I don't like the remix attribute at the moment either, as described - it's too broad, in that even (single version) would trigger its use, which I see as wrong. However, however we do it, there are plenty of remix releases taken from another album - it doesn't make sense to plan this AR and not somehow support those. Perhaps it'd be best to simplify that one down to using the type to determine its use, as with the EP attribute. I don't like the idea of saying that an EP is a single from anything - it's not a single, it's an EP, so I wouldn't strike that attribute. Guidelines: * Compilations and soundtracks cannot be from another release, though they can have singles from them. This guideline belongs the Supporting Release Relationship Type, not to the Single From Release Relationship Type. I think it belongs to both ARs. Many soundtracks and compilations have language to the effect of taken from album foo on them, for various tracks on the soundtrack or comp. I don't see those as being instances of the Single From AR, though they may be instances of the Track From AR. Without language to this effect, however, there's nothing in the guideline to prevent such use. * Whichever version of this relationship is used, the appropriate Track From Relationship should also be used. What is a Track From Relationship? Until it's defined and official, I suggest to not mention it. None of these three ARs is official yet, and I plan to keep them together as parts of the same proposal - thus when the one becomes official, the other would as well, so there's not the problem you're describing. In short I want something simple, not over-complicated, to relate an album/soundtrack/live, ... to its associate singles. It doesn't need to be extremely accurate (EP, remix, release-release AR in NGS). You want that, and that's the general case, but in the various discussions on this AR, it's become clear that there are other cases which are not so simple. There'd be nothing to prevent your using the general RG-RG version, only allowance for those cases people have already mentioned where RG-RG is not correct, but R-RG or R-R is. Same holds true for the EP and remix attributes - single has a definite meaning already; without such an attribute, in my eyes, the AR would not be correct to use for any EP or remix release, as they are (by definition) not singles. Do you want me to take this one in charge? It's the only one that is of interest for me, and then you could work on the other ones (Supporting Release and Track From). Honestly, I'm much less interested in the Supporting Release version; that one stems from trying to originally incorporate some sort of inclusion for the Seventh Coming type of release, but it's not an AR I can see myself using much. I think its worthwhile doing, however, rather than simply dropping it. If you want to take over that one, sure, but I'd rather finish this one out. :) Brian ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
I'm still working on the Track From version, and on revising the proposal for Supporting Release, but I think I'm done tweaking the Single From proposed text. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposals/Single_From_Release_Relationship_Type Any thoughts? Brian On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, just needed new proposal pages to cover the separated ARs. When I get a chance, hopefully within the next few days, I'll draft both new pages and send out the revised RFC. Brian On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Where are we with this? Have my previous emails managed to convince you that separate relationships would be OK or not? Nikki Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Brian Schweitzer wrote: jacobbrett: Re RG vs release, we discussed that back around RFC2; I would generally agree with jacobbrett in that this AR makes more sense to me as a release-release AR, or RG-release (e.g. a single RG supporting an album Release) than as a RG-RG one, though there are some cases where RG-RG might make the most sense. However, I don't know that that distinction would ever be clear enough that we could hope to actually pull it off, esp if we perhaps had this (in NGS) in RG-RG, release-release, and release-RG forms. Iirc, however, the general sense of the list was that most would see this simply migrated from release-release to RG-RG, and disregard the minor errors such a flattening would occasionally create? Aurélien, I think that I'm not following the distinction you're making clearly, though I think I have a vague sense of what you mean. jacobbrett's distinction re the 2002 release is clear, but I don't follow the Dirt[2]/Dirt[3] difference, which I think is what you're referring to? The initial AR you're talking about is also the one I mainly think of, though I'd actually perhaps end up using it more for EPs than singles, hence my dislike for the single-specific language in single taken from - it de facto excludes EPs and remix releases. As for splitting the AR, again, I only vaguely am following the distinction you're drawing, but unless we can clarify it sufficiently, I think we'd only end up confusing both editors and voters if we split that AR off from this one, esp since the issues which I think you're talking about are (again, I think) simply the cat corner cases from the intended AR, which is the (single) taken from AR. I didn't really pay any attention to any of the previous RFCs, so apologies if I've missed something. My understanding is that: Single from album is simply a single where the main track was one of the songs included in the album. It doesn't matter when or where either was released and the single wasn't necessarily promoting the album in any way. If you ask Which album is the single Angry Chair from?, the answer is simply Dirt. It doesn't matter that there's a rerelease or a UK release, it's about the abstract release (i.e. release group). This one makes perfect sense to me as a release group relationship and it's the same as what Wikipedia does. Supporting release is a release which promotes another release and it implies a much closer relationship. A single released two years before the album can't have been released in support of the album. Singles released at the same time as the original release of an album can't be supporting a remastered version 10 years later. A single released in the UK can't be supporting an album released in the USA. It's no longer about the abstract release, but about specific release events. The US single was released in support of the US version of the album released around the same time, it wasn't creating publicity or increasing sales for the UK version nor for the rerelease 10 years later. To me, this one only really makes sense between specific releases. Clearly, there is some overlap and there'll be cases where something is both a single from album and a supporting release, but they're not identical. The Nas example is a good example of a supporting release which wasn't a single from album release. An example of the opposite would be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashimi_Twilight which was released in April 2007. The album it was on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_9_Disc - was released in March 2009, almost two years later. It would count as a single from an album (and as you can see, Wikipedia does include it on the album's page) because the single was later included on the album, but it makes absolutely no sense to say that it supported the album. The group had four singles, a cover album and a compliation between the release of the single and the album it was included on. I think it would make more sense as
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Yes, just needed new proposal pages to cover the separated ARs. When I get a chance, hopefully within the next few days, I'll draft both new pages and send out the revised RFC. Brian On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Where are we with this? Have my previous emails managed to convince you that separate relationships would be OK or not? Nikki Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Brian Schweitzer wrote: jacobbrett: Re RG vs release, we discussed that back around RFC2; I would generally agree with jacobbrett in that this AR makes more sense to me as a release-release AR, or RG-release (e.g. a single RG supporting an album Release) than as a RG-RG one, though there are some cases where RG-RG might make the most sense. However, I don't know that that distinction would ever be clear enough that we could hope to actually pull it off, esp if we perhaps had this (in NGS) in RG-RG, release-release, and release-RG forms. Iirc, however, the general sense of the list was that most would see this simply migrated from release-release to RG-RG, and disregard the minor errors such a flattening would occasionally create? Aurélien, I think that I'm not following the distinction you're making clearly, though I think I have a vague sense of what you mean. jacobbrett's distinction re the 2002 release is clear, but I don't follow the Dirt[2]/Dirt[3] difference, which I think is what you're referring to? The initial AR you're talking about is also the one I mainly think of, though I'd actually perhaps end up using it more for EPs than singles, hence my dislike for the single-specific language in single taken from - it de facto excludes EPs and remix releases. As for splitting the AR, again, I only vaguely am following the distinction you're drawing, but unless we can clarify it sufficiently, I think we'd only end up confusing both editors and voters if we split that AR off from this one, esp since the issues which I think you're talking about are (again, I think) simply the cat corner cases from the intended AR, which is the (single) taken from AR. I didn't really pay any attention to any of the previous RFCs, so apologies if I've missed something. My understanding is that: Single from album is simply a single where the main track was one of the songs included in the album. It doesn't matter when or where either was released and the single wasn't necessarily promoting the album in any way. If you ask Which album is the single Angry Chair from?, the answer is simply Dirt. It doesn't matter that there's a rerelease or a UK release, it's about the abstract release (i.e. release group). This one makes perfect sense to me as a release group relationship and it's the same as what Wikipedia does. Supporting release is a release which promotes another release and it implies a much closer relationship. A single released two years before the album can't have been released in support of the album. Singles released at the same time as the original release of an album can't be supporting a remastered version 10 years later. A single released in the UK can't be supporting an album released in the USA. It's no longer about the abstract release, but about specific release events. The US single was released in support of the US version of the album released around the same time, it wasn't creating publicity or increasing sales for the UK version nor for the rerelease 10 years later. To me, this one only really makes sense between specific releases. Clearly, there is some overlap and there'll be cases where something is both a single from album and a supporting release, but they're not identical. The Nas example is a good example of a supporting release which wasn't a single from album release. An example of the opposite would be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashimi_Twilight which was released in April 2007. The album it was on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_9_Disc - was released in March 2009, almost two years later. It would count as a single from an album (and as you can see, Wikipedia does include it on the album's page) because the single was later included on the album, but it makes absolutely no sense to say that it supported the album. The group had four singles, a cover album and a compliation between the release of the single and the album it was included on. I think it would make more sense as two relationships (one of which gets moved to release groups), so does that make the distinction between them any clearer? It does, thank you. :) I guess the questions are 1) can we clarify that distinction down to something short and simple, and 2) do we need to have it as 2 different ARs? Re #2, given the amount of overlap that will
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Where are we with this? Have my previous emails managed to convince you that separate relationships would be OK or not? Nikki Brian Schweitzer wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Brian Schweitzer wrote: jacobbrett: Re RG vs release, we discussed that back around RFC2; I would generally agree with jacobbrett in that this AR makes more sense to me as a release-release AR, or RG-release (e.g. a single RG supporting an album Release) than as a RG-RG one, though there are some cases where RG-RG might make the most sense. However, I don't know that that distinction would ever be clear enough that we could hope to actually pull it off, esp if we perhaps had this (in NGS) in RG-RG, release-release, and release-RG forms. Iirc, however, the general sense of the list was that most would see this simply migrated from release-release to RG-RG, and disregard the minor errors such a flattening would occasionally create? Aurélien, I think that I'm not following the distinction you're making clearly, though I think I have a vague sense of what you mean. jacobbrett's distinction re the 2002 release is clear, but I don't follow the Dirt[2]/Dirt[3] difference, which I think is what you're referring to? The initial AR you're talking about is also the one I mainly think of, though I'd actually perhaps end up using it more for EPs than singles, hence my dislike for the single-specific language in single taken from - it de facto excludes EPs and remix releases. As for splitting the AR, again, I only vaguely am following the distinction you're drawing, but unless we can clarify it sufficiently, I think we'd only end up confusing both editors and voters if we split that AR off from this one, esp since the issues which I think you're talking about are (again, I think) simply the cat corner cases from the intended AR, which is the (single) taken from AR. I didn't really pay any attention to any of the previous RFCs, so apologies if I've missed something. My understanding is that: Single from album is simply a single where the main track was one of the songs included in the album. It doesn't matter when or where either was released and the single wasn't necessarily promoting the album in any way. If you ask Which album is the single Angry Chair from?, the answer is simply Dirt. It doesn't matter that there's a rerelease or a UK release, it's about the abstract release (i.e. release group). This one makes perfect sense to me as a release group relationship and it's the same as what Wikipedia does. Supporting release is a release which promotes another release and it implies a much closer relationship. A single released two years before the album can't have been released in support of the album. Singles released at the same time as the original release of an album can't be supporting a remastered version 10 years later. A single released in the UK can't be supporting an album released in the USA. It's no longer about the abstract release, but about specific release events. The US single was released in support of the US version of the album released around the same time, it wasn't creating publicity or increasing sales for the UK version nor for the rerelease 10 years later. To me, this one only really makes sense between specific releases. Clearly, there is some overlap and there'll be cases where something is both a single from album and a supporting release, but they're not identical. The Nas example is a good example of a supporting release which wasn't a single from album release. An example of the opposite would be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashimi_Twilight which was released in April 2007. The album it was on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_9_Disc - was released in March 2009, almost two years later. It would count as a single from an album (and as you can see, Wikipedia does include it on the album's page) because the single was later included on the album, but it makes absolutely no sense to say that it supported the album. The group had four singles, a cover album and a compliation between the release of the single and the album it was included on. I think it would make more sense as two relationships (one of which gets moved to release groups), so does that make the distinction between them any clearer? It does, thank you. :) I guess the questions are 1) can we clarify that distinction down to something short and simple, and 2) do we need to have it as 2 different ARs? Re #2, given the amount of overlap that will exist for the majority of releases which might use either AR, it would seem preferable if we could find a way to keep them together. Ie, supporting release is a default state, and single from album could be made a more precise version via attribute, or some such. The way you expressed the latter, you make it sound as if that wouldn't work.
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
On 19/09/2010 21:38, Nikki wrote: If the above can't work, and we do need to go with 2 different ARs, it would seem that we then need to figure out the wording for single from album; As for the wording, I would personally leave it as it is and clarify in the description that album doesn't exclude things like soundtracks (it's just a limitation of our database that they can't be both), that single doesn't exclude things like remixes (same reason) and that EPs are acceptable in place of either the album or the single (since EPs could be anything from slightly longer than normal singles to slightly shorter than normal albums). +1 This wording will work in most cases, and it would be a shame to block this new AR type longer because we can't find a wording that would be accurate, universal, and still simple. - Aurélien ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Brian Schweitzer wrote: I guess the questions are 1) can we clarify that distinction down to something short and simple, and 2) do we need to have it as 2 different ARs? Re #2, given the amount of overlap that will exist for the majority of releases which might use either AR, it would seem preferable if we could find a way to keep them together. Ie, supporting release is a default state, and single from album could be made a more precise version via attribute, or some such. The way you expressed the latter, you make it sound as if that wouldn't work. 1) A single from an album is a song from the album which was also released as its own single. A supporting release is any release which promotes another release. 2) It seems like it would be difficult to do it as one relationship. Not all singles from albums are supporting releases and not all supporting releases are singles from albums, so if supporting release is the default and the attribute makes it mean supporting release *and* single from album, then how do you enter something which isn't a supporting release but is a single from album? If supporting release is the default and the attribute changes it to only mean single from album, then you have to enter two relationships to enter both supporting release and single from album, which is no better than simply having two relationships in the first place. Whether the majority overlap would depend on what exactly counts as a supporting release. If we do add them as two relationships, then there's no need to try and include both singles from albums and releases which promote another release under the same relationship, so the wording of supporting release could be more specific. Alternatively, it could simply say that if single from album applies, supporting release should only be used if the single is clearly used for promoting the album. I had a look at the European singles I've got and the majority don't even mention an album, so it seems like that would remove some of the overlap. If the above can't work, and we do need to go with 2 different ARs, it would seem that we then need to figure out the wording for single from album; 'single' can still be also, in our terminology, 'EP' or 'remix' - or potentially also a VA compilation or soundtrack, given that those 2 both can also drive album awareness? (Think of the Titanic soundtrack w/r/t the album Let's Talk About Love by Céline Dion). Are you confusing them again? The Titantic soundtrack wasn't a release taken from her album, nor was her album a release taken from the Titantic soundtrack. If one is driving awareness of the other, then it would come under supporting the release, not taken from the release. As for the wording, I would personally leave it as it is and clarify in the description that album doesn't exclude things like soundtracks (it's just a limitation of our database that they can't be both), that single doesn't exclude things like remixes (same reason) and that EPs are acceptable in place of either the album or the single (since EPs could be anything from slightly longer than normal singles to slightly shorter than normal albums). If someone has a flash of inspiration and thinks of a link phrase that works really well, they're quite welcome to tell us 'cause it's not difficult for us to change the wording later. If it's really such a problem that it doesn't explicitly mention EPs in the link phrases, then we could call it the rather ugly single/EP from album/EP. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Brian Schweitzer wrote: jacobbrett: Re RG vs release, we discussed that back around RFC2; I would generally agree with jacobbrett in that this AR makes more sense to me as a release-release AR, or RG-release (e.g. a single RG supporting an album Release) than as a RG-RG one, though there are some cases where RG-RG might make the most sense. However, I don't know that that distinction would ever be clear enough that we could hope to actually pull it off, esp if we perhaps had this (in NGS) in RG-RG, release-release, and release-RG forms. Iirc, however, the general sense of the list was that most would see this simply migrated from release-release to RG-RG, and disregard the minor errors such a flattening would occasionally create? Aurélien, I think that I'm not following the distinction you're making clearly, though I think I have a vague sense of what you mean. jacobbrett's distinction re the 2002 release is clear, but I don't follow the Dirt[2]/Dirt[3] difference, which I think is what you're referring to? The initial AR you're talking about is also the one I mainly think of, though I'd actually perhaps end up using it more for EPs than singles, hence my dislike for the single-specific language in single taken from - it de facto excludes EPs and remix releases. As for splitting the AR, again, I only vaguely am following the distinction you're drawing, but unless we can clarify it sufficiently, I think we'd only end up confusing both editors and voters if we split that AR off from this one, esp since the issues which I think you're talking about are (again, I think) simply the cat corner cases from the intended AR, which is the (single) taken from AR. I didn't really pay any attention to any of the previous RFCs, so apologies if I've missed something. My understanding is that: Single from album is simply a single where the main track was one of the songs included in the album. It doesn't matter when or where either was released and the single wasn't necessarily promoting the album in any way. If you ask Which album is the single Angry Chair from?, the answer is simply Dirt. It doesn't matter that there's a rerelease or a UK release, it's about the abstract release (i.e. release group). This one makes perfect sense to me as a release group relationship and it's the same as what Wikipedia does. Supporting release is a release which promotes another release and it implies a much closer relationship. A single released two years before the album can't have been released in support of the album. Singles released at the same time as the original release of an album can't be supporting a remastered version 10 years later. A single released in the UK can't be supporting an album released in the USA. It's no longer about the abstract release, but about specific release events. The US single was released in support of the US version of the album released around the same time, it wasn't creating publicity or increasing sales for the UK version nor for the rerelease 10 years later. To me, this one only really makes sense between specific releases. Clearly, there is some overlap and there'll be cases where something is both a single from album and a supporting release, but they're not identical. The Nas example is a good example of a supporting release which wasn't a single from album release. An example of the opposite would be something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanashimi_Twilight which was released in April 2007. The album it was on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_9_Disc - was released in March 2009, almost two years later. It would count as a single from an album (and as you can see, Wikipedia does include it on the album's page) because the single was later included on the album, but it makes absolutely no sense to say that it supported the album. The group had four singles, a cover album and a compliation between the release of the single and the album it was included on. I think it would make more sense as two relationships (one of which gets moved to release groups), so does that make the distinction between them any clearer? Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Side note: dropping this back to RFC (#5) while we try to figure out how to polish this. :) jacobbrett: Re RG vs release, we discussed that back around RFC2; I would generally agree with jacobbrett in that this AR makes more sense to me as a release-release AR, or RG-release (e.g. a single RG supporting an album Release) than as a RG-RG one, though there are some cases where RG-RG might make the most sense. However, I don't know that that distinction would ever be clear enough that we could hope to actually pull it off, esp if we perhaps had this (in NGS) in RG-RG, release-release, and release-RG forms. Iirc, however, the general sense of the list was that most would see this simply migrated from release-release to RG-RG, and disregard the minor errors such a flattening would occasionally create? Aurélien, I think that I'm not following the distinction you're making clearly, though I think I have a vague sense of what you mean. jacobbrett's distinction re the 2002 release is clear, but I don't follow the Dirt[2]/Dirt[3] difference, which I think is what you're referring to? My point was that both versions were released in a similar time-frame (1992), so therefore, the 1993 single was supporting both original releases (as a promotional tool), but not the 2002 re-release. I don't think my original explanation was clear enough. The initial AR you're talking about is also the one I mainly think of, though I'd actually perhaps end up using it more for EPs than singles, hence my dislike for the single-specific language in single taken from - it de facto excludes EPs and remix releases. As for splitting the AR, again, I only vaguely am following the distinction you're drawing, but unless we can clarify it sufficiently, I think we'd only end up confusing both editors and voters if we split that AR off from this one, esp since the issues which I think you're talking about are (again, I think) simply the cat corner cases from the intended AR, which is the (single) taken from AR. Agreed. I don't see the point in excluding releases, such as promotional EPs or samplers, from this AR to suit only singles (and hence, naming it something like Single taken from Album). The metadata (Release Type: Single) already exists if one wishes to transform the phrasing on one's end to be more specific. Brian ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFV4-Supporting-Release-Relationship-Type-tp5493859p5498572.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] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:38 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: Brian Schweitzer wrote: Side note: dropping this back to RFC (#5) while we try to figure out how to polish this. :) jacobbrett: Re RG vs release, we discussed that back around RFC2; I would generally agree with jacobbrett in that this AR makes more sense to me as a release-release AR, or RG-release (e.g. a single RG supporting an album Release) than as a RG-RG one, though there are some cases where RG-RG might make the most sense. However, I don't know that that distinction would ever be clear enough that we could hope to actually pull it off, esp if we perhaps had this (in NGS) in RG-RG, release-release, and release-RG forms. Iirc, however, the general sense of the list was that most would see this simply migrated from release-release to RG-RG, and disregard the minor errors such a flattening would occasionally create? Aurélien, I think that I'm not following the distinction you're making clearly, though I think I have a vague sense of what you mean. jacobbrett's distinction re the 2002 release is clear, but I don't follow the Dirt[2]/Dirt[3] difference, which I think is what you're referring to? My point was that both versions were released in a similar time-frame (1992), so therefore, the 1993 single was supporting both original releases (as a promotional tool), but not the 2002 re-release. I don't think my original explanation was clear enough. I get your point, but if this goes from a release-release AR now, to a RG-RG one under NGS, that seems unavoidable. The negative of a release-release version is that it presents the same type of case that RGs ought to solve. Ie, using your example, every release from ~1992 or 1993 ought to be linked to each single. We could avoid that, under NGS, without the occasional minor RG-RG problem of a 2002 release (as a member of the album's RG) also being linked to that 1993 single by, as I said, having three versions of the AR - R-RG, RG-RG, and R-R - but that seems overly confusing, and it creates a situation where valid RG-RG ARs potentially become invalid if a new release gets added to any given RG. So I'm not sure that there's a great solution; perhaps we simply accept the '2002-also- linked-by-the-RG' incorrectness? The initial AR you're talking about is also the one I mainly think of, though I'd actually perhaps end up using it more for EPs than singles, hence my dislike for the single-specific language in single taken from - it de facto excludes EPs and remix releases. As for splitting the AR, again, I only vaguely am following the distinction you're drawing, but unless we can clarify it sufficiently, I think we'd only end up confusing both editors and voters if we split that AR off from this one, esp since the issues which I think you're talking about are (again, I think) simply the cat corner cases from the intended AR, which is the (single) taken from AR. Agreed. I don't see the point in excluding releases, such as promotional EPs or samplers, from this AR to suit only singles (and hence, naming it something like Single taken from Album). The metadata (Release Type: Single) already exists if one wishes to transform the phrasing on one's end to be more specific. So perhaps it's the same issue as we had when dealing with a Nas-type cat-corner... We have three types of releases that could be linked, I think: 1) those singles/EPs/remixes which could correctly use a taken from AR, 2) those singles/EPs/remixes which have 1+ songs taken from an album, but are a different mix/remix on the single/etc (Tori Amos used to have lots of these), and 3) those which are Nas-types, sold strictly to boost sales, where taken from would be incorrect. For #2, perhaps we just let #2 be treated as if it were #1, glossing over remix/versioning problems? For #3, to avoid having the wording problems that trouble murdos, and to make it clear when it is a case of a single being Nas-type, rather than the normal taken from, perhaps we: * rename the AR to Release Taken From Relationship Type or something like that * add an attribute in support or something along those lines So, you'd get Angry Chair (release group) was taken from Dirt (release group), but The Seventh Coming Mixtape (release group) was released in support of Street's Disciple (release group). The former using just the AR, the latter using the AR+support attribute? I don't like that was taken from wording, as it's confusingly worded if you aren't familiar with the AR, but perhaps something like this would solve the problem, if we can get the various wordings right? Brian ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Hi, I like this idea, but I have one question about it. I didn't follow the previous discussion, so maybe my question has already been answered. But it seems to me that this should be implemented at the release group level, als there can be multiple versions of the album (only linking to the earliest release is kind of a hack) and also multiple versions of the single (so you get multiple AR's, for example: Nevermind has supporting release smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, and come as you are) This seems to be elegantly solved when using release groups. Bram Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 23:24:34 -0400 From: brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type I didn't hear back from warp on this in the past 5 weeks, so I'm going to assume that the added exemption (to allow any release, so long as it's self-identified as a supporting release, even if it is a compilation or soundtrack) is sufficient. That said, I guess this can go back to RFV. :) The proposal, again, is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Supporting_Release_Relationship_Type Brian On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry to have been absent; life got *really* busy for a few weeks while I was traveling, and looks to stay pretty busy for the next few months, until my wedding and other stuff at the end of Oct. I'm at least back from traveling now, though, so I'll be trying to get caught up. :) The last movement on this was my ammendment to add a exception clause to allow any release, so long as it's self-identified as a supporting release, even if it is a compilation or soundtrack per warp's concerns. I've not heard from him since then, however, as to whether those would be sufficient to allow this to avoid his veto. So warp, I guess it's your call as to whether that exemption would be sufficient, or if you think this would still need some tweaking to prevent the problem you foresaw. If it's sufficient to address your concerns, then I'll go ahead with the RFV (# whatever its up to now) on this. Brian On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:37 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: Any word on this moving to RFV? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC3-Supporting-Release-Relationship-Type-tp1752278p2301104.html 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-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] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
Bram van Dijk wrote: Hi, I like this idea, but I have one question about it. I didn't follow the previous discussion, so maybe my question has already been answered. But it seems to me that this should be implemented at the release group level, als there can be multiple versions of the album (only linking to the earliest release is kind of a hack) and also multiple versions of the single (so you get multiple AR's, for example: Nevermind has supporting release smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, smells like teen spirit, and come as you are) This seems to be elegantly solved when using release groups. Bram Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 23:24:34 -0400 From: brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type I didn't hear back from warp on this in the past 5 weeks, so I'm going to assume that the added exemption (to allow any release, so long as it's self-identified as a supporting release, even if it is a compilation or soundtrack) is sufficient. That said, I guess this can go back to RFV. :) The proposal, again, is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Supporting_Release_Relationship_Type Brian On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry to have been absent; life got *really* busy for a few weeks while I was traveling, and looks to stay pretty busy for the next few months, until my wedding and other stuff at the end of Oct. I'm at least back from traveling now, though, so I'll be trying to get caught up. :) The last movement on this was my ammendment to add a exception clause to allow any release, so long as it's self-identified as a supporting release, even if it is a compilation or soundtrack per warp's concerns. I've not heard from him since then, however, as to whether those would be sufficient to allow this to avoid his veto. So warp, I guess it's your call as to whether that exemption would be sufficient, or if you think this would still need some tweaking to prevent the problem you foresaw. If it's sufficient to address your concerns, then I'll go ahead with the RFV (# whatever its up to now) on this. Brian On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:37 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: Any word on this moving to RFV? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC3-Supporting-Release-Relationship-Type-tp1752278p2301104.html 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 I'm no sure linking to release groups is a good idea, *because* releases are often re-released. In my opinion, a supporting release (the purpose of which is usually to promote a particular release/re-release/remix release) bears little relevance to other releases/re-releases/remix releases of the same *conceptual* release (the creative part: tracklist, artwork, etc.). Restated: I think a supporting release bears *some* relevance to the conceptual release (and complete relevance to the particular release it supports), but not to other *physical* releases (a marketable product). As the proposal states: A 'supporting release' is one which is released to increase sales of an album or to create publicity for an album.. Example: Angry Chair[1] (1993) is a supporting release of Dirt[2] (1992). [1]http://musicbrainz.org/release/fb9b6177-fba1-4f09-91a0-2e65c697dfa5.html [2]http://musicbrainz.org/release/66e95974-2592-4ea3-b1f7-27e283f10877.html Angry Chair[1] (1993) is a supporting release of Dirt[3] (1992). [3]http://musicbrainz.org/release/aecfa9be-64fd-46f2-8e94-f30539ee051c.html Angry Chair[1] (1993) is *not* supporting release of Dirt[3] (2002, re-release). [4]http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2f366b0-f793-4861-91e3-bfe7075caef7.html Thoughts? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFV4-Supporting-Release-Relationship-Type-tp5493859p5494342.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] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
On 03/09/2010 09:45, jacobbrett wrote: I'm no sure linking to release groups is a good idea, *because* releases are often re-released. In my opinion, a supporting release (the purpose of which is usually to promote a particular release/re-release/remix release) bears little relevance to other releases/re-releases/remix releases of the same *conceptual* release (the creative part: tracklist, artwork, etc.). Restated: I think a supporting release bears *some* relevance to the conceptual release (and complete relevance to the particular release it supports), but not to other *physical* releases (a marketable product). As the proposal states: A 'supporting release' is one which is released to increase sales of an album or to create publicity for an album.. Example: Angry Chair[1] (1993) is a supporting release of Dirt[2] (1992). [1]http://musicbrainz.org/release/fb9b6177-fba1-4f09-91a0-2e65c697dfa5.html [2]http://musicbrainz.org/release/66e95974-2592-4ea3-b1f7-27e283f10877.html Angry Chair[1] (1993) is a supporting release of Dirt[3] (1992). [3]http://musicbrainz.org/release/aecfa9be-64fd-46f2-8e94-f30539ee051c.html Angry Chair[1] (1993) is *not* supporting release of Dirt[3] (2002, re-release). [4]http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2f366b0-f793-4861-91e3-bfe7075caef7.html Thoughts? Thanks for your input! It highlighted what was bothering me with this AR type. Initially this AR type was named Single taken from Album ([1]). In my understanding, it was supposed to allow linking singles to their related albums (in a conceptual sense), the same way Wikipedia is doing in its info box ([2]). But because the wording singles from album was not covering all situations - although it covered maybe 90% of them - (e.g. some singles are from soundtracks), the hideous supporting release wording has been proposed. Hideous because it holds IMO a different meaning, and because its meaning is not obvious at all. So I've no problem with this AR type (but I probably won't use it) *as far as* we add a second AR type Singles taken from that could cover the initial need and that I would eagerly use. - Aurélien [1] http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/1030 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_%28album%29 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Aurélien Mino a.m...@free.fr wrote: On 03/09/2010 09:45, jacobbrett wrote: I'm no sure linking to release groups is a good idea, *because* releases are often re-released. In my opinion, a supporting release (the purpose of which is usually to promote a particular release/re-release/remix release) bears little relevance to other releases/re-releases/remix releases of the same *conceptual* release (the creative part: tracklist, artwork, etc.). Restated: I think a supporting release bears *some* relevance to the conceptual release (and complete relevance to the particular release it supports), but not to other *physical* releases (a marketable product). As the proposal states: A 'supporting release' is one which is released to increase sales of an album or to create publicity for an album.. Example: Angry Chair[1] (1993) is a supporting release of Dirt[2] (1992). [1] http://musicbrainz.org/release/fb9b6177-fba1-4f09-91a0-2e65c697dfa5.html [2] http://musicbrainz.org/release/66e95974-2592-4ea3-b1f7-27e283f10877.html Angry Chair[1] (1993) is a supporting release of Dirt[3] (1992). [3] http://musicbrainz.org/release/aecfa9be-64fd-46f2-8e94-f30539ee051c.html Angry Chair[1] (1993) is *not* supporting release of Dirt[3] (2002, re-release). [4] http://musicbrainz.org/release/e2f366b0-f793-4861-91e3-bfe7075caef7.html Thoughts? Thanks for your input! It highlighted what was bothering me with this AR type. Initially this AR type was named Single taken from Album ([1]). In my understanding, it was supposed to allow linking singles to their related albums (in a conceptual sense), the same way Wikipedia is doing in its info box ([2]). But because the wording singles from album was not covering all situations - although it covered maybe 90% of them - (e.g. some singles are from soundtracks), the hideous supporting release wording has been proposed. Hideous because it holds IMO a different meaning, and because its meaning is not obvious at all. So I've no problem with this AR type (but I probably won't use it) *as far as* we add a second AR type Singles taken from that could cover the initial need and that I would eagerly use. - Aurélien Side note: dropping this back to RFC (#5) while we try to figure out how to polish this. :) jacobbrett: Re RG vs release, we discussed that back around RFC2; I would generally agree with jacobbrett in that this AR makes more sense to me as a release-release AR, or RG-release (e.g. a single RG supporting an album Release) than as a RG-RG one, though there are some cases where RG-RG might make the most sense. However, I don't know that that distinction would ever be clear enough that we could hope to actually pull it off, esp if we perhaps had this (in NGS) in RG-RG, release-release, and release-RG forms. Iirc, however, the general sense of the list was that most would see this simply migrated from release-release to RG-RG, and disregard the minor errors such a flattening would occasionally create? Aurélien, I think that I'm not following the distinction you're making clearly, though I think I have a vague sense of what you mean. jacobbrett's distinction re the 2002 release is clear, but I don't follow the Dirt[2]/Dirt[3] difference, which I think is what you're referring to? The initial AR you're talking about is also the one I mainly think of, though I'd actually perhaps end up using it more for EPs than singles, hence my dislike for the single-specific language in single taken from - it de facto excludes EPs and remix releases. As for splitting the AR, again, I only vaguely am following the distinction you're drawing, but unless we can clarify it sufficiently, I think we'd only end up confusing both editors and voters if we split that AR off from this one, esp since the issues which I think you're talking about are (again, I think) simply the cat corner cases from the intended AR, which is the (single) taken from AR. Brian ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFV4: Supporting Release Relationship Type
I didn't hear back from warp on this in the past 5 weeks, so I'm going to assume that the added exemption (to allow any release, so long as it's self-identified as a supporting release, even if it is a compilation or soundtrack) is sufficient. That said, I guess this can go back to RFV. :) The proposal, again, is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Supporting_Release_Relationship_Type Brian On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry to have been absent; life got *really* busy for a few weeks while I was traveling, and looks to stay pretty busy for the next few months, until my wedding and other stuff at the end of Oct. I'm at least back from traveling now, though, so I'll be trying to get caught up. :) The last movement on this was my ammendment to add a exception clause to allow any release, so long as it's self-identified as a supporting release, even if it is a compilation or soundtrack per warp's concerns. I've not heard from him since then, however, as to whether those would be sufficient to allow this to avoid his veto. So warp, I guess it's your call as to whether that exemption would be sufficient, or if you think this would still need some tweaking to prevent the problem you foresaw. If it's sufficient to address your concerns, then I'll go ahead with the RFV (# whatever its up to now) on this. Brian On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:37 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.comwrote: Any word on this moving to RFV? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC3-Supporting-Release-Relationship-Type-tp1752278p2301104.html 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-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
