Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
I have an OLD Marrantz that can do everything (straight, reverse, left, right, left+right). But I bought it about 30 years ago, I don't think it is still available! 2006/4/5, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> and you cannot > >> play the left channel on the right speaker and vice versa. > >> > > > > Just a little quible: yes you can! > > > > I knew it! - But can you tell me an amplifier which can swap channels > without unplugging the speakers? It might be really useful (in a very > obscure situation, but I'd be glad to know). > -- Frederic Da Vitoria ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 06:39:13PM +0200, Don Redman wrote: > (1) MB is currently not able to genuinely store metadata in a format that > will apply to all DVDs However, the current album-oriented way of storing > metadata is applicable to a majority of DVDs. This is what > StyleGuidelines are for. Therefore DVDs could be added to MusicBrainz > using relatively complex guidelines. But if the pro-DVD people are > willing to work these guidelines out and to watch that they are being > applied, that is ok. I don't think most DVDs require complex guidelines. The 4 DVD singles I've added came with track listings and my other 4 concert DVDs include track listings. Practically every DVD I've seen from Japan comes with a track listing too. > - The guidelines coud outline a threshold of 'musical relatedness' under > which DVDs should not be added to MB I don't think we can really specify a threshold, we don't have a way to measure how musically related the DVD is. In the same way that we can't say exactly where in the space between a one-off homebrew CD and a widespread well-known bootleg we should say "no, this shouldn't be added", the same applies to DVDs. We simply have to rely on common sense, does it make sense to add it? Is it of any conceivable benefit to the database? > (2) DVDs have a non negligeable role in musical culture. They are > probably going to become even more important. Can MusicBrainz afford to > ignore this phenomenon? I do not think so. Agreed. When I was still a teenager, UK singles tended to be 2 CDs and a cassette, now cassettes are as rare as gold dust and DVDs have taken their place. > (3) Are DVD entries _in the MB database_ 'official'? This depends on the > definition of what a "DVD" is _in MB_. Some define it as an entry > representing an audio rip. Then it makes sense to set the status to > 'bootleg'. Othes seem to define it as an etry representing the whole DVD. > Then normal album rules should apply. Given that there's a plan to store media types, I think this really means that the entries in MusicBrainz should be considered as DVDs, not audio rips of DVDs. Thus, once we can store the media information, they'll be official DVDs. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On 05/04/06, dj empirical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/5/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (1) MB is currently not able to genuinely store metadata in a format that > > will apply to all DVDs > > However, the current album-oriented way of storing metadata is applicable > > to a majority of DVDs. > > also, the analogy of cds/vinyl appears: what about videotapes? why > should a live dvd be in the system but not the original videotape > release from ten years earlier? > > and laserdiscs, too i suppose... of course! http://www.discogs.com/release/532526 - there's nothing we couldn't store about this, and this is the kind of thing people would be adding, i would imagine. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On 4/5/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (1) MB is currently not able to genuinely store metadata in a format that > will apply to all DVDs > However, the current album-oriented way of storing metadata is applicable > to a majority of DVDs. also, the analogy of cds/vinyl appears: what about videotapes? why should a live dvd be in the system but not the original videotape release from ten years earlier? and laserdiscs, too i suppose... -- --dj empirical-- - http://www.myspace.com/djempirical hey, look what i wrote: http://i-see-sound.com/?q=author/15 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
Wow, I liked this response (and I had not thought it could come out of that silly speaker thread). so let's keep up summarizing: (1) MB is currently not able to genuinely store metadata in a format that will apply to all DVDs However, the current album-oriented way of storing metadata is applicable to a majority of DVDs. This is what StyleGuidelines are for. Therefore DVDs could be added to MusicBrainz using relatively complex guidelines. But if the pro-DVD people are willing to work these guidelines out and to watch that they are being applied, that is ok. - The guidelines could specify that stuff above a certain level of complexity belongs to the annotation. - The guidelines coud outline a threshold of 'musical relatedness' under which DVDs should not be added to MB - etc. (2) DVDs have a non negligeable role in musical culture. They are probably going to become even more important. Can MusicBrainz afford to ignore this phenomenon? I do not think so. (3) Are DVD entries _in the MB database_ 'official'? This depends on the definition of what a "DVD" is _in MB_. Some define it as an entry representing an audio rip. Then it makes sense to set the status to 'bootleg'. Othes seem to define it as an etry representing the whole DVD. Then normal album rules should apply. Idea: Is it possinble to expand the current AlbumAttributes (without changing their structure or interface, just adding entries) to contain some DVD-specific attributes? Question: How much work is the rewrite of the AlbumAttributes which is documented in the wiki, and how far up on the list can it move? When could it be done, and could expanding the current set be a viable _intermediary_ solution? That's it for now. DonRedman On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:16:45 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote: OK, this is getting ridiculous quickly :) Let me resume my opinion (again, I think): * MB was designed to be a tagging database (I keep repeating this; if I'm wrong someone please tell me...), but people want and try to use it as a 'music encyclopedia' (for good reasons too, but that's another discussion). * Adding DVDs to the mix should be done because of the enyclopedic users -- they'll add them anyway, one way or another, so I think we better accept them, using some rules that we deem fitting (it IS possible, I could start a wiki page if you'd like, to see what happens), and perhaps we'll add special features intended for DVDs (or video releases) in the future. * Adding DVDs to the mix should be done because there are legitimate, music-only reasons for that. At least theoretically (I never actually listen to DVDs, but I also never listen to CDs. All my discs are riped, but that doesn't mean everybody does that.) someone may use a Winamp plugin to listen to DVD music (no video), and they'll like to have nice entries in the playlist and readable messages from Toaster or whatever notifier they have. * Adding DVDs to the mix should be done because of the fact that they're going to be ripped, and one way or the other they'll enter the database, and we'll have to clean up after them. Voting is so messy right now I really don't think we should encumber it with this too. * Adding DVDs to the mix should be done because we can, and many of our users want it, and it doesn't really (or shouldn't) bother the ones who don't. About their status, I think they should be 'official', because I think we should try to add DVDs, not the rips. This means that I consider a concert (that is, an audio-video recording of one) as music, all of it, not just as "music"+"a silent stage performance" that happen to be synchronized. So the description will be of the whole DVD. The fact that the entry in our database is probably going to be intimately coupled with some rip is just an unfortunate consequence that our database's structure is not very compatible, for now, with that kind of info. For that matter, it's not very compatible with other things we add in it, we'll have to deal with it until it gets better. -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
OK, this is getting ridiculous quickly :) Let me resume my opinion (again, I think): * MB was designed to be a tagging database (I keep repeating this; if I'm wrong someone please tell me...), but people want and try to use it as a 'music encyclopedia' (for good reasons too, but that's another discussion). * Adding DVDs to the mix should be done because of the enyclopedic users -- they'll add them anyway, one way or another, so I think we better accept them, using some rules that we deem fitting (it IS possible, I could start a wiki page if you'd like, to see what happens), and perhaps we'll add special features intended for DVDs (or video releases) in the future. * Adding DVDs to the mix should be done because there are legitimate, music-only reasons for that. At least theoretically (I never actually listen to DVDs, but I also never listen to CDs. All my discs are riped, but that doesn't mean everybody does that.) someone may use a Winamp plugin to listen to DVD music (no video), and they'll like to have nice entries in the playlist and readable messages from Toaster or whatever notifier they have. * Adding DVDs to the mix should be done because of the fact that they're going to be ripped, and one way or the other they'll enter the database, and we'll have to clean up after them. Voting is so messy right now I really don't think we should encumber it with this too. * Adding DVDs to the mix should be done because we can, and many of our users want it, and it doesn't really (or shouldn't) bother the ones who don't. About their status, I think they should be 'official', because I think we should try to add DVDs, not the rips. This means that I consider a concert (that is, an audio-video recording of one) as music, all of it, not just as "music"+"a silent stage performance" that happen to be synchronized. So the description will be of the whole DVD. The fact that the entry in our database is probably going to be intimately coupled with some rip is just an unfortunate consequence that our database's structure is not very compatible, for now, with that kind of info. For that matter, it's not very compatible with other things we add in it, we'll have to deal with it until it gets better. -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O. On 4/5/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Though he could see the soundwaves on the screen, now that I think > > about it... > > ... or could plug the speaker cables into the graphics card output, > risking severe damage to the hardware. :-P But it would surely make some > noise, if only for a short time. > > derGraph ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
Though he could see the soundwaves on the screen, now that I think about it... ... or could plug the speaker cables into the graphics card output, risking severe damage to the hardware. :-P But it would surely make some noise, if only for a short time. derGraph ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
with all this talk of whether to add dvds, i'd like to point out (without actually having a strong opinion) that if we add dvds, we should also add karaoke cds. I think we already have a few (e.g., [1] and [2]), unless these examples are audio-only. [1] http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=313718 [2] http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=162126 -- --dj empirical-- - http://www.myspace.com/djempirical hey, look what i wrote: http://i-see-sound.com/?q=author/15 ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
No idea :) But if you play the thing on a PC, many soundcards have a 'reverse stereo' setting, and it's obviously very easy to do it in any player software. Not to mention (in the original context of the comment), a user can simply have the speakers plugged differently and not notice, but he can't have the video plugged into them. Though he could see the soundwaves on the screen, now that I think about it... -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O. On 4/5/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> and you cannot > >> play the left channel on the right speaker and vice versa. > >> > > > > Just a little quible: yes you can! > > > > I knew it! - But can you tell me an amplifier which can swap channels > without unplugging the speakers? It might be really useful (in a very > obscure situation, but I'd be glad to know). > > derGraph ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On 05/04/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know too many concert DVDs, and actually I never cared about the > chapters. Still, the fact that you're (most likely) right about most > releases doesn't make it a solution for all releases. Again, read the > example given at [1]. right, that metallica example is a strage one. however i imagine that still people would mainly be after the track titles, so you could still add it as just that, and then not in the annotation the different audio streams. i'm sure there are examples we flat out can't handle, but like i said, i don't see this as a reason to not allow the majority of simple DVD releases. > > but i don't think we should be penalising > > users who just want to use the most basic and obvious information > > about DVD releases. > > Then why don't you use some kind of wiki? Perhaps a per-artist wiki page > on DVD releases? It might as well contain all the desired title information. i think most of this could be put in the annotations, just like other releases. users will still want titles (eg, song titles from a live concert) to tag with. a pure wiki page would need to get the title info to the tagger somehow, anyway. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
Why the heavens am I already tired of this discussion ...? ;-S a) Can you prove that claim? I could not, nor could I prove the opposite, because there is no database I know of which has such information. i mean in terms of what we get added here, not of all dvds released. Of course you did. That's what we're talking about. I don't know too many concert DVDs, and actually I never cared about the chapters. Still, the fact that you're (most likely) right about most releases doesn't make it a solution for all releases. Again, read the example given at [1]. but i don't think we should be penalising users who just want to use the most basic and obvious information about DVD releases. Then why don't you use some kind of wiki? Perhaps a per-artist wiki page on DVD releases? It might as well contain all the desired title information. derGraph [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-February/001612.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
and you cannot play the left channel on the right speaker and vice versa. Just a little quible: yes you can! I knew it! - But can you tell me an amplifier which can swap channels without unplugging the speakers? It might be really useful (in a very obscure situation, but I'd be glad to know). derGraph ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On 4/5/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But following your argumentation, an album with the right audio channel > stripped, i.e. only with the left channel, would be official, since the > left and the right channel already are separate things, and you cannot > play the left channel on the right speaker and vice versa. Just a little quible: yes you can! -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On 05/04/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > for me, it remains that the majority of DVD 'rips' will have an > > obvious titleing structure. > > a) Can you prove that claim? I could not, nor could I prove the > opposite, because there is no database I know of which has such information. i mean in terms of what we get added here, not of all dvds released. the majority of DVD entries i've seen @ MBz have been live concerts, which typically are 1 chapter for each song, and are listed with the titles on the back cover. also some DVD singles, DVD compilations, etc. I can't claim that my experiences are true across the board, but it would make sense that no one is, for example, trying to add documentary type dvds. there's no real reason you'd want to tag those, right? > b) Do you suggest creating a rule which only applies to a "majority" of > DVD rips? And if you do, what do you suggest for the remaining DVD rips? like i said, i just don't think people will be adding anything but simple concert DVDs and the like. that said, if someone wants to add another music-related dvd (at discogs, what makes a 'music related' dvd is a little vague, but generally common sense prevails), generally chapters = tracks would work, no? > > but we are not storing dvd rips, we are storing release titles. > > In fact we store release titles along with track titles. But DVDs don't > have tracks, they have titles, chapters and audio layers. (I know there > are also camera angles, but we don't discuss MovieBrainz here.) and CDs can have videos; CDs, tapes, vinyls (yes!), etc can have data content; vinyls can have etchings, etc, etc, etc. we can't represent all data about a release, but i don't think we should be penalising users who just want to use the most basic and obvious information about DVD releases. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
for me, it remains that the majority of DVD 'rips' will have an obvious titleing structure. a) Can you prove that claim? I could not, nor could I prove the opposite, because there is no database I know of which has such information. b) Do you suggest creating a rule which only applies to a "majority" of DVD rips? And if you do, what do you suggest for the remaining DVD rips? but we are not storing dvd rips, we are storing release titles. In fact we store release titles along with track titles. But DVDs don't have tracks, they have titles, chapters and audio layers. (I know there are also camera angles, but we don't discuss MovieBrainz here.) derGraph ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On 04/04/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Q1: Which DVD types should we add? > A1: None. We don't have a data format to store even a part of the data. > See [1], [2] and [3] for details. for me, it remains that the majority of DVD 'rips' will have an obvious titleing structure. eg, they will be of DVDs where each chapter = 1 song/title. for such releases, we do have a more than adequate data format to store this info. > Yet, this doesn't answer the question what to do with DVD rips. > > Though I'm not confident with this, I follow the majority and say we > might as well add DVD rips as long as they are related to music. But on > the official/ bootleg question, there is only one answer for me: unless > the artist or her label sells CDs (or some like media) with the audio > ripped of the DVD, it is bootleg. but we are not storing dvd rips, we are storing release titles. if we had a tagger that could tag .AVI files, then would all these DVD 'bootlegs' need to be changed to 'officials'? IMO the release/titles will always be official, so i don't see why our current use of them makes them 'bootlegs' ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
i'm talking about seperating audio from video, not ripping CDs. But they're already separate things, you can't play the video to the speakers or the audio to the display device. They are separate after decoding. In the video files however, they are mixed with each other to create a stream of both video and audio. But following your argumentation, an album with the right audio channel stripped, i.e. only with the left channel, would be official, since the left and the right channel already are separate things, and you cannot play the left channel on the right speaker and vice versa. derGraph ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
For those who are not confused enough, let's create additional confusion. ;-] There currently seems to be a fraction supporting all DVDs to be added as official releases, and another fraction that would rather see DVD rips to be added as bootlegs. Since both fractions argue against each other's arguments, both apparently fail to see that a DVD is not equal to a DVD rip. So let me answer the three questions. Q1: Which DVD types should we add? A1: None. We don't have a data format to store even a part of the data. See [1], [2] and [3] for details. Q2: Should there be a text identifier for DVDs in the album name? A2: No. And as far as I remember, that was the only point on the whole discussion where there actually was a consensus. Q3: Official or bootleg? A3: Once we have the right data structure, why should we not use the rules for albums? Yet, this doesn't answer the question what to do with DVD rips. Though I'm not confident with this, I follow the majority and say we might as well add DVD rips as long as they are related to music. But on the official/ bootleg question, there is only one answer for me: unless the artist or her label sells CDs (or some like media) with the audio ripped of the DVD, it is bootleg. derGraph [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-February/001609.html [2] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-February/001611.html [3] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-February/001612.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
Actually I thought it was doing some magic. Apparently not! bash-2.05b# ./disc_id /dev/acd0c libdvdread: Using libdvdcss version 1.2.9 for DVD access 3dd959cdd9c8122e569450d86ba195a9 bash-2.05b# cat /mnt/video_ts/*.ifo | md5 3dd959cdd9c8122e569450d86ba195a9 Steve Not an ideal solution then, it'd be similar to if our CDIDs told you nothing about the content of what was on them. http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-February/001621.html has some of my past thoughts about what would be needed to both recognize a disc as the same and contain usable information about the content of the disc based off analyzing the content of a few actual discs. Plus if you're just hashing the ifos you'll likely get a lot more instances of different IDs generated for different region releases of the same DVD (translate the menu or add/remove a copyright notice == new ID) as well as if someone makes a backup copy of a DVD with ARccOS or similar protection on it the fixed copy without the PGC garbage will have a different ID. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:00:21PM -0400, Brian Gurtler wrote: > i'm talking about seperating audio from video, not ripping CDs. But they're already separate things, you can't play the video to the speakers or the audio to the display device. There's nothing to stop people minimising the video, turning off the display device or telling the program to not even bother playing the video. There's nothing to stop people from ripping both the audio and video at the same time. MusicBrainz doesn't store any information about the video, but the audio on the disc is still official. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Nikki wrote: On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 04:22:52PM +0100, Steve Wyles wrote: I feel that if DVD's are added, they should have a DVD-discid (this can be obtained using libdvdread) attached to them. This is the probably the best way to determine if something is an official release or not. Oh? Care to elaborate? Actually I thought it was doing some magic. Apparently not! bash-2.05b# ./disc_id /dev/acd0c libdvdread: Using libdvdcss version 1.2.9 for DVD access 3dd959cdd9c8122e569450d86ba195a9 bash-2.05b# cat /mnt/video_ts/*.ifo | md5 3dd959cdd9c8122e569450d86ba195a9 Steve ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 04:22:52PM +0100, Steve Wyles wrote: > I feel that if DVD's are added, they should have a DVD-discid (this can > be obtained using libdvdread) attached to them. This is the probably the > best way to determine if something is an official release or not. Oh? Care to elaborate? --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
i'm talking about seperating audio from video, not ripping CDs. Cristov Russell wrote: > No. Following that logic, every ripped format (mp3, wav, flac, aac, mp4, ogg, > etc.) that was not released via an artist or their label is a Bootleg. The > original media source should be the determinate of what is Official or > Bootleg. > > Cristov (wolfsong) > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: Brian Gurtler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: MusicBrainz style discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: > Subject: Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles) > Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:06:30 -0400 > > Beth wrote: >> My thoughts... >> >> Q1. Which DVDs to add? >> A1. All DVD musical rips. >> Arguments: it was argued MB was a music database. Music >> DVD's are based on music and bands. That in itself seems to be a good reason >> to add them. If MB is supposed to be an archive of band's music at least.) > > once you separate the video from the audio you are left with a homemade > audio release which isn't any different than a bootleg. > if it was official audio, there would be an official audio release of > the same audio put out by the band. > > example.. the Dave Matthews Band Live in Central Park CDs and DVDs are > official. if i took the audio from the DVD to make a CD.. whats official > about that? nothing. > it's an act unsanctioned by the band. > > If there was no audio release of a DVD put out by a band, than you have > to create the audio yourself. That audio is a bootleg. > > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
No. Following that logic, every ripped format (mp3, wav, flac, aac, mp4, ogg, etc.) that was not released via an artist or their label is a Bootleg. The original media source should be the determinate of what is Official or Bootleg. Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Brian Gurtler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: MusicBrainz style discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Subject: Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:06:30 -0400 Beth wrote: > My thoughts... > > Q1. Which DVDs to add? > A1. All DVD musical rips. > Arguments: it was argued MB was a music database. Music > DVD's are based on music and bands. That in itself seems to be a good reason > to add them. If MB is supposed to be an archive of band's music at least.) once you separate the video from the audio you are left with a homemade audio release which isn't any different than a bootleg. if it was official audio, there would be an official audio release of the same audio put out by the band. example.. the Dave Matthews Band Live in Central Park CDs and DVDs are official. if i took the audio from the DVD to make a CD.. whats official about that? nothing. it's an act unsanctioned by the band. If there was no audio release of a DVD put out by a band, than you have to create the audio yourself. That audio is a bootleg. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote: Beth wrote: My thoughts... Q1. Which DVDs to add? A1. All DVD musical rips. Arguments: it was argued MB was a music database. Music DVD's are based on music and bands. That in itself seems to be a good reason to add them. If MB is supposed to be an archive of band's music at least.) once you separate the video from the audio you are left with a homemade audio release which isn't any different than a bootleg. if it was official audio, there would be an official audio release of the same audio put out by the band. I think there is some confusion here. A CD containing the sudio extracted from a DVD would be bootleg. However, the DVD itself is an official release. Remember, musicbrainz is only storing the names of the tracks on the DVD, not the actual audio. I feel that if DVD's are added, they should have a DVD-discid (this can be obtained using libdvdread) attached to them. This is the probably the best way to determine if something is an official release or not. Steve (inhouseuk) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On 04/04/06, Brian Gurtler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beth wrote: > > My thoughts... > > > > Q1. Which DVDs to add? > > A1. All DVD musical rips. > > Arguments: it was argued MB was a music database. Music > > DVD's are based on music and bands. That in itself seems to be a good reason > > to add them. If MB is supposed to be an archive of band's music at least.) > > once you separate the video from the audio you are left with a homemade > audio release which isn't any different than a bootleg. > if it was official audio, there would be an official audio release of > the same audio put out by the band. this was initially my thoughts to, but then MBz isn't really a repository of audio data, but rather a repository of textual information. it's just that currently the text is used to tag audio files. i don't think we'd be wrong to say that a DVD entry was 'official', when all it is is an entry of all the titles on the release. the ripping from the DVD is something user does. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
Beth wrote: > My thoughts... > > Q1. Which DVDs to add? > A1. All DVD musical rips. > Arguments: it was argued MB was a music database. Music > DVD's are based on music and bands. That in itself seems to be a good reason > to add them. If MB is supposed to be an archive of band's music at least.) once you separate the video from the audio you are left with a homemade audio release which isn't any different than a bootleg. if it was official audio, there would be an official audio release of the same audio put out by the band. example.. the Dave Matthews Band Live in Central Park CDs and DVDs are official. if i took the audio from the DVD to make a CD.. whats official about that? nothing. it's an act unsanctioned by the band. If there was no audio release of a DVD put out by a band, than you have to create the audio yourself. That audio is a bootleg. > > Q2. DVD to title > A2. I don't like this idea. > Arguments: we don't have it in CD, Tape, etc. Why should DVD > be different? > i don't like it either. with all this discussion I'm starting to feel that DVD is an entire separate creature and should perhaps have an entire different approach to adding them rather than trying to fit the square cube into the round hole. Maybe MB needs a square hole! > Q3. Classification of the DVD > A3. I personally think it should go off of official release stand. A > performer makes a DVD professionally, it's official. > A fan makes a dvd of a concert, it's a bootleg > A band gives a promo dvd out (yeah right!) then it's promo. > Arguments: If we don't stick to this, then we are left to > wondering which are which and bootleg loses it's value, as does promo and > official in my opinion. i take DATs from a studio and i turn whats on them into a CD, what do i end up with? a bootleg! ;) a fan removes the audio from a DVD and places it on a CD is a bootleg as well. theres nothing official about removing the audio nothing loses it's value at all because any audio ripped from a promo or official DVD is a bootleg. it's pretty simple > > That's my stance on the DVD thing, and arguments. Trying to be concise to > avoid confusion. > > > Beth aka Nyght > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don > Redman > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:23 AM > To: MusicBrainz style discussion > Subject: Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles) > > On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:37:06 +0200, Orion wrote: > >> Since I have no idea how we would go about doing informal elections over >> a mailing list I'm going to present my analysis, which is from the pro >> DVD side. Take it as either a draft summary or a lengthy manifesto to >> throw my name into the election. >> >> First, though, you might want to be clearer - as Nikki already replied, >> there were multiple issues under discussion and your message was unclear >> as to which you were were referring. As I saw there were three main >> issues: >> 1. Do we add DVDs at all and which types? Live DVDs? DVD singles? DVD >> Video collections? Musicals? Mixed content ones (half musical/half live >> concert or half concert/half variety)? >> 2. If we add DVDs, do we add (DVD) or similar to their title? >> 3. If we add DVDs, how do we classify them? (Bootleg/Official/Other) > ... > >> I realize this isn't directly following the request to succinctly state >> each sides given argument. Given my view that there are at least 12+ >> sides possible depending on what someone answers to each of the three >> questions it was impossible to do so. This is the best summary of it I >> could give from a generally positive viewpoint about adding DVDs. > > Thank you very much for this clarification. When the debate was running, I > had not understood, why it got so messy and drifted towards bootlegs. Now > you got it sorted pretty well. > > I think we should stick to your three questions and tackle them one after > the other. > Which DVDs to add? How to format the title? How to classify the album > attributes? > > It might very well be that some points of the debate rise again, but at > least with some more structure [Don the pedagogue says: this is how > learning happens: Shake it, reorder it, shake it again, and let it fall > into place :-) ]. > > I am not sure whether the third one needs an oficial ruling by Robert > right now. If we get a decision on the first two, this might be well > enough for the tinme being. People will start to structure DVDs in the db, > this will shake things up again, and maybe the answer to the last question > will fall into place in a month or so. > >DonRedman > > > ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
My opinions too: Q1. Which DVDs to add? A1. All DVD rips, discourage non-musical ones. Arguments: (1) I'll usually have some sort of mp3 rip of whatever music DVDs I buy; however this is (in my opinion) useful only for (a) live concerts and (b) not released anywhere else tracks, because I'll probably never rip mp3 of a video collection—I'll probably have the albums too. (2) MB is more of a tagging application, not really a general music database. But it has the potential to become: (a) we have a lot of high quality data and (b) we have lots of users. So we should think towards the future and allow "encyclopedic" content as long as it doesn't interfere strongly with tagging (we can "discourage" it a bit, though). (3) I don't think we should limit ourselves to music DVDs. While an mp3 rip of "The Matrix" is not probably very useful, I have seen mp3s of audio books, theater plays, Seinfeld's show, &c. Since our primary purpose (I think) is to be a tagging-support database, we should allow that too. Q2. DVD to title A2. No. The old argument (we don't do it for other media) works, but I also have a strong dislike to adding lots of info in a single text field. Anyone who wrote a parser for people-entered data probably understands why (if you don't, short answer is that it becomes a pain to extract the pieces when you need to). So I'd rather wait a decade until we get a more complex schema than start cluttering titles with that. '(disc #)' and other annotations are already more than enough. Q3. Classification of the DVD A3. I think it should have the same status of the original released disc. After all, mp3 rips are almost never the 'official release', and that's where most of the data from MB goes. Also, in the future we might have taggers for videos too. I already have a significant collection of music videos, which I love to use to build playlists at parties, and choosing things by filename only is starting to become annoying; I believe avi at least allows tags, but I never had the patience to add them through the silly interface available for videos. -- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
RE: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
My thoughts... Q1. Which DVDs to add? A1. All DVD musical rips. Arguments: it was argued MB was a music database. Music DVD's are based on music and bands. That in itself seems to be a good reason to add them. If MB is supposed to be an archive of band's music at least.) Q2. DVD to title A2. I don't like this idea. Arguments: we don't have it in CD, Tape, etc. Why should DVD be different? Q3. Classification of the DVD A3. I personally think it should go off of official release stand. A performer makes a DVD professionally, it's official. A fan makes a dvd of a concert, it's a bootleg A band gives a promo dvd out (yeah right!) then it's promo. Arguments: If we don't stick to this, then we are left to wondering which are which and bootleg loses it's value, as does promo and official in my opinion. That's my stance on the DVD thing, and arguments. Trying to be concise to avoid confusion. Beth aka Nyght -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Redman Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:23 AM To: MusicBrainz style discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles) On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:37:06 +0200, Orion wrote: > Since I have no idea how we would go about doing informal elections over > a mailing list I'm going to present my analysis, which is from the pro > DVD side. Take it as either a draft summary or a lengthy manifesto to > throw my name into the election. > > First, though, you might want to be clearer - as Nikki already replied, > there were multiple issues under discussion and your message was unclear > as to which you were were referring. As I saw there were three main > issues: > 1. Do we add DVDs at all and which types? Live DVDs? DVD singles? DVD > Video collections? Musicals? Mixed content ones (half musical/half live > concert or half concert/half variety)? > 2. If we add DVDs, do we add (DVD) or similar to their title? > 3. If we add DVDs, how do we classify them? (Bootleg/Official/Other) ... > > I realize this isn't directly following the request to succinctly state > each sides given argument. Given my view that there are at least 12+ > sides possible depending on what someone answers to each of the three > questions it was impossible to do so. This is the best summary of it I > could give from a generally positive viewpoint about adding DVDs. Thank you very much for this clarification. When the debate was running, I had not understood, why it got so messy and drifted towards bootlegs. Now you got it sorted pretty well. I think we should stick to your three questions and tackle them one after the other. Which DVDs to add? How to format the title? How to classify the album attributes? It might very well be that some points of the debate rise again, but at least with some more structure [Don the pedagogue says: this is how learning happens: Shake it, reorder it, shake it again, and let it fall into place :-) ]. I am not sure whether the third one needs an oficial ruling by Robert right now. If we get a decision on the first two, this might be well enough for the tinme being. People will start to structure DVDs in the db, this will shake things up again, and maybe the answer to the last question will fall into place in a month or so. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
I am not sure whether the third one needs an oficial ruling by Robert right now. If we get a decision on the first two, this might be well enough for the tinme being. People will start to structure DVDs in the db, this will shake things up again, and maybe the answer to the last question will fall into place in a month or so. This is not completely correct: some people already started inserting video DVD rips into the database. That's why the debate was so fierce, and why the questions (all three of them) are so pressing. And I'm sure there have been equally fierce debates on countless moderations. derGraph ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:37:06 +0200, Orion wrote: Since I have no idea how we would go about doing informal elections over a mailing list I'm going to present my analysis, which is from the pro DVD side. Take it as either a draft summary or a lengthy manifesto to throw my name into the election. First, though, you might want to be clearer - as Nikki already replied, there were multiple issues under discussion and your message was unclear as to which you were were referring. As I saw there were three main issues: 1. Do we add DVDs at all and which types? Live DVDs? DVD singles? DVD Video collections? Musicals? Mixed content ones (half musical/half live concert or half concert/half variety)? 2. If we add DVDs, do we add (DVD) or similar to their title? 3. If we add DVDs, how do we classify them? (Bootleg/Official/Other) ... I realize this isn't directly following the request to succinctly state each sides given argument. Given my view that there are at least 12+ sides possible depending on what someone answers to each of the three questions it was impossible to do so. This is the best summary of it I could give from a generally positive viewpoint about adding DVDs. Thank you very much for this clarification. When the debate was running, I had not understood, why it got so messy and drifted towards bootlegs. Now you got it sorted pretty well. I think we should stick to your three questions and tackle them one after the other. Which DVDs to add? How to format the title? How to classify the album attributes? It might very well be that some points of the debate rise again, but at least with some more structure [Don the pedagogue says: this is how learning happens: Shake it, reorder it, shake it again, and let it fall into place :-) ]. I am not sure whether the third one needs an oficial ruling by Robert right now. If we get a decision on the first two, this might be well enough for the tinme being. People will start to structure DVDs in the db, this will shake things up again, and maybe the answer to the last question will fall into place in a month or so. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages: Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation around! :-) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
I thought that this discussion came to this conclusion and then went off on a tangent about whether DVDs should be classed as official or bootleg and that that was where we needed a decision. In fact the larger part of the discussion was about what DVDs should be added. This discussion was split off from the "album title" discussion on the last lines of this message[1] and came to no conclusion. derGraph [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-February/001567.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
Since I have no idea how we would go about doing informal elections over a mailing list I'm going to present my analysis, which is from the pro DVD side. Take it as either a draft summary or a lengthy manifesto to throw my name into the election. First, though, you might want to be clearer - as Nikki already replied, there were multiple issues under discussion and your message was unclear as to which you were were referring. As I saw there were three main issues: 1. Do we add DVDs at all and which types? Live DVDs? DVD singles? DVD Video collections? Musicals? Mixed content ones (half musical/half live concert or half concert/half variety)? 2. If we add DVDs, do we add (DVD) or similar to their title? 3. If we add DVDs, how do we classify them? (Bootleg/Official/Other) Lumping the whole thing as either pro/con-DVD doesn't work well since you can be pro adding them, con adding (DVD) to them, and pro classifying them as bootlegs. The con-adding them crowd might have different preferences pro/con on the other two questions if it becomes accepted that they are going to be added for sure. For the first question, it's pretty much implied that for the pro camp the answer is an automatic yes. Main two reasons are from a view point of acceptance - accepting that since it's a form of music put out by an artist it should be added and accepting that it's a form of music widely listened to/shared/etc. by the fans of some artists. Debate would still likely be needed over the second half of the question, about which types of DVDs to allow. I have DVDs in all the categories I listed and both of the arguments for allowing DVDs at all apply to all of them as well. For the second question, I am in the con crowd so am not well suited to stating the pro-side. The impression I got was that the pro is to lower confusion while viewing an artist's page by lowering the number of identically named items on it - to have a visual clue indicating at a glance the difference between a pair of releases such as http://www.up-front-works.jp/discography/zetima/29/s_19/index.html and http://www.up-front-works.jp/discography/zetima/29/v_33/index.html The counter argument is that DVDs should be treated the same as every other release type. If we don't add "cassette" or "compact disc" to the title of a release then neither should we with a DVD. For the third question, this is a more complicated issue due to the much more variable structure possible on DVDs compared to most other media. http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-February/001621.html gives concrete examples of the issue with data based off actual DVDs. There are at least three possible camps that I can see: one that would like them all considered bootleg, one that would like direct copy/pastes from official sources like covers or disc menus to be official and anything else bootleg, and one that views the adapting of the data from the actual disk to reconcile with the official tracklisting a form of interpretation required to meet the demands presented by the medium in order to get it into a format that MB can take as being within an acceptable amount, similar to what is needed to input any album with hidden tracks into MB. I'm marginally in the last camp although with strong leanings towards the second one instead. -- I realize this isn't directly following the request to succinctly state each sides given argument. Given my view that there are at least 12+ sides possible depending on what someone answers to each of the three questions it was impossible to do so. This is the best summary of it I could give from a generally positive viewpoint about adding DVDs. Robert Kaye wrote: Ok, I've read the DVD discussion all the way through and I am really confused. All I saw were two points of interest: 1. We should not put DVD in titles, since that is consistent with all the other media formats. 2. Some discussion on what consensus means, which was largely irrelevant to this topic. 3. There was no point three. Instead of making a decision on something I still don't understand, I would like to ask: 1. That the pro DVD in titles camp and the con DVD in titles camp informally elect a spokesperson. 2. Each selected person state their arguments succinctly and provide links to: MB pages and pertinent bits from the discussion that underscore your position. Please note that this is not a call for another out of control discussion on this subject. I just want a summary from each of the two camps, and then I will make a decision, ask for more feedback or ask the the camps to refine their position. -- --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.musicbrain
Re: [mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On Apr 3, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Nikki wrote: On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:48:19PM -0700, Robert Kaye wrote: 1. We should not put DVD in titles, since that is consistent with all the other media formats. I thought that this discussion came to this conclusion and then went off on a tangent about whether DVDs should be classed as official or bootleg and that that was where we needed a decision. I'm responding to a long overdue prod I got from the style secretary. If this has become a non-issue then I'd be glad to let it drop. -- --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] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:48:19PM -0700, Robert Kaye wrote: > 1. We should not put DVD in titles, since that is consistent with all > the other media formats. I thought that this discussion came to this conclusion and then went off on a tangent about whether DVDs should be classed as official or bootleg and that that was where we needed a decision. --Nikki ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] WTF DVD? (was: Veto - DVD in album titles)
Ok, I've read the DVD discussion all the way through and I am really confused. All I saw were two points of interest: 1. We should not put DVD in titles, since that is consistent with all the other media formats. 2. Some discussion on what consensus means, which was largely irrelevant to this topic. 3. There was no point three. Instead of making a decision on something I still don't understand, I would like to ask: 1. That the pro DVD in titles camp and the con DVD in titles camp informally elect a spokesperson. 2. Each selected person state their arguments succinctly and provide links to: MB pages and pertinent bits from the discussion that underscore your position. Please note that this is not a call for another out of control discussion on this subject. I just want a summary from each of the two camps, and then I will make a decision, ask for more feedback or ask the the camps to refine their position. -- --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
