Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
Simon Reinhardt wrote: I propose adding CoRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (the main type, not all sub types) and within that to the sub type for mixers, and adding ExecutiveRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (again the main type only) as proposed by Schika. For this I let the veto phase open for another 48 hours. If someone thinks we need to clarify those two sub roles first (that is to write the wiki pages for those attributes to exactly describe them), feel free to veto. For the records: no vetoes, so applied. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
On 6/14/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that the following discussion arose from this: Schika had examples of liner notes which differentiate between a mixer and a mix engineer. Do we need that separated? well i think you have to be careful as the example (system 7) might mean DJMix when they say Mixed By and Mixed By where they say Mix Engineer. if anyone can find an example where that's definitely not the case then it's probably worth adding seperately. It's definetly not a DJ-Mix here. The mentioned track On the Seventh Night with that credits appears on the album 777 (Label: Big Life Records / Weird and Unconventional Records - Catalog #: BFLLP1) http://www.discogs.com/release/19794 (is the entry matching the Catalog #) Also not DJMixed ... Same group another album Point 3 - Fire Album (Label: Big Life Records / Butterfly Records - Catalog #: BFLLA11): B1 - Mysterious Traveller: Produced by Derrick May Steve Hillage. Engineered Additional Production by Greg Hunter. Keyboards Programming by Derrick May. Guitars by Steve Hillage. Additional Keyboards by Miquette Giraudy. Mixed by Steve Hillage Miquette Giraudy. Mix Engineered by Matt Rowland. A2 has also credits for Mixed by and Mix Engineered by http://www.discogs.com/release/89959 (is the entry matching the Catalog #) Maybe someone has the CD versions which probably have more detailed credits, as the vinyls I currently holding in my hands. Sorry that I currently bring up examples from only one band - cause I've tried to enter the credits for their records some time ago and figured out that ARs are missing. I'm sure that I will come accross more of such credits - if I have the time to enter a whole set again. Of course since we don't have freetext crediting like Discogs we can only render liner notes to a certain extent and I'd normally say try to find those types which are nearest to what they really did - but since in most of the cases we can't know what they really did, we can only go with the liner notes for those smaller roles and therefore I also prefer to see it as close to the liner notes as possible. That does not apply for all AR types though - in some cases you *can* know what the credited persons really did. For example liner notes for rock albums mostly say guitars by ..., bass by ... where they mean electric guitar and electric bass guitar. Of course it's not wrong to let it as guitars as those are generalisations. i agree. i'd still like to have free-text qualifiers (pipe dream...), for the occasions when a new AR isn't appropriate, but it's still nice to show the written credit as well as the actual role - eg http://www.discogs.com/release/535757 (look at some of those convoluted track credits!) The mentioned free-text field would be awesome for such rare credits - instead of adding more to the current list. BTW great example. :) -- .: NOP AND NIL :. .: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
Hi again, to sum it up so far: there have been no vetoes but some discussion that put parts of this back to the RFC stage, so I'll split it as follows... I propose adding CoRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (the main type, not all sub types) and within that to the sub type for mixers, and adding ExecutiveRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (again the main type only) as proposed by Schika. For this I let the veto phase open for another 48 hours. If someone thinks we need to clarify those two sub roles first (that is to write the wiki pages for those attributes to exactly describe them), feel free to veto. Note that the following discussion arose from this: Schika had examples of liner notes which differentiate between a mixer and a mix engineer. Do we need that separated? Also he stated a difference between recorded by and recording engineered by again. I think all this needs a new thread so feel free to start one. ;) For the proposed changes of adding GuestRelationshipAttribute to OrchestraRelationshipType and ConductorRelationshipType I feel there definitely is need for more discussion to clarify what this attribute is about in general (wiki page needs to be written) so I abandon the request for those changes. Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
On 14/06/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi again, to sum it up so far: there have been no vetoes but some discussion that put parts of this back to the RFC stage, so I'll split it as follows... I propose adding CoRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (the main type, not all sub types) and within that to the sub type for mixers, and adding ExecutiveRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType (again the main type only) as proposed by Schika. For this I let the veto phase open for another 48 hours. If someone thinks we need to clarify those two sub roles first (that is to write the wiki pages for those attributes to exactly describe them), feel free to veto. only one i thing is a bit bizzare is adding ExecutiveRelationshipAttribute to EngineerRelationshipType - i'm not sure what that would mean? also i've never seen it before so i'm inclined to think it's perhaps a very rare occurance. was it 5 appearences we needed for an AR to be valid for inclusion? personally i think if it appears once it's worth including, so i'm not vetoing :) Note that the following discussion arose from this: Schika had examples of liner notes which differentiate between a mixer and a mix engineer. Do we need that separated? well i think you have to be careful as the example (system 7) might mean DJMix when they say Mixed By and Mixed By where they say Mix Engineer. if anyone can find an example where that's definitely not the case then it's probably worth adding seperately. Also he stated a difference between recorded by and recording engineered by again. I think all this needs a new thread so feel free to start one. ;) this is also possible, eg when the recorder (read: producer) has a assisting engineer. of course you could bodge this by crediting them as additional recorded by, but personally i'd prefer to see it as close to the liner notes as possible, so i'd be ok with this being added. i think ultimately we're going to end up with lots of engineering ARs with a lot of overlap, but personally i don't see this as a problem. For the proposed changes of adding GuestRelationshipAttribute to OrchestraRelationshipType and ConductorRelationshipType I feel there definitely is need for more discussion to clarify what this attribute is about in general (wiki page needs to be written) so I abandon the request for those changes. i think it would be ok to include these to be honest as i'm sure there are valid situations for it, even if you applied my logic (which probably stinks :P) however i do think 'guest' needs some explanation/clarification for its general use. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:50:21 +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote: However, is that an addition, an agreement or a veto? ;) Was there I don't know because I must admit, that I have really lost track of the latest discussions on mb-style. If there has not been such a discussion, then a requesto for veto might be a bit too early. It might be better to ask for comments first, and then, when either the discussion has stalled, or drifted off into the fundaments of MB, which you do not want to tackle with this proposal, to propose the changes a second time (maybe altered) and request a veto. However, if there was a discussion and I have just missed it, then please link to it. 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] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
Don Redman wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:50:21 +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote: However, is that an addition, an agreement or a veto? ;) Was there I don't know because I must admit, that I have really lost track of the latest discussions on mb-style. If there has not been such a discussion, then a requesto for veto might be a bit too early. It might be better to ask for comments first, and then, when either the discussion has stalled, or drifted off into the fundaments of MB, which you do not want to tackle with this proposal, to propose the changes a second time (maybe altered) and request a veto. However, if there was a discussion and I have just missed it, then please link to it. There has been no discussion but please note that those are simple separate questions for small additions to AR types. Schika's additional comments can be seen as separate new questions. Those kind of changes even have been decided on IRC before, some AR editors don't use the mailing list way or other communication channels at all... - as you can see I don't. But I'm not pressing this thread into a certain form by calling it RFV instead of RFC because I think we are all disciplined enough to work on this in an open form. I'm open to additions and I'm open to counter positions (called veto here). I just called it RFV because it does not ask for a bigger change nor touch more general issues. There have been threads labelled with RFV which did that - perhaps you want to step on their toes too. I hope we can stay on topic now and not let this drift into a Sommerloch-discussion about form questions. Thanks, Simon ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
On 10/06/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I would like to add some attributes to some AR types and therefore request
ok/veto for each of them:
1. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OrchestraRelationshipType could need
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GuestRelationshipAttribute
- {orchestra} orchestra {additionally} performed becomes {orchestra} orchestra
{additionally} {guest} performed
2. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ConductorRelationshipType could need
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GuestRelationshipAttribute
- {additionally} conducted becomes {additionally} {guest} conducted
Rationale for those two: well I have seen lots of guest orchestras being
credited in the liner notes of my albums. :)
more of a general comment, but are you implying that 'guest' means any
performer who isn't a member of the group in question? only i've
always thought of 'guest' only being appropriate when it's written as
such in the liner. eg a studio guitarist isn't a 'guest', but some
famous guitar player probably would be.
and 'guest orchestra' seems unlikely in liners, unless they normally
have a different orchestra as part of the band :)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
Chris Bransden wrote: more of a general comment, but are you implying that 'guest' means any performer who isn't a member of the group in question? only i've always thought of 'guest' only being appropriate when it's written as such in the liner. eg a studio guitarist isn't a 'guest', but some famous guitar player probably would be. and 'guest orchestra' seems unlikely in liners, unless they normally have a different orchestra as part of the band :) Right from the description of the attribute: guest This attribute indicates a 'guest' performance where the performer is not usually part of the band. I think this is quite clear. ;) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PerformerRelationshipType says: While guest designates performers who are not usual members of the group that performed, say, the whole album, but only appear on one track. There's still no distinct definition for it though, not even a wiki page. But that would be talk about the meaning of the attribute itself then. Simon (Shepard) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
On 6/10/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,I would like to add some attributes to some AR types and therefore request ok/veto for each of them:3. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType
could need http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CoRelationshipAttribute (page does not yet exist)- {additionally} engineered becomes {additionally} {co-}engineered
4. Same for the mix engineer (same wiki page):- {additionally} mixed becomes {additionally} {co-}mixed5. probably the other engineer types tooRationale: we added the co attribute to
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ProducerRelationshipType
- now I found someone credited as co-engineer and co-mixer in liner
notes. I had added him with the attribute additional but since we
have the co attribute I think we could use it here too.Simon (Shepard)
I have some releases where is also mentioned executive engineer, recording engineer, mix engineer, remix engineer.-- .: NOP AND NIL :.
.: Schika :.
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
Schika wrote: I have some releases where is also mentioned executive engineer, recording engineer, mix engineer, remix engineer. executive engineer would be no problem to add too, since we also introduced that attribute for the producer type. Though recording engineered and mix engineered was just changed to recorded by and mixed by and the majority agreed it means the same... please not that discussion again. :) remix engineer - isn't that a remixer? However, is that an addition, an agreement or a veto? ;) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Adding some AR attributes
On 6/10/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Schika wrote: I have some releases where is also mentioned executive engineer, recording engineer, mix engineer, remix engineer.executive engineer would be no problem to add too, since we also introduced that attribute for the producer type. Though recording engineered and mix engineered was just changed to recorded by and mixed by and the majority agreed it means the same... please not that discussion again. :) Sorry for bringing up the unwanted discussion again. Here the some of the credits for the track On the Seventh Night by System 7: Produced mixed by Steve Hillage Miquette Giraudy. Recording engineer Greg Hunter. Mix engineer Dare Mason. Recorded in September 1992 at Butterfly Studios by Kris Weston assisted by Scruff, Neil Snyman Jody Sherry. remix engineer - isn't that a remixer? Same artist just another track from another album: Alpha Wave (Plastikman Acid House mix): Remix additional production by Plastikman (Richie Hawtin). Re-edited by Steve Hillage. Remix engineered by Mickey Man. I guess the remix engineer role points to S. Hillage's re-editing of R. Hawtin's remix, cause the Plastikman remix is nearly 20 minutes long and this re-edited version is only 10:43 minutes long. However, is that an addition, an agreement or a veto? ;) Agreement and addition. :P -- .: NOP AND NIL :..: Schika :. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
