that we write what's on the cover.
you replied to me directly and i messed up putting it back to the list.
On 28/02/06, Cristov Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without a definition what are you ordering.
>
> Also, this isn't a question of general use but one of style since it impacts
> Feat
Without a definition what are you ordering.
Also, this isn't a question of general use but one of style since it impacts
FeaturedArtist and a number of other sytle related issues.
Cristov (wolfsong)
--- "Chris Bransden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Chris Bransden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date
it doesn't matter what level their contribution was. if it's an
official album, then we represent what's on the cover. representing
actual truth at all costs is not a road we can go down - i again cite
milli vanilli. hell, maybe all the smashing pumpkins albums should be
be credited to billy corgan
All true but not the point of the example. If for instance the cover said
"featuring k.d. lang" my point is that it's still word choice. It speaks in no
way shape or form to the extent of her contribution.
Cristov (wolfsong)
--- Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Lukáš Lalinský <[
Steve Wyles wrote:
What do you think?
Is there already a guideline for such special cases present in the wiki?
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/UntitledTrackStyle
item 3 - For tracks that do not contain songs and that are not named by
the artist, you can enter a descriptive name between bracket
Cristov Russell wrote:
I'm not arguing that someone can be a guest on an entire release [1] but I
would still say by definition this was a collaboration not a guest appearance.
k.d. land was involved in the choice of songs and arrangements which fits the
definition of collaboration. It's still
So what would be an example of artificailly choosing a primary artist be? Under
Pressure? As I recall, that was used repeatedly in the arguements preceeding
SG5DR. I asked previously how we were defining primary artist and never got an
answer.
I don't see how the use of "and" or "&" are anymore
OK, I am back and want to tackle a few things that have been lying around
too long.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:50:29 +0100, Björn Krombholz"" wrote:
On 2/15/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I observe that there seems to be consensus in this matter. So, although
Simon has not asked for a
Don Redman wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:07:46 +0100, Brian Gurtler wrote:
>
> BTW what is it instrument/other or instrument/wind/other?
>
>
either one i suppose.
this question shouldn't exist
there are way too many categories
___
Musicbrainz-st
well why not remove all instruments that are currently not used-
orphaned instruments? than set up a way to add instruments to be used in
relationships. the database will build itself as they are needed.
and in a perfect world should be quick and not stop the progress of
entering the relationship i
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:07:46 +0100, Brian Gurtler wrote:
i still don't believe that UI related issues are a good enough reason to
exclude instruments.
No indeed they are not.
Actually there is a much bigger change waiting: Mo's restructured
instrument tree.
We really need to get this impl
> ok. your counter point is totally understandable to me now.
No, it is not (see next paragraph)
> i still don't believe that UI related issues are a good
> enough reason to exclude instruments.
[applause] ;)
I can't believe how you try to sabotage a valid addition to the instruments
list. It'
Matthew Exon wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Agreed. If the list gets unmanageable,
>
>
> It's unmanageable *now*, is my point. Turn off JavaScript. I mean that
> entirely seriously. Please, right now, turn off JavaScript in your
> browser, and keep it like that for the next month.
On 2/28/06, Matthew Exon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Agreed. If the list gets unmanageable,
>
> It's unmanageable *now*, is my point. Turn off JavaScript. I mean that
> entirely seriously. Please, right now, turn off JavaScript in your browser,
> and keep it like tha
Il Tuesday, February 28, 2006 3:45 PM
Matthew Exon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
Until then, we're stuck with the current system, and we shouldn't
pretend it's anything other than a big drop down list containing
every musical instrument ever devised. We should be disciplined
about it, and re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. If the list gets unmanageable,
It's unmanageable *now*, is my point. Turn off JavaScript. I mean that
entirely seriously. Please, right now, turn off JavaScript in your browser,
and keep it like that for the next month. Websites should be usable without
J
Agreed. If the list gets unmanageable, there's always the option to do a
similar thing to the language dropdown. Show the top-N instruments by usage,
and provide the full list upon request (or, more useful given the context,
solve it with asynchronous calls (I won't use the buzz-word here)). If thi
Matthew Exon schreef:
Brian Gurtler wrote:
Does anyone have a good reason to not add an instrument that an artist
plays?
Yes. The more instruments get added, the longer the list of
instruments gets, and the harder the drop-down list is to use. It's
already far too long.
Nope, that's exactly
Matthew Exon wrote:
> Brian Gurtler wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a good reason to not add an instrument that an artist
>> plays?
>
>
> Yes. The more instruments get added, the longer the list of instruments
> gets, and the harder the drop-down list is to use. It's already far too
> long.
>
>
Brian Gurtler wrote:
Does anyone have a good reason to not add an instrument that an artist
plays?
Yes. The more instruments get added, the longer the list of instruments
gets, and the harder the drop-down list is to use. It's already far too
long.
___
I've entered this into trac a while ago (12/13/05) and now it's in MB limbo
http://test.musicbrainz.org/trac/ticket/63
anyhow.. not to get too far ahead of myself, i don't see any reason to
be bashful with what instruments can be added into MB. Slowing down the
addition of instruments slows down t
21 matches
Mail list logo
