On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 20:08:12 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Don Redman wrote:
Now I, too, have a request for a new AR type.
Artist remastered Album/Track
Album/Track remasterd by Artist
I suppose this shuld be either a sibling or a child of mastered.
Comments, anyone?
What about an
On 3/4/06, Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don Redman wrote:
Artist remastered Album/Track
Album/Track remasterd by Artist
What about an attribute?
was {additional:additionally} {remastered:re}mastered by
{additional:additionally} {remastered:re}mastered
Perfect. The process is
Don Redman wrote:
Or (recalling my meta-thoughts) are these the wrong questions? Should I
just try it out on test on monday, ask you to play around with it,
request a veto and then move it over to the main server?
This testing of new AR types, IMHO, doesn't work. There is not too much people
On 3/5/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This raises the queston, when we use ar types and when attributes. Is it
just a matter of tecnical possibilities?
Let me quote a bit from [1]: IMO we should only add different ARs for
different things, or in this cases distinct processes, that
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 13:44:28 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Brian Gurtler wrote:
cover of should be an option and should go under the existing sub
group covers or other versions
Charlie Hunter Quartet - Natty Dread [1] _is a cover of_
Bob Marley - Natty Dread [2]
I've opened a ticket for this
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:36:07 +0100, Björn Krombholz wrote:
I don't think this needs any testing, as we know, that the cover-AR
types work well. Don?
Don does not have a say here (I am desperately avoiding to become a
bottleneck again).
But let me gather what seems to work and what does
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:01:21 +0100, Björn Krombholz wrote:
Editing: While it is easier for a user to read through a short list of
ARs he can select one from, it might be more complicated to select one
with a special term like re-mastered in his mind. But if we stick to
the same verb - same AR
So, after another month went by and no objections so far, I think all questions
got answered in the last mails.
This is a last call for objections and comments, after that I will go and
finally add that AR type!
Thus, speak now or remain silent forever! ;)
(Btw: I have no RelationshipEditor
I'm still confused as to why are we putting DVDs into MB? MB has no way
of providing information to DVD players does it?
like i said my opinion is if it's a DVD of a concert or performance, it
doesn't belong in MB unless it's added as a bootleg. the word DVD won't
even be an issue as the title
I've been doing some tweaking to this album:
http://musicbrainz.org/album/5706877d-f030-48ce-b720-9ed79690d7fa.html
One of the last things to be done is to add the name of the Opera at
the beginning of the tracks. However, I am unsure of the correct
format. Should the title take the form of:
The only reason why we didn't add an album-album version of the cover
type was, that we couldn't come up with an example.
I guess I should have been here last year...
http://musicbrainz.org/album/50b60c72-e11b-42f0-ac62-2798b8529048.html
Needless to name the original album. ;-)
Can't we
Don Redman schreef:
The link phrase sounds weirt to my (nonnative) ears: Natty Dread is
covered by Natty Dread.
Is by correct? Would it not denote the artist doing the cover?
And is there a way to make clear this is a whole album-cover in the
linkphrase?
But I do not see any general
on the original album/track page, it should probably read albumtitle
covered by coverartist which shows both that the album/track was
covered, and by whom in one line.
-b.
azertus wrote:
Don Redman schreef:
The link phrase sounds weirt to my (nonnative) ears: Natty Dread is
covered by Natty
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:18:01 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
derGraph wrote:
The only reason why we didn't add an album-album version of the cover
type was, that we couldn't come up with an example.
I guess I should have been here last year...
14 matches
Mail list logo
