On 27/03/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I would like to have executive, too.
> >> Btw: I have seen liner notes listing both additional producers and
> >> co-producers.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Is an executive-something still an artist?
> >
>
> That's a good question! Has there been a
Yes, I would like to have executive, too.
Btw: I have seen liner notes listing both additional producers and co-producers.
Is an executive-something still an artist?
That's a good question! Has there been any discussion on this when the
producers ARs were added?
derGraph
Ok, I've added this and http://test.musicbrainz.org/trac/ticket/1228 to the
instrument tree.
Some people will probably disagree, so please tell me, I'll ask someone to
remove my link editor privs and won't do it anymore.
Lukas
Brian Gurtler wrote:
yes it's true.
i am not making this stuff u
yes it's true.
i am not making this stuff up. :)
i have been in the process of trying to compile a full list of times
that Jon Fishman alone has used the vacuum as an instrument out of all
Phish live bootleg recordings. Phish also offer hundreds of official
recordings (actual CDs as well as downloa
Steve Wyles wrote:
In the context of album booklets there does not seem to be a problem
either. Otherwise it would not get used there.
On the liner it is obvious who the performing artist is and generally if
you are looking at the liner, you are familiar with the artist.
I see album relation
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:47:10 +0200, Steve Wyles wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Don Redman wrote:
The current "Recording Engineer" debate is a good example: Simon
thought he was requesting a veto (but did not say so explicitly), but
Steve put forward a dissenting oppinion (he did not label it a
Steve Wyles wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Don Redman wrote:
The current "Recording Engineer" debate is a good example: Simon
thought he was requesting a veto (but did not say so explicitly), but
Steve put forward a dissenting oppinion (he did not label it as a
veto) and spared another discussio
On 26/03/06, Cristov Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 26/03/06, Steve Wyles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Simplifying is good, but not when it could be
> > misinterpreted. To a
> > > >> native English speaker "Recorded By" has various meanings in the
> > > >> context of musical works
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Don Redman wrote:
The current "Recording Engineer" debate is a good example: Simon thought he
was requesting a veto (but did not say so explicitly), but Steve put forward
a dissenting oppinion (he did not label it as a veto) and spared another
discussion.
I've just check
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:04:25 +0200, Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
I have to admit that it is sometimes hard to understand why changes like
that take such a lot of time, or the deal that is made out of them.
please
do not get personal over this, it's not worth it - and will more likely
achieve less
> > I respect Don but as I said before, I'm just really tired of
> > waiting months to get this instrument (or any other instrument) added.
> >
> > -b
>
> Apologies. I misunderstood the comment.
I have to admit that it is sometimes hard to understand why changes like
that take such a lot of ti
> I disagree. The person who handles the sound board is the engineer recording
> the tracks. They are the same thing. While a producer might well be manning
> the board there isn't someone recording and someone else engineering.
>
> Cristov (wolfsong)
Yet still there are lots of examples in liner
12 matches
Mail list logo
