Cristov Russell wrote:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/InstrumentalStyle
OK, I have a couple of issues with this :)
1) [...] It is a sub-style of the more general
ExtraTitleInformationStyle. but
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ExtraTitleInformationStyle is defined as
Additional information on an Album
On 20/04/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cristov Russell wrote:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/InstrumentalStyle
OK, I have a couple of issues with this :)
1) [...] It is a sub-style of the more general
ExtraTitleInformationStyle. but
2006/4/20, Marco Sola [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Moonlight maybe it's somehow the tricky example we are looking for because
it has Beethoven's common name Sonata quasi una fantasia
http://www.all-about-beethoven.com/moonlightsonata.pdf and the commoner ;-)
you mentioned. Bah, let's try to put it down
On 20/04/06, derGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
eg we don't remove (live) if a track has only ever been recorded live.
But we do remove the venue / date info.
i was never too happy with that. i think it's best to stick with what
they write on the tracklisting on the
Simon Reinhardt wrote:
And I'm very much for seeing (instrumental) as artist intent as it can
clearify the general intended concept of the artists in a tracklisting.
I guess we all agree that ArtistIntent overrules all MB style
guidelines. But obviously we disagree what ArtistIntent actually
Don Redman wrote:
I think I could issue a request for veto now, but want to clarify
first whether (a) this should be just for the parody attribute, or (b)
for medley, too.
This seems to be a silent agreement for (a).
derGraph
___
Musicbrainz-style
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:36:45 +0200, derGraph wrote:
Don Redman wrote:
I think I could issue a request for veto now, but want to clarify first
whether (a) this should be just for the parody attribute, or (b) for
medley, too.
This seems to be a silent agreement for (a).
OK, whoever wants
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:55:15 +0200, Nikki wrote:
I don't understand why we need a whole guideline to say that.
Agreed. I propose to simply add this to the details section of
ExtraTitleInformationStyle. Once this has been agreed upon and a RFV has
passed of course. Until then a separate
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:17:53 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
About mod 4578355, I started thread Contextual information in track
title. Don Redman suggested I should propose a track--url
AdvancedRelationshipType for imdb links. So here we go, my first AR
proposal!
Actually, there is already
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:26:03 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
Second point: My argument stems from the fact that Simon/Shepard
suggested
if 'instrumental' is written on the cover, it's artist intent, so it
trumps
most guidelines. He didn't really say that clearly, but the mighty word
artist
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:23:47 +0200, Beth wrote:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReasonNotToTreatDVDasCD
This came up in IRC, and I was prompted to write this up. Figured it
might
shed some light, hopefully it wont open up more cans of worms.
Well it is a very good summary of all the worms in
Where would you suggest we put it instead? If it has it's own page it can be
grouped appropriately where it applies but perhaps it really should just be
part of an existing page. My thinking was that it should be part os
ExtraTitleStyle but that page is already split into smaller components so
That was probably my fault. I think I said artist intent when what I was really
trying to say was what's on the cover and just didn't have a better shorter
phrase. It probably was read literally (not unjustly) and therefore led to this
back and forth. Do we have a phrase that better describes
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:42:26 +0200, Nathan Noble wrote:
Double common names are actually fairly common--no pun
intended. Haydn's works are pretty bad for this. I
use this syntax in that case:
name common1 / common2 /...commonN,
catalog
Oops. That's dangerous. Space slash space usually
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:17:23AM +0100, Chris Bransden wrote:
'Foo (album version)' is relevant when there is a 'Foo' on the same
release, which is a different edit to the standard. you can't get rid of
(album version) in that case cos it's contextually relevent.
This doesn't happen in
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 01:29:20PM +0200, derGraph wrote:
Here's the first single I came across, and I'm pretty sure everyone can
see which one is the album version:
http://musicbrainz.org/album/0bb39765-5ed4-4292-9a98-93d526609e82.html
How do you know that it's really the album version when
I'm open to suggestions...
-Nate
--- Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:42:26 +0200, Nathan Noble
wrote:
Double common names are actually fairly common--no
pun
intended. Haydn's works are pretty bad for this.
I
use this syntax in that case:
name common1
No, this information _is_ irrelevant! You do not need to have one track
labeled (album version), even if some other versions of that song are on
the disc, because the other versions will have a version identifier.
Here's the first single I came across, and I'm pretty sure everyone can
see
There's no way in hell to get back the information wether those tracks in
reality are named Queer and Trip My Wire or Queer (album version) and
Trip My Wire (album version). This loses data and makes the database less
useful.
Off-topic, but Isn't there an AR for this?
-- Bogdan Butnaru —
derGraph wrote:
No, this information _is_ irrelevant! You do not need to have one track
labeled (album version), even if some other versions of that song are on
the disc, because the other versions will have a version identifier.
Here's the first single I came across, and I'm pretty sure
What would that mean? You can't have an AR between a track and nothing else.
Maybe you mean a checkbox, but as far as I know we don't have those yet, even
if they have been talked about a while. But even if there was a checkbox, that
would be about as stupid as never putting the trailing
21 matches
Mail list logo
