By that very comment Argyle Park is then indeed a project. I would be more
than happy to give you more indepth information, since I hadn't yet covered
that one.
However, once more, I think you will find a lot in the mailing list archives
that will clarify some of the others. In truth, I don't
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cristov Russell
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:03 AM
To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion'
Subject: RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
Secondly, in reference to your comment about what people
I skimmed some of the emails but in actuality I don't think
it would make much difference since I disagree with the
general concept altogether. IMO the approach is wrong. Can
you point out what in my comments would have been argued by
the thread?
Cristov (wolfsong)
If you had
By that very comment Argyle Park is then indeed a project. I
would be more than happy to give you more indepth
information, since I hadn't yet covered that one.
Ummm are you saying the name of the release is Argyle Park? I'm not familiar
with this.
Cristov (wolfsong)
well, try google then. http://www.discogs.com/artist/Argyle+Parkand the release http://www.discogs.com/release/257385
On 7/5/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By that very comment Argyle Park is then indeed a project. I would be more than happy to give you more indepth
information,
In
that case, you completely misread my comment. I said the term project describes
the release not the artists.
Cristov (wolfsong)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Stefan KestenholzSent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 1:55
AMTo: MusicBrainz style
Perhaps you should reread my email because I have stated the reasons why
I do not like the idea.
Also,
I did not mention artist attributes, I mentioned attributes for groups
specifically.
Cristov (wolfsong)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
well, its an album, official released by a project with founder(s) x, yand participants(s) a, b, c
On 7/5/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that case, you completely misread my comment. I said the term project describes the release not the artists.
Because I perhaps misread the email, trying again. To state why your
argument cristov in my opinion is invalid and you should read the mailing
list instead of going mainly off the wiki and skimming the mailing list for
your thoughts to be supported (which is what It feels as if you did.)
Again, you're not reading what I said "To me, a project is a
release by a group of artists; not the artists themselves". What does that
haveto do with whether it's "album, official"or it's founders? I'm
saying the resulting work is the project.
Cristov (wolfsong)
From:
[EMAIL
Second, from an interface stand point what we have today with Person orGroup should remain as is. What people are describing as collaborations and
projects are still groups (more than one person) so these terms really arejust group descriptors. If we want them then we should have group
On 7/5/06, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_project
A wiki page on Artist/musician projects.
I note none of those commented on in this discussion seemed to be on it.
Maybe all of our ideas on what makes a project is flawed?
I stayed out of this discussion
in that case, maybe we should consider about introducing Project, and rename the Group type to Band as well, to get rid of the ambiguous part of the Group type. Is that a validdeduction?
I think its fair to try classifying artist types into Projects and Bands(Groups), because again this
If you change group to band, then you need
to look at adding artist type collaboration, or am I incorrect in this
conclusion?
I do like the thought of record label,
producer and such, but I imagine that will gain a lot of argument, and perhaps its not knowing any personally, but again
yes, actually i'd like if we added Collaboration as well as changed Group to Band actually. i think it would be useful duplication of data to have Type: Collaboration in the artist box. Humans are visual beings, and looking at the relationships is a machine-like way to figure out if its a
On 05/07/06, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I agree more or less with Don (at least, if I understood him
right). If the choices were Person or Band then I could see a
case for covering things which are more than one person, but are not
a band. The choices are Person and Group
On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, actually i'd like if we added Collaboration as well as changed
Group to Band actually. i think it would be useful duplication of data
to have Type: Collaboration in the artist box. Humans are visual beings,
and looking at the
On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, actually i'd like if we added Collaboration as well as changed
Group to Band actually.
I'm not sure what the exact meaning of the word band; English is not
my native language.
Band works quite well for rock groups and such, but what
On 7/5/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Band works quite well for rock groups and such, but what happens withsymphonic orchestras and string quartets and choirs and such? Is
'band' general enough for those?
good point, browsing wikipedia for definitions of artist types turned up
19 matches
Mail list logo
