On 2 Mar 2008 at 12:28, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> Furthermore, "is an instance of" sounds overly academic, would "is a
> recording of" work?
"Contains a recording of" is even better for those times when a track
contains multiple parts.
--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2 Mar 2008 at 22:59, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> I guess we will have to create the appropriate work listing. So an
> actual work (in the outside MB sense) may be represented by several
> overlapping work listings.
Let's see if I understand correctly. If a movement is split across
tracks, w
I'm liking this proposal _a lot_, but I'd like to list a few concerns
(in no particular order):
1) Language
What language will the lists use? I touched on this in an earlier
reply about CSGS, but I can only assume the same issues will present in
these works lists. I can handle English, Germa
On 1 Mar 2008 at 14:16, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> So until that happy day of NGS support, how do we compromise? How can
> we ensure that the data allows the BBC to identify the work from the
> track, allows Aaron and me to tag and not find the data "quite messy",
> allows Leivhe and David to tag
On 29 Feb 2008 at 10:35, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> And
> I'd find very wasteful if MB gave me a list of releases from different
> countries, different dates, with different booklets, plus several dozens
> pseudo-releases for each of those which had 4 or 5 languages used for
> the notes!
I'd l
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - this is not really a CSG proposal, since as Brian wrote, the actual
> track titles would be entered as they are printed. It would even restrict
> the CSG to the work list, thus allowing users who don't know anything
Very well, if nobody really cares either way then I will edit the way
that looks "pretty" to me.
Philip
On 3/3/08, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I understand the both of you correctly, we have a situa
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I understand the both of you correctly, we have a situation where
> different editors are interpreting this differently.
>
> I'm not sure if it's true or not, but let's assume that Madonna
> doesn't have a standar
If I understand the both of you correctly, we have a situation where
different editors are interpreting this differently.
I'm not sure if it's true or not, but let's assume that Madonna
doesn't have a standard group of musicians which record all her albums
and that different drummer are used on di
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/03/2008, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused about guest performance AR:s again. The helper text
> > on the AR editing page reads "This attribute indicates a 'guest'
> > performance wher
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Rob Keeney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I further propose that such works listings ought to be strictly for a
> > single movement - no additional listings just for combo-tr
On 02/03/2008, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a bit confused about guest performance AR:s again. The helper text
> on the AR editing page reads "This attribute indicates a 'guest'
> performance where the performer is not usually part of the band."
>
> Should this be understoo
I'm a bit confused about guest performance AR:s again. The helper text
on the AR editing page reads "This attribute indicates a 'guest'
performance where the performer is not usually part of the band."
Should this be understood to mean that whenever a performer isn't part
of a band (or isn't the a
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I further propose that such works listings ought to be strictly for a
> single movement - no additional listings just for combo-tracks, as
> they are handled by the instance of AR.
How would the AR work if the recor
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian Schweitzer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I further propose that a the "earliest version of" AR be changes to
> > "is an instance of", to allow tracks on releases to be linked
On 2-Mar-08, at 9:11 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Chad Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> Will taggers be disabled from tagging against them somehow? How will
> we
> vote on their addition/removal?
> I don't see what is scary here. A few technical issue
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Chad Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depending on the implementation, this sounds like it could become a very
> unmaintainable and regrettable hack to me if not thought through very
> clearly. Works lists for all artists in big unmaintainable lists? We
> current
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Furthermore, "is an instance of" sounds overly academic, would "is a
> recording of" work?
I agree.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I further propose that a the "earliest version of" AR be changes to
> "is an instance of", to allow tracks on releases to be linked to works
> list entries,
Why not add a new AR? The existing "earliest version" ARs po
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Now we have ARs, and we can implement work lists
> > (though not quite as flexible of ones as we'll eventually have under
> > NGS).
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now we have ARs, and we can implement work lists
> (though not quite as flexible of ones as we'll eventually have under
> NGS). Right? :)
I must have missed an episode, here. Which ARs are you talking about? What
i
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> Summary:
> Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG, modify
> the "version of " AR into an 'instance of' AR, and change the
> suggested target point for the "cover of", "parody of", "version of",
> and composition-related ARs.
>
> Developer impact: Accor
I think this is all a pretty good fine which solves many problems for
users in both camps. Some additional thought:
Work lists should not have track times visible, or at least they
should not be editable. Also, it should not be possible to tag against
the work list (enforced by taggers I suppose)
Summary:
Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG, modify
the "version of " AR into an 'instance of' AR, and change the
suggested target point for the "cover of", "parody of", "version of",
and composition-related ARs.
Developer impact: According to Robert, minimal and pretty ea
24 matches
Mail list logo
