On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Stephen wrote:
> There is currently no guideline on how to use work types in popular music. As
> discussed on mb-style, it is language dependent whether all works in popular
> music are 'song' or if some are 'song' and some are 'instrumental'. If all
> works are
Why wouldn’t we be able to type a work as SONG or as INSTRUMENTAL ?
cf. I. for INSTRUMENTAL and V. for VOCAL in
http://www.minc.gr.jp/minc-bin/alb_lst1?ALBUMTITLE=%96P%97%83%97%D9%93%B5&SRCHTYPE=&ARTISTNAME=
BTW I think they chose better names than SONG over there. VOCAL vs.
INSTRUMENTAL rules.
--
practik wrote
>
> I've completely rewritten the Artist Intent guideline, hopefully making it
> clearer and more logically structured. Since posting the RFC, I added one
> line about Japanese releases; otherwise nothing has changed.
>
> Details in Jira: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYL
+1
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-120-New-work-type-Film-score-tp4636573p4636679.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBra
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:47 PM, practik wrote:
>
> practik wrote
>>
>> I've completely rewritten the Artist Intent guideline, hopefully making it
>> clearer and more logically structured. Since posting the RFC, I added one
>> line about Japanese releases; otherwise nothing has changed.
>>
>> Det
This is the RFV for the proposed Soundtrack style.
Since the most recent RFC I added a description of what releases it
applies to.
JIRA: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-114
Previous discussion:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.style/14431
http://thread.gmane.org/g
On 25.6.2012 20:25, Alex Mauer wrote:
> This is the RFV for the proposed Soundtrack style.
> Since the most recent RFC I added a description of what releases it
> applies to.
+1
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
jesus2099 wrote
>
> Why wouldn’t we be able to type a work as SONG or as INSTRUMENTAL ?
>
Stephen and I gave some reasons last week:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Work-type-documentation-td4636440.html#a4636511
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Work-type-documentation-td463644
Hello Stephen,
I agree that work types don't make much sense for "popular music"
(whatever this is). They are all "songs" (or "tracks" or some other
term), and this has nothing to do if they have vocals/lyrics or not.
Sure, there are different types of pop songs (e.g. ballads, etc.), but
it is mu
On 25/06/12 20:35, Johannes Weißl wrote:
> So why not using "Song" for all popular works? It could be the first
> item on the list or even be selected by default.
+1
-- warp.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
ht
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
> On 25/06/12 20:35, Johannes Weißl wrote:
> > So why not using "Song" for all popular works? It could be the first
> > item on the list or even be selected by default.
>
> +1
>
I kind of like the idea too. Adding "song" for most popular works,
swisschris wrote
>
> Adding "song" for most popular works, based on
> the language-/culture-based definition of every editor. And leaving the
> Work type field blank for what one would consider to be a "not-song". Or
> even adding a type "not-song" (or "other") for cases in popular music
> where
Could someone explain me why we're going away from the former semi-official
Soundtrack Title Style, that was normalizing titles?
(semi-official because most editors were applying it)
- Aurélien
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> This is the RFV for the proposed Soundtrack sty
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:17 PM, practik wrote:
>
> swisschris wrote
> >
> > Adding "song" for most popular works, based on
> > the language-/culture-based definition of every editor. And leaving the
> > Work type field blank for what one would consider to be a "not-song". Or
> > even adding a t
On 06/25/2012 05:09 PM, Aurélien Mino wrote:
> Could someone explain me why we're going away from the former
> semi-official Soundtrack Title Style, that was normalizing titles?
>
> (semi-official because most editors were applying it)
Because at worst, it caused editors to merge release groups t
On Jun 25, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Johannes Weißl wrote:
> But I don't like using nothing for the work type, because then there is
> no difference e.g. between a classical artist with no work types set
> yet, and a pop artist. In other words: Like we had the discussion for
> barcodes / catalog numbers,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Johannes Weißl wrote:
>
> > But I don't like using nothing for the work type, because then there is
> > no difference e.g. between a classical artist with no work types set
> > yet, and a pop artist. In other words: L
17 matches
Mail list logo
