Re: [mb-style] Track system redesign

monxton-2 wrote >> Yes, I agree there's some redundancy. However, it's more correct - the >> tracks are different because they're on different releases. Those two >> tracks >> should still both exist, because they're two separate tracks on two >> separate >> mediums. And because tracks are unique,

Re: [mb-style] Track system redesign

Den 14-11-2012 01:08, monxton skrev: >Sometimes the same medium is available both as a stand-alone release and >as a member of a box set. In that case the tracklist is common. And the support for that will most likely be in the box set system that will be made eventually. :) See: - http://ticket

Re: [mb-style] Track system redesign

On 13/11/2012 22:39, LordSputnik wrote: > Profpatsch wrote >> What about this recording that appears byte-by-byte as *exactly* the >> same binary file on two different releases? How would you treat that >> after removing recordings? >> http://musicbrainz.org/recording/e23043c0-c744-4c22-bcb1-f39fa

Re: [mb-style] Track system redesign

2012/11/13 LordSputnik > Profpatsch wrote > because tracks are unique, we don't have the problem of whether > or not to merge/split tracks like we do with recordings in the current > system. > And that would be a good thing, IMHO. Adding a release in MB can be a major PITA these days when you ha

Re: [mb-style] Track system redesign

Profpatsch wrote > This is related to the following ideas: > https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Track_System_Redesign Not really ready for discussion about those ideas. They're very much a work in progress, and a lot of what I want to cover isn't in there yet. Profpatsch wrote > What

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Improve Guidelines on Merging Recordings

Ah, I think I know what it was. I posted the message, then realized I forgot the link, so I updated it on nabble just afterwards. So that's why I can see the link on here now, but people wouldn't have got it in their emails. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.

Re: [mb-style] Work-to-work ARs for "same text" and "same music"

Den 13-11-2012 20:47, Per Starbäck skrev: >Should these works link to each other? What AR? I make "original work" works and use "has later version/version of" to link them together. E.g., Yeats' "Down by the Salley Gardens"[1]. It has both a "version of" link back to the traditional song it was

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Improve Guidelines on Merging Recordings

Den 13-11-2012 20:27, LordSputnik skrev: >Actually, just looked at the post again, and the link is in the message, >right at the bottom. That must be a GMail thing. The only links in that mail was for Nabble and lists.musicbrainz.org. -- Namasté, Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen MB

[mb-style] Work-to-work ARs for "same text" and "same music"

Even though we have a work type "poem" I guess we don't want to add all poems we can find to MB, this being a *music* database. I think that if A has written a poem, and then later on B sets music to it, we are often only interested in the resulting work, having A as lyricist and B as composer. Bu

[mb-style] Track system redesign

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Changed the title to reflect the fork in discussion (yay for GNU/Linux terminology). This is related to the following ideas: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Track_System_Redesign With that I can understand where you are coming from. Wh

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Improve Guidelines on Merging Recordings

Actually, just looked at the post again, and the link is in the message, right at the bottom. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Improve-Guidelines-on-Merging-Recordings-tp4644561p4644975.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at N

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Improve Guidelines on Merging Recordings

Sorry about that. I'll post in this reply so that others might find it more easily: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-159 -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Improve-Guidelines-on-Merging-Recordings-tp4644561p4644973.html Sent from the MusicB

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Improve Guidelines on Merging Recordings

Hello, On 11/08/2012 11:33 PM, LordSputnik wrote: > Made another update, hopefully the final one. Expected expiration for RFC: > Sunday, 11th November 2012 Please always include a link to the proposal in messages such as this. Hunting for it in the thread is no fun. -- kuno.

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Improve Guidelines on Merging Recordings

Profpatsch wrote > This sounds to me that you want to remove the instance of recordings > altogether and want to introduce “performances” instead. That's exactly what I want to happen. Recordings hold too much information at the moment, leading to the conflict of interests (historical vs. audiophi

[mb-style] RFC STYLE-163: deprecate [dialogue] artist

This RFC is to move the [dialogue] artist guidelines, and move it to the “subset of unknown” section. The guideline appears to be obsolete after NGS since we have Artist Credits. The RFC will expire 2012-11-20. It was previously discussed on this list, under the topic “Deprecate [dialogue] artist?

Re: [mb-style] Deprecate [dialogue] artist?

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > It came up in an edit that the Style guide recommends “[dialogue] - Used > for soundtrack tracks which consist solely of excerpted dialogue. > Example: the "Royale with Cheese" discussion from Pulp Fiction would be > correctly assigned to [dia

Re: [mb-style] Classical style, hum, issue ?

On 11/13/2012 10:32 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Putting only "Performers" would be confusing with only "Composers", should > we put "Various Artists; Performers" ? Or something else ? Just performers. This seems pretty clear: “Use only composers and performers who are featured on the front cover (

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Improve Guidelines on Merging Recordings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Hopefully that will be sorted out in the recording revamp - I'll > be putting > forward the idea that tracks should be unique to each release, and > all tracks can be related to a performance of a work. So > compilation tracks of a > particular perfo

[mb-style] Classical style, hum, issue ?

Hi, Today, we had a little talk on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19580478, and so, the question being, when the classical release has various composers, and only performers on the cover, what should we put in the release artist field ? Putting only "Performers" would be confusing with only "Compose

Re: [mb-style] Deprecate [dialogue] artist?

Alex Mauer wrote > What does the list think of the idea of removing this recommendation, > and possibly moving [dialogue] to become a subset of [unknown]? > > http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Unknown_and_untitled/Special_purpose_artist I support this. - Václav Brožík / pabouk -- View this