Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 jacobbrett > I’ll repost what I wrote on the dev list > < > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recordings-Masters-mb-dev-discussion-2012-01-23-td4647103.html > > > (as I was absent): > > jacobbrett wrote > > > http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz-devel/2013/2013-01/2013-01

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

2013/1/24 Alex Mauer > The idea of creating a comprehensive list of work types was floated > awhile ago, and a google doc[1] was created by David Hilton awhile ago. > > This has been worked on quite a bit over the past 6 months. I think it’s > time it’s brought to the list for discussion. > > Thi

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria > 2013/1/25 jacobbrett > >> I’ll repost what I wrote on the dev list >> < >> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recordings-Masters-mb-dev-discussion-2012-01-23-td4647103.html >> > >> (as I was absent): >> >> jacobbrett wrote >> > >> http://chatlogs.musicbrain

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens > > 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria > >> 2013/1/25 jacobbrett >> >>> I’ll repost what I wrote on the dev list >>> < >>> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recordings-Masters-mb-dev-discussion-2012-01-23-td4647103.html >>> > >>> (as I was absent): >>> >>> jacobbrett

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria > 2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens > >> >> 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria >> >>> 2013/1/25 jacobbrett >>> I’ll repost what I wrote on the dev list < http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recordings-Masters-mb-dev-discussion-2012-01-23-td4647103.html

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens > 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria > >> 2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens >> >>> >>> 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria >>> 2013/1/25 jacobbrett > I’ll repost what I wrote on the dev list > < > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recordings-Masters-mb-dev-dis

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add Generasia.com to the "other databases" whitelist

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Calvin Walton wrote: > On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 11:41 -0600, Rachel Dwight wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren < > > reosare...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren < > > >

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria > 2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens > >> 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria >> >>> 2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens >>> 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria > 2013/1/25 jacobbrett > >> I’ll repost what I wrote on the dev list >> < >> http://musicbrainz.1054

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add Generasia.com to the "other databases" whitelist

Den 25-01-2013 14:04, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: >This has been sitting here for a while - is anyone planning to +1 it? :) NO! (+1) -- Namasté, Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen MB: https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso ___

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens > > 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria > >> 2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens >> >>> 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria >>> 2013/1/25 Edgars Ducens > > 2013/1/25 Frederic Da Vitoria > >> 2013/1/25 jacobbrett >> >>> I’ll repost what I wrote on the dev

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > It would also be good to hear from Lukas on how this would affect acoustID. I don't have much to say about this. I'm sure there will be an obvious solution once there is a plan now to migrate the existing MB data. Most likely it'

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Artist Definite Article

On 01/24/2013 06:57 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: 2013/1/24 LordSputnik mailto:ben.s...@gmail.com>> Ok, I did put some examples on in an old revision: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User:LordSputnik/Definite_Article&oldid=62007 Is that the sort of thing you had in m

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

On 1/25/2013 1:00 AM, Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen wrote: > Den 24-01-2013 20:44, Alex Mauer skrev: >> On 01/24/2013 01:18 PM, LordSputnik wrote: >>> Not sure how useful "board game" is - I think in the cases where a board >>> game >>> has some accompanying CD it'll probably fit one of the other typ

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

On 01/24/2013 06:27 PM, SwissChris wrote: > A list not having "Musical" (as in "Broadway Musical") as one of the "lager > work" types is absurd. This definitely is an (important) work type. We just > have to call it such and accept that it might be misunderstood ;-) Maybe, > instead of "non-musical

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

On 01/24/2013 11:43 PM, Stephen wrote: > A larger work I'd like to see is "Song Series", for groups of songs > by a particular artist that are related but not intended to form a > single entity like song cycles. For example, the Mountain Goats had > several of these early in their recording history

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

On 01/25/2013 03:35 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > Why are Kyrie and Gloria part of the Larger Works section? Oh, they are a > sub-part in the Google document. But I would put them at an even lower > level, they are most often parts of a requiem, so seeing them at the same > level as the requiem

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

I agree that e.g. quartet/quintet are more about arrangement and instrumentation than "type", but should there be a general "chamber" type? ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/l

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

Just so you know, there are no schema changes planned for recordings. The only thing changing in the schema due to this at the moment will be tracks getting track ids at some point soon. So recording mbids will stay valid, since recordings will still be around - we're just redefining the existing

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

It seems what you're basically describing is that we should add a "Performance" entity above a "Master" entity. I originally thought this too, but then came across this problem: "How would you deal with cases where not all of the performer relationships on a general recording apply to sub-recordi

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 LordSputnik > > Just so you know, there are no schema changes planned for recordings. The > only thing changing in the schema due to this at the moment will be tracks > getting track ids at some point soon. > > So recording mbids will stay valid, since recordings will still be around - >

Re: [mb-style] RFC-178 v2: Add VIAF URL relationships

Den 24-01-2013 16:04, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: >Same pretty much, +1 on this in general, and I don't particularly mind >work-linking when it's clear - maybe we should just explain that work >entities are less detailed than the rest in VIAF and people should be >extra careful when linking th

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

Yes that's right. Analog/Digital was never distinguished anyway in the guidelines - too much work. Remasters should only be split if they change the audio enough for it to be considered a new mix. As reo said in the original email, all of those ARs will be either moved to the correct release(s), o

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:09 PM, LordSputnik wrote: > Just so you know, there are no schema changes planned for recordings. The > only thing changing in the schema due to this at the moment will be tracks > getting track ids at some point soon. > > So recording mbids will stay valid, since recordi

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 LordSputnik > Yes that's right. Analog/Digital was never distinguished anyway in the > guidelines - too much work. Remasters should only be split if they change > the audio enough for it to be considered a new mix. > > As reo said in the original email, all of those ARs will be either m

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 LordSputnik > Yes that's right. Analog/Digital was never distinguished anyway in the > guidelines - too much work. Remasters should only be split if they change > the audio enough for it to be considered a new mix. > > As reo said in the original email, all of those ARs will be either m

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand how your question relates to the discussion? Maybe rephrase it..? As far as I know remastering engineers would go on releases, and the release would be disambiguated as a remaster, just as it is currently. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.105

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

If, using your example, the engineer didn't engineer all the tracks on the release, that'd go in annotations too. I agree using annotations isn't the ideal solution, but the problem is developer time needed to get a more sophisticated system. Also, we haven't got a clear definition on Mix yet, I

Re: [mb-style] Results of the Recordings IRC meetings

2013/1/25 LordSputnik > Sorry, I'm not sure I understand how your question relates to the > discussion? > Maybe rephrase it..? > > As far as I know remastering engineers would go on releases, and the > release > would be disambiguated as a remaster, just as it is currently. > It seems your mail

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/24/2013 07:22 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > The list: I sincerely hope you hide 98% of this behind an optional field where your average MusicBrainz contributor will never *ever* have to look. It’s already bothering me enough that you can’t chose “Song

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

On 01/24/2013 05:12 PM, Profpatsch wrote: > On 01/24/2013 07:22 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: >> The list: > > I sincerely hope you hide 98% of this behind an optional field where > your average MusicBrainz contributor will never *ever* have to look. > It’s already bothering me enough that you can’t chose

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Update artist sortname guidelines to clarify that alias sortnames don't need to be latin

On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:02 -0600, Rachel Dwight wrote: > On Jan 21, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Calvin Walton wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 17:57 +0100, Nikki wrote: > >> The whole reason I asked for alias sortnames was because we had no way > >> to store Japanese sortnames. The main artist sortname

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

Basically all these work types will (and should) be used for classical (and eventually folk). I think we should also think of something for non classical edits. Editors right now massively use just "song" for all kind of popular works. Should we establish this as a general rule? (maybe using "song"

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

On 01/25/2013 05:52 PM, SwissChris wrote: > Basically all these work types will (and should) be used for classical (and > eventually folk). I think we should also think of something for non > classical edits. Editors right now massively use just "song" for all kind > of popular works. Should we est

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 01/25/2013 05:52 PM, SwissChris wrote: > > Basically all these work types will (and should) be used for classical > (and > > eventually folk). I think we should also think of something for non > > classical edits. Editors right now massively

Re: [mb-style] pre-RFC: new work types

On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:03 AM, "Frederik \"Freso\" S. Olesen" wrote: > Den 24-01-2013 21:03, Rachel Dwight skrev: >> [...] I know I've had to label score pieces as "Song" whether they had >> lyrics or not. > > You could always, y'know, not set a type for these works? There are a > good amount o