Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Rachel Dwight wrote: > +1. I see this a lot. > Will there be an option to add more than one instrument/vocal type in a > relationship? > Yes, that's possible no problem Two things I would want to be able to do that it won't support from the get-go are adding just

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

2013/4/19 Tom Crocker > > On Apr 19, 2013 12:48 AM, "LordSputnik" wrote: > > > > I've been thinking for a while, and came up with a definition that I > believe > > is better than the existing one: > > > > "In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more audio tracks, which > may > > have bee

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

That's the last point which should be clarified here IMO: The "audio track" definition should state that "audio track" are not to be confused with Tracks in Releases. 2013/4/18 Alex Mauer > On 04/18/2013 04:41 PM, symphonick wrote: > > Definitions for recording, editing & mixing are OK. I don't

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

On 19 April 2013 09:43, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > That's the last point which should be clarified here IMO: The "audio > track" definition should state that "audio track" are not to be confused > with Tracks in Releases. > It's some slippery wording that's needed if it's to be done. These are

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

I was thinking of something simple, like those from your second group of suggestions. I only wanted to avoid users mixing both track concepts. Any of those two sentences with a link to the Track definition would be perfect IMO. 2013/4/19 Tom Crocker > On 19 April 2013 09:43, Frederic Da Vitori

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

2013/4/19 Frederic Da Vitoria > I was thinking of something simple, like those from your second group of > suggestions. I only wanted to avoid users mixing both track concepts. Any > of those two sentences with a link to the Track definition would be perfect > IMO > Would "Audio tracks should no

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

yep, and as and when (release) tracks get a page, a link to them On 19 April 2013 11:07, symphonick wrote: > 2013/4/19 Frederic Da Vitoria > >> I was thinking of something simple, like those from your second group of >> suggestions. I only wanted to avoid users mixing both track concepts. Any

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

LordSputnik wrote > Actually, may be better to leave out the "particular", that might work > better for recordings on multiple releases: > > "In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more audio tracks, which > may have been mixed or edited, but have not been mastered for a release." As befo

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

+1 2013/4/19 Tom Crocker > yep, and as and when (release) tracks get a page, a link to them > > > On 19 April 2013 11:07, symphonick wrote: > >> 2013/4/19 Frederic Da Vitoria >> >>> I was thinking of something simple, like those from your second group of >>> suggestions. I only wanted to avoi

Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

+1 Brant Gibbard Toronto, ON http://bgibbard.ca _ From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren Sent: April-18-13 1:56 PM To: MusicBrainz Style Discussi

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording In this revision: - Changed the definition of recording to the one I proposed yesterday, since it's clearer and not logi

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

While you're adding links, I guess you could replicate the track link in the overview section on the definitions page. On 19 April 2013 12:21, LordSputnik wrote: > Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording > http://wiki.musicbrai

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Shouldn't "of audio track" be "of an audio track" or "of audio tracks"? 2013/4/19 LordSputnik > Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording > > In this revis

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

On 19 April 2013 12:37, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > Shouldn't "of audio track" be "of an audio track" or "of audio tracks"? > I think it's okay. Because they are "sections of audio track". That could be one track or more, it's neutral (at least I think, but couldn't explain the grammar to say w

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote > Shouldn't "of audio track" be "of an audio track" or "of audio tracks"? Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying "the job involves eating pieces of chocolate bar". -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Tom Crocker wrote > While you're adding links, I guess you could replicate the track link in > the overview section on the definitions page. Added it to the last sentence. I haven't linked "release tracks" in the mastering sentence though, because "release tracks" is already linked a few lines ab

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

You've confused me with that explanation! On 19 April 2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote: > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote > > Shouldn't "of audio track" be "of an audio track" or "of audio tracks"? > > Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying "the job involves eating pieces of > chocolate bar". > > > > -

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Good choice On 19 April 2013 12:44, LordSputnik wrote: > Tom Crocker wrote > > While you're adding links, I guess you could replicate the track link in > > the overview section on the definitions page. > > Added it to the last sentence. > > I haven't linked "release tracks" in the mastering sen

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

+1 2013/4/19 LordSputnik > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote > > Shouldn't "of audio track" be "of an audio track" or "of audio tracks"? > > Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying "the job involves eating pieces of > chocolate bar". > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://musicbrainz.10543

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Style page Is it worth changing this: "In many cases, a released track will be the original recording produced from a performance." in light of davitofrg's comment (a few days ago) to: "In many cases, a released track *should be linked to *** the original recording produced

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

2013/4/19 Tom Crocker > Style page > > In the edits section, you still have a paragraph about remasters: > "Remastered tracks generally feature the original recording with different > mastering applied. The exception to this is where a track labelled as a > remaster is in

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Yep, agreed, and actually, I'd change the Different masters bit similarly to the definitions but I'd also tweak the bit in definitions: *Mastering* is a process that is applied to *recordings*, ... In style guide: Mastering is a process that is applied to recordings. This means that tracks should

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Integrated that lost remastering bit into the current mastering section in the style guideline. Also, I've tweaked the mastering definition to remove the iffy "on a level between..." bit. I've also removed "... for a release" from the recording definition, because the definition of mastering makes

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

You have still got my +1 :-) 2013/4/19 LordSputnik > Integrated that lost remastering bit into the current mastering section in > the style guideline. > > Also, I've tweaked the mastering definition to remove the iffy "on a level > between..." bit. I've also removed "... for a release" from the

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

On 19/04/2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote: > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote >> Shouldn't "of audio track" be "of an audio track" or "of audio tracks"? > > Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying "the job involves eating pieces of > chocolate bar". Brilliant! Is the job available? ___

Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

On 18/04/2013 18:55, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > See > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type > for > the proposed changes to the relationship. > > Ticket is at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-168 > Expected passing date is April 21 +1, oh

Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

This is an RFV and doesn't really need the +1, but it's good to see others are also excited about it ;) -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo

[mb-style] CSG: Releases and Recordings with multiple alternative credits

This is another "what's printed on the cover" vs. "what we know" dilemma, and I'd appreciate a discussion among "classical" editors who care. The problem is how to handle the recordings of Alfred Scholz, a prolific creator of budget "classical" recordings the 1970s. I won't go into all the det

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

2013/4/19 monxton > On 19/04/2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote: > > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote > >> Shouldn't "of audio track" be "of an audio track" or "of audio tracks"? > > > > Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying "the job involves eating pieces > of > > chocolate bar". > > Brilliant! Is the job

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

How about: "Mastering is a process that is usually applied to a set of recordings to prepare them for release together." On 19 April 2013 16:48, symphonick wrote: > 2013/4/19 monxton > >> On 19/04/2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote: >> > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote >> >> Shouldn't "of audio track" be

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Your new definitions would probably often be correct, but you were the one complaining about "getting way too deep into technical details" :-) Does knowing that mastering is mostly applied to group of recordings change anything in understanding what a MB Recording is or is not? Or knowing that the

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Okay, I've gone through the style guide carefully and have just a couple of suggestions. You've titled the bit aimed at different recordings of a performance "Recorded Performances". Would "Different Sources" be better? They are all recorded performances ;) I'd put all of "Edits", "Recordings with

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

2013/4/19 Frederic Da Vitoria > Your new definitions would probably often be correct, but you were the one > complaining about "getting way too deep into technical details" :-) > 1-0! :-) Does knowing that mastering is mostly applied to group of recordings change > anything in understanding wh

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

symphonick wrote > IMO the guidelines should cover common usage, I believe "stranger artistic > projects" can be regarded as an exception here. ;-) > Does explaining mastering help? Maybe, maybe not; I added the last > suggestion because the other terms (audio track, mixing etc) are explained > wit

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

Ok, I've renamed "Recorded Performances" to "Different Sources" as Tom said. I've also slightly reworded that section to mention "different sources" in the text. I've also improved the formatting of the Edits, Remasters and Durations paragraphs. Since people mostly seem to be happy here, I'm goin

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

+1 On Apr 19, 2013 7:35 PM, "LordSputnik" wrote: > Ok, I've renamed "Recorded Performances" to "Different Sources" as Tom > said. > I've also slightly reworded that section to mention "different sources" in > the text. > > I've also improved the formatting of the Edits, Remasters and Durations >

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

2013/4/19 LordSputnik > symphonick wrote > > IMO the guidelines should cover common usage, I believe "stranger > artistic > > projects" can be regarded as an exception here. ;-) > > Does explaining mastering help? Maybe, maybe not; I added the last > > suggestion because the other terms (audio tr

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

symphonick wrote > If it only adds confusion it's better to leave it out. But if the current > recording definition implies that a recording/track are mastered > individually, I must take back my support. :-( I didn't read it that way, > can you explain how? Well, it says that mastering is a proce

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

2013/4/19 LordSputnik > symphonick wrote > > If it only adds confusion it's better to leave it out. But if the current > > recording definition implies that a recording/track are mastered > > individually, I must take back my support. :-( I didn't read it that way, > > can you explain how? > > We

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Releases and Recordings with multiple alternative credits

(...) Moving back here for the discussion. My last suggestion was creating one dummy artist for this. Dummy because we don't know who the real artist(s) for those performances is/are. This dummy artist could have aliases to allow using him in an almost normal manner. 2013/4/19 monxton > This is

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

LordSputnik wrote > Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording > In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more audio tracks, which > may have been mixed

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Releases and Recordings with multiple alternative credits

On 19/04/2013 23:41, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > (...) Moving back here for the discussion. My last suggestion was > creating one dummy artist for this. Dummy because we don't know who the > real artist(s) for those performances is/are. This dummy artist could > have aliases to allow using him in

Re: [mb-style] CSG: Releases and Recordings with multiple alternative credits

I did not read all the discussion yet but I think that the recordings should be credited to the real artists because there are many cases where the same recording is releases with real credits and also with "Alfred Scholz" cerdits. IMHO such recording should not exist in multiple copies and they sh

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 4

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Tom Crocker wrote: > Sorry. Me again. > > Having said the overview was fine! I think you need a relational word or > two between recording and performance, because obviously a recording is not > a performance itself. So possibly: > > ...a recording is mixed from a

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 4

On 20 April 2013 01:59, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Tom Crocker wrote: > >> Sorry. Me again. >> >> Having said the overview was fine! I think you need a relational word or >> two between recording and performance, because obviously a recording is not >> a pe

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 4

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Tom Crocker wrote: > > > > On 20 April 2013 01:59, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: >> >> The problem with trying to define these in such a strict way is that it's >> just not true. You'd be forcing things a bit by calling a field recording >> "a performance of a w

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 6

On 20 April 2013 01:31, pabouk wrote: > LordSputnik wrote > > Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions: > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording > > > > In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of on

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

LordSputnik wrote > A master recording is way out of the scope of this guideline. It's the > result of the mastering process, which we aren't considering here. > > The mix is passed to the mastering engineer who will produce the master. > Editing and mixing take place before the mix is completed a