2013/8/12 lixobix arjtap...@aol.com
Archaic titles/Nicknames: Why use the disambiguation field? Surly the
modern
title/nicknames should be in brackets after the main title, in the title
field. I consider the disambiguation field should be used only when two
different entities would be easily
2013/8/12 lixobix arjtap...@aol.com
symphonick wrote
2013/8/12 lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt;
symphonick wrote
Update: I've moved the untitled stuff to a separate section.
On 08/09/2013 02:12 PM, symphonick wrote:
Now that you mention artist intent, my advice about
Ah, I got it: because the sonata was originally titled in Italian. But
still, the nickname was given by a German poet, so should the nickname be
in the language of the composition or in the language it was first given in?
2013/8/13 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
2013/8/12 lixobix
2013/8/12 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
Please let me know here if you'd like to help!
I don't have much time but if I can lend a hand after I return from my
holidays.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
2013/8/13 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
Ah, I got it: because the sonata was originally titled in Italian. But
still, the nickname was given by a German poet, so should the nickname be
in the language of the composition or in the language it was first given in?
If we're talking
Tom Crocker wrote
The Britney example is much clearer.
I have to agree with lixobix that the ETI stuff is confusing as currently
written. Is this clearer?
If the chosen track title contains extra title information (ETI), it
should
be kept with the recording, either as part of the title or
2013/8/13 lixobix arjtap...@aol.com
Tom Crocker wrote
The Britney example is much clearer.
I have to agree with lixobix that the ETI stuff is confusing as currently
written. Is this clearer?
If the chosen track title contains extra title information (ETI), it
should
be kept with
Tom Crocker wrote
I don't mind audio and audio-video recordings being unmerged, what I do
object to is the audio part of the recordings being unmerged. It will be
relatively rare that the audio is unique to a video, usually it'll be
available as audio only. To flag one version as video in the
We have a disambiguation field, so not using it seems pointless. We still
need to be able to disambiguate search results for identically named
recordings.
Plus, as FDV pointed out, external apps might use the recording title as a
way of normalising track titles (Picard already does something like
lixobix wrote
Tom Crocker wrote
I don't mind audio and audio-video recordings being unmerged, what I do
object to is the audio part of the recordings being unmerged. It will be
relatively rare that the audio is unique to a video, usually it'll be
available as audio only. To flag one version
symphonick wrote
2013/8/13 Frederic Da Vitoria lt;
davitofrg@
gt;
Ah, I got it: because the sonata was originally titled in Italian. But
still, the nickname was given by a German poet, so should the nickname be
in the language of the composition or in the language it was first given
in?
LordSputnik wrote
We have a disambiguation field, so not using it seems pointless. We still
need to be able to disambiguate search results for identically named
recordings.
Plus, as FDV pointed out, external apps might use the recording title as a
way of normalising track titles (Picard
On 08/13/2013 11:44 AM, lixobix wrote:
Yes, but since every recording ought to have a unique title,
I don’t think this is correct.
Otherwise, with multiple live recordings of a
work, they would all be called Title in your media player: Not what I
would want.
Translating from musicbrainz
Alex Mauer wrote
On 08/13/2013 11:44 AM, lixobix wrote:
Yes, but since every recording ought to have a unique title,
I don’t think this is correct.
Otherwise, with multiple live recordings of a
work, they would all be called Title in your media player: Not what I
would want.
On 08/13/2013 12:36 PM, lixobix wrote:
There's currently no way to append (live, 1990-02-09: Pine Street Theatre,
Portland, OR, USA) without the extra (live), because I can't access the
recording title from Picard.
Yes.
That is something that should be changed in Picard.
signature.asc
On 13 August 2013 15:38, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
How are recordings used externally to the site? I'm starting to wonder why
we need disambiguations for recordings at all. Disambiguations were
created
to contain clarifying information internal to the site. Since
I think the main problem with a new entity is development time and
increased database complexity. Also, the next schema change is meant to be
fairly light, since there was a bit too much going on for the May one. As
for why it could not ever be done, ruaok would have to answer that one!
lixobix: The recording title isn't really anything, it's just the most
appropriate title we can come up with for the recording, based on the track
titles. As for the ETI/disambiguation, if you have a track: Amazing Song
(live), then live isn't part of the title. You wouldn't say I'm going to
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 01:16:55PM -0700, LordSputnik wrote:
Please let me know here if you'd like to help!
I like the general idea -- I'd love to be kept in the loop if nothing else so I
can be the practicality curmudgeon as usual :)
--
Ian McEwen ianmcorvi...@ianmcorvidae.net
Okay, I've just re-read the style principles and see that the concept of
using the most common official version is in there and that artist intent
isn't the all-pervasive thing I thought it was. :thumbs-up:
On 13 August 2013 19:20, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
lixobix: The recording
So, having re-read the style principles, I'm not sure that the title the
composer gave to the work is what's being referred to in artist intent.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Artist_Intent
It seems like a narrower concept about special stylising - generally
spelling and
AFAIK artist intent pre-dates NGS (there were only tracks). Maybe
something for the documentation review team to look into?
It would be weird if you could completely replace the title, but not
variations in spelling...
Regarding structure, I've just done a major rewrite of the proposal, so I'm
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
lixobix wrote
To put it another way:
Is there any reason why a video entity would not be ideal?
Is there any reason why it could not ever be done?
We tend not to add new entities for similar-but-different cases (for
LordSputnik wrote
There's no easy way of making a rule for it - you just have to consider
whether the bit in brackets belongs with the title or not.
I disagree, at least for many common cases, it would be easy to make a rule.
You proposal explicitly does make rules for some common cases:
If
LordSputnik wrote
lixobix: The recording title isn't really anything, it's just the most
appropriate title we can come up with for the recording, based on the
track
titles.
Surely the most appropriate title for the recording is the one that says
what it is, i.e. that which differentiates it
symphonick wrote
Regarding structure, I've just done a major rewrite of the proposal, so
I'm
going to stick with this for a while. I don't understand the 7 paragraphs
bit?
The 7 paragraphs are: Title, Sources, Archaic titles, Language, Translated
titles, Nicknames, Subtitle.
I find having 7
Here are some particular issues:
symphonick wrote
The work title field in MusicBrainz should only contain the title given by
the composer, sometimes along with a catalogue number.
contradicts
symphonick wrote
If the original title by the composer is rarely used, put the modern
title in
Here's a rough version of how I would rearrange:
lixobix wrote*
Title
*
The work title field in MusicBrainz should contain the title given by the
composer, in the language of the composition. If the language of the
composition is unknown, use the language of the first performance, or
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
We tend not to add new entities for similar-but-different cases (for
example, we only have one artist entity that applies to both a person and
a
group of people).
I interpret artist being the same thing in both those cases, i.e. an
umbrella term for one or
LordSputnik wrote
I think the main problem with a new entity is development time and
increased database complexity. Also, the next schema change is meant to be
fairly light, since there was a bit too much going on for the May one. As
for why it could not ever be done, ruaok would have to
30 matches
Mail list logo
