On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 02:50:07PM -0700, lixobix wrote:
I'm not sure how often the audio is different, although that depends
whether you include video intros/outros. The music itself seems more
often then not the same recording as available elsewhere.
A couple cases where the audio could be
+1
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Duke Yin yind...@gmail.com wrote:
Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-237
Proposed Change to Style/Titles:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User%3AYindesu%2FStyle%2FTitlesdiff=64184oldid=64183
Why?
I usually try to reach
I agree with taking (one of) the spine text(s) over cover in some cases*, but
not with taking something that is not seen when you hold the album in your
hands (websites, etc.).
(*) sometimes the spine only contains a short version due to lack of space
and the cover is then primary IMO.
-
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 02:50:07PM -0700, lixobix wrote:
I'm not sure how often the audio is different, although that depends
whether you include video intros/outros. The music itself seems more
often then not the same recording as available elsewhere.
A couple cases where
For the first 2 paragraphs, wouldn't it be easier to say (more or less):
Follow the capitalization standard, unless the title breaks the standard
consistently across the release and on official websites.
--
View this message in context:
There are some types of edge cases that do not easily fit into our broad
definitions of official and bootleg releases:
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release wrote*
official
*
Any release officially sanctioned by the artist and/or their record
company. Most releases will fit into this category.
I'm planning to close this RFC and move to RFV on the expiration date from
my latest update (ie. Sunday 18th), since I've had a +1 from Tom.
I can't see how to incorporate a rule as lixobix would like, and I don't
see the need for one, but there's nothing stopping anyone coming up with a
second
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:29 PM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
For the first 2 paragraphs, wouldn't it be easier to say (more or less):
Follow the capitalization standard, unless the title breaks the standard
consistently across the release and on official websites.
The issue doesn't
On 08/16/2013 03:31 AM, Duke Yin wrote:
Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-237
Proposed Change to Style/Titles:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User%3AYindesu%2FStyle%2FTitlesdiff=64184oldid=64183
The way words are presented on the front cover artwork of a
On 16 August 2013 11:17, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
On 08/16/2013 03:31 AM, Duke Yin wrote:
Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-237
Proposed Change to Style/Titles:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User%3AYindesu%2FStyle%2FTitlesdiff=64184oldid=64183
I personally prefer the official site of the group/label.
Being able to copy/paste from a trusted source reduces the change of
copying errors.
I have seen many cases of errors on the actual release btw...
Sebastien
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote:
But there's a big difference between typos and choosing which source takes
precedence when there are two (different) correctly spelled titles.
On 16 August 2013 13:17, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote:
I personally prefer the official site of the group/label.
Being able to copy/paste
+0.5 for me.
The guideline still does not tell me whether this
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/0affb090-1c50-4138-9e73-00fe1eb515a2
should be titled
Mayonnaise
or
Mayonnaise (acoustic)
--
View this message in context:
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:29 PM, lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt; wrote:
For the first 2 paragraphs, wouldn't it be easier to say (more or less):
Follow the capitalization standard, unless the title breaks the standard
consistently across the release and on
On 08/16/2013 05:17 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
I think the release itself should take precedence. I'm OK with using
the spine or booklet, but not sources external to the physical release.
This.
But I don’t see why some random page # in the liner notes should take
precedence over the actual front
Alex Mauer wrote
On 08/16/2013 05:17 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
I think the release itself should take precedence. I'm OK with using
the spine or booklet, but not sources external to the physical release.
This.
But I don’t see why some random page # in the liner notes should take
precedence
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Alex Mauer wrote
+1
Would this apply to capitalisation?
I hope not and I don't think it should. It's a very old consensus on MBz
that capitalization is normalized, following the language specific
capitalization rules,
On 08/14/2013 02:37 PM, lixobix wrote:
caller#6 wrote
... I would always *expect* to see this recording/track/song/thingy
include the remix info appended to the title. And I think most people
would expect the same. And so IMO, for all practical purposes, it
/is/ part of the title. The same
On 08/16/2013 11:36 AM, SwissChris wrote:
I hope not and I don't think it should. It's a very old consensus on MBz
that capitalization is normalized, following the language specific
capitalization rules, unless obvious Artist Intent can be documented.
Correct, I would not apply that to
I agree this can be difficult, and especially when an artist has apparently
sanctioned a release but can't say so because of their contract with the
record company. What worries me more than the label we apply to the release
is the way we normalise bootlegs or select a group label among official
On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 08/16/2013 05:17 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
I think the release itself should take precedence. I'm OK with using
the spine or booklet, but not sources external to the physical release.
This.
But I don’t see why some
To find out a release title I agree on using not only the packaging but
also the official sources (label or artist). Now, on capitalization, we
should definitely stick to the guidelines. English not being my native
language, I would have a hard time to explain why. But, sometime ago I read
an
That should have acoustic in the disambiguation, since it doesn't uniquely
identify the track, it describes it.
Are there any times, besides remix/mix/edit names, where we would want to
include the track ETI in the recording name?
___
MusicBrainz-style
How's this:
If the ETI uniquely identifies the recording, leave it in the title. If it
just describes something about the recording, but not uniquely, move it to
the disambiguation. For example, the name of a particular remix does
uniquely identify the recording, so it should be included in the
Tom Crocker wrote
The problem, arguably, is the inclusion of 'and/or' in the definitions.
Perhaps if it was 'either the
artist or the record company' in both definitions then you'd know that if
either had sanctioned it, it was official?
Personally, I'd go with the artist rather than the
LordSputnik wrote
How's this:
If the ETI uniquely identifies the recording, leave it in the title. If
it
just describes something about the recording, but not uniquely, move it to
the disambiguation. For example, the name of a particular remix does
uniquely identify the recording, so it
You mean (live: 1965-05-01, Blah blah blah)? It's not unique, since there
still could've been two performances of the recording.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 14 August 2013 12:53, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I disagree but really don't want to start the recording
guidelines/definition debate off again! I think it's probably a
2013/8/17 Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com
You mean (live: 1965-05-01, Blah blah blah)? It's not unique, since
there still could've been two performances of the recording.
Yes, but there could be two different remixes with the same name.
Uniqueness is not always easy to define. Actually, I find
On 08/16/2013 05:42 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Yes, but there could be two different remixes with the same name.
Uniqueness is not always easy to define. Actually, I find easier to
imagine 2 remixes of the same work by the same artist than 2
performances of the same work the same day at
A matinee performance and an evening performance?
And this rule isn't going to always work, but I believe it's going to work
generally and I don't think we can get much better in terms of guidance. I
do think it's better than the previous section, since identifying and
describing makes things
On 16 August 2013 23:41, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 14 August 2013 12:53, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I disagree but really don't want to start the
To put it another way, why do we guide that A seeming error may be
considered evidence of artist intent if it is consistently found on all of
an artist's official releases. if artist intent only exists at the
release or track level of aggregation? Doesn't it point to the concepts
represented by
LordSputnik wrote
A matinee performance and an evening performance?
And this rule isn't going to always work, but I believe it's going to work
generally and I don't think we can get much better in terms of guidance. I
do think it's better than the previous section, since identifying and
I don't like saying remix/edit info, because it leaves open the
possibility of other valid stuff being left out. Also, first version
doesn't uniquely identify a recording without a context (first version
*ever* or first *published* version could be two different things), and
could just as easily
LordSputnik wrote
I don't like saying remix/edit info, because it leaves open the
possibility of other valid stuff being left out.
What kind of things are you thinking of?
LordSputnik wrote
Also, first version doesn't uniquely identify a recording without a
context (first version
*ever* or
Wouldn't media given away like that be promotional instead of official
or bootleg?
--
Billy Yank
Bill Purosky
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
- probably Paul Rodriguez (not Ambrose Bierce)
On 8/16/2013 6:42 PM,
lixobix wrote:
--
Message:
37 matches
Mail list logo
