LordSputnik wrote
Yeah I disagree about using the outermost packaging, because, for example,
I'd much rather know that a CD came in a digipak than know the CD had a
slipcover. They're both useful to know, but different people will have
different preferences for which should be recorded.
Could
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:08:30AM -0700, lixobix wrote:
One minor point: The second sentence in the description for city
should be removed (Additional disambiguation should be given...) as
the disambiguation is now included in state. Perhaps move the example
to state, just
I'd prefer it if items were more optional and we trusted to common sense
(or altered and voted where we disagreed with what someone else had done).
I don't see the benefit in adding a 'Venue', 'City' or 'State' to
Glastonbury festival or Rock Am Ring.
I'd also prefer it if there was a summary of
1) Wouldn't it be better to move the live recordings section from
Style/Recording to here, rather than referencing Style/Recording?
2) There's still the issue th1rtyf0ur highlighted in the RFC: what happens
when two tracks contain different ETI, or one has none? Do we keep both/it?
1) is probably dependent on the outcome of the live RFC
2) is covered by the rule, select the recording title based on the most
common track title. If it includes ETI, keep it. (in other words, if it's
in one track title and not in two track titles, you wouldn't keep it
(assuming the main bit was
Tom Crocker wrote
I'd prefer it if items were more optional and we trusted to common sense
(or altered and voted where we disagreed with what someone else had done).
I don't see the benefit in adding a 'Venue', 'City' or 'State' to
Glastonbury festival or Rock Am Ring.
Something like:
Live
Book and Cassette Case are in now.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On 27 August 2013 11:58, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
I'd prefer it if items were more optional and we trusted to common sense
(or altered and voted where we disagreed with what someone else had
done).
I don't see the benefit in adding a 'Venue', 'City' or 'State' to
Tom Crocker wrote
1) is probably dependent on the outcome of the live RFC
2) is covered by the rule, select the recording title based on the most
common track title. If it includes ETI, keep it. (in other words, if it's
in one track title and not in two track titles, you wouldn't keep it
On Aug 27, 2013 12:11 PM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
1) is probably dependent on the outcome of the live RFC
2) is covered by the rule, select the recording title based on the most
common track title. If it includes ETI, keep it. (in other words, if
it's
in one
1) This is going to be merged into Style/Recording if the proposal succeeds
(see the first sentence in the wiki page). I'm with Tom - we should change
the live recordings section as little as possible while the other proposal
is going on.
2) If it's a 50/50 split, it doesn't really matter which
Tom Crocker wrote
2) What about a 50/50 split? Leave it to user discretion?
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/a948c4ab-cc2e-4419-bb62-6a59c6899726
That recording looks like it only has one track, but my memory was
Consistent Original Data said use the most common and if there's a tie,
use
On 13-08-27 06:23 AM, lixobix wrote:
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:08:30AM -0700, lixobix wrote:
One minor point: The second sentence in the description for city
should be removed (Additional disambiguation should be given...) as
the disambiguation is now included in state.
Expected RFV: 2013-09-03 20:00 UTC
Whosampled.com is a moderated database of samples, covers and
interpolations. It describes the links between 'tracks' (basically our
recordings) with details of when the samples appear and linked videos.
Contributions are only displayed after being checked by a
On 08/26/2013 03:02 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
This is the RFV for the proposal to introduce a guideline for choosing the
recording title. It also specifies what to do with ETI.
Proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title
... extra title information should be
Although I wouldn't be opposed to that change I expect someone would!
I think it will be very rare that bonus track distinguishes a track from
another with the same title, so it probably shouldn't be entered as track
ETI either. Same goes for explicit (if it's there as a warning rather
than to
I don't think that bonus track is a relevant information enough. It's
just a marketing trick to make you buy the record on first release. More
often than not, those bonus tracks stick to the subsequent re-issues,
removing the it's rare! effect usually associated with them. :-)
2013/8/27 Tom
I wouldn't count (bonus track) as ETI, based on
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Extra_title_information.
However, it could be part of the track title, you're right. Same for
explicit (although that sort of marks a version of the song, if there's a
clean version, and could be more
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like (bonus track) in the
title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
My suggestion would be to add this on the end:
... Parts of the chosen track title which
Hello,
On 08/27/2013 10:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like (bonus track) in the
title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
My suggestion would be to add this on
It probably would be against the new guideline, yes, and it is intended
(there isn't really a good reason for putting it in one or the other).
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Sheamus Patt wrote
Yes, state should definitely be included for those countries that
commonly use it. I don't like USA and Canada being exceptions here where
it's mandatory, but I don't have a good alternative. Perhaps we could
just say State (or province) should be included where it's
Looks good to me.
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-240-add-whosampled-to-other-db-whitelist-tp4657248p4657259.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
On Aug 27, 2013 9:43 PM, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
Hello,
On 08/27/2013 10:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like (bonus track) in the
title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but
under
the proposal it would get copied into
Tom Crocker wrote
To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
track.
If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud
+1 :)
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-240-add-whosampled-to-other-db-whitelist-tp4657248p4657263.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote:
Is that a +1?
:-)
Dunno, but this is:
+1
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
About iTunes:
iTunes isn't always consistent, but in their m4a tagging standard they
define a metadata field to indicating the quality of the lyrics:
- Explicit
- Clean (used for edits / censoring)
- (none)
This is what the iTunes store/website displays at the track level. I don't
know what
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:09 AM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
track.
If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track
I think it depends on context. In a case like this with two versions it can
distinguish, so providing it's shown I'd expect it to be included as ETI.
If it's just general info about the track, with no attempt to disambiguate,
I'd suggest it was dropped. But that's tricky because the context is not
Thank you both!
On Aug 27, 2013 11:14 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote:
Is that a +1?
:-)
Dunno, but this is:
+1
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On 13-08-27 05:55 PM, lixobix wrote:
Sheamus Patt wrote
Yes, state should definitely be included for those countries that
commonly use it. I don't like USA and Canada being exceptions here where
it's mandatory, but I don't have a good alternative. Perhaps we could
just say State (or province)
32 matches
Mail list logo
