+1
2014-03-24 3:29 GMT+01:00 daniel. :
> +1
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
___
MusicBrai
+1
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
> +1
>
> Expected (by me at least!) RFV date is Mar 31, since you forgot to mention
> that :)
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/mus
On 23 Mar 2014 22:49, "jesus2099" wrote:
>
> **b sides**
>
> I don't agree that B-sides are like outtakes or hard to find stuff.
> You only need to get the singles to have them, B-sides compilations are
just
> compilations imo.
> I agree they are incredibely more interesting than usual bestof,
esp
I'd personally like to be able to differentiate between "best of"
compilations and B-Sides compilation.
Sébastien
On Mar 23, 2014 6:49 PM, "jesus2099" wrote:
> **b sides**
>
> I don’t agree that B-sides are like outtakes or hard to find stuff.
> You only need to get the singles to have them, B-s
**b sides**
I don’t agree that B-sides are like outtakes or hard to find stuff.
You only need to get the singles to have them, B-sides compilations are just
compilations imo.
I agree they are incredibely more interesting than usual bestof, especially
when they contain almost all B-sides, but they
+1
took a long time to get this one. hopefully it will pass
On Monday, March 24, 2014 at 6:32, Tom Crocker wrote:
> +1
> You're dead right.
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> (mailto:MusicBrainz-style
+1
-
PATATE12
jesus2099
GOLD MASTER KING
FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-311-Add-Demo-as-secondary-release-group-type-tp4663547p4663557.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com
What do people think about some way to organise albums that are collections
of previously unreleased or hard to find material (rather than normal
albums or compilations)? Either that or a change to the style guide to have
them included as compilation type.
Examples
Beatles : Anthology 3
http://musi
+1
You're dead right.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <
reosare...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to add Orchestra and Choir as artist types. If and when this
> passes, I will look into adding the necessary code for them to behave
> like groups (initially) - later on, we can look at adding specif
+1
Expected (by me at least!) RFV date is Mar 31, since you forgot to mention
that :)
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Add 'Demo' as secondary release group type. This would allow demos and
(non-live/broadcast) studio sessions to be categorised correctly.
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-311
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-311-Add-Demo-as-secondary
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 5:58 PM, lixobix wrote:
> Is there a way to rename the thread?
>
Not really - this is a mailing list after all :)
You might want to just send an RFC and see what happens, though (and you
get to give the new thread a new name too ;) )
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
__
Is there a way to rename the thread?
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Demo-as-secondary-release-type-tp4663513p4663523.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM, lixobix <
> arjtaplin@
> > wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason why we do not have any release type for demo?
>> Presently,
>> they have to be marked as 'other' to avoid mixing demos with albums.
>> Having
>> 'demo' as a secondary type
On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Ulrich Klauer wrote:
> Rachel Dwight:
>
>> We have JASRAC IDs in the attributes bar now. It’s only fair that
>> other collection societies get the same.
>
> That is quite a strange argument ...
>
> For JASRAC, the point seems to be
> (http://chatlogs.musicbra
Rachel Dwight:
> We have JASRAC IDs in the attributes bar now. It’s only fair that
> other collection societies get the same.
That is quite a strange argument ...
For JASRAC, the point seems to be
(http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2012/2012-04/2012-04-13.html#T19-56-42-662284)
th
On Mar 23, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Ulrich Klauer wrote:
> Rachel Dwight
>
>> We recently added the option to add additional attributes to works,
>> one of which was JASRAC work ID. As many of you all know, several
>> other collection societies have repertoires of their own and special
>> IDs fo
+1
There have been too many times when I’ve seen works in GEMA that have GEMA
ID, but no ISWC.
Marko Sultsing
markosults...@gmail.com
2014-03-23 5:29 GMT+02:00 Rachel Dwight :
> We recently added the option to add additional attributes to works, one of
> which was JASRAC work ID. As many of yo
+1 for demo as a secondary release group type.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Rachel Dwight
> We recently added the option to add additional attributes to works,
> one of which was JASRAC work ID. As many of you all know, several
> other collection societies have repertoires of their own and special
> IDs for works. Below is a list of attributes with examples:
what i
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM, lixobix wrote:
> Is there a reason why we do not have any release type for demo? Presently,
> they have to be marked as 'other' to avoid mixing demos with albums. Having
> 'demo' as a secondary type would mean demos could be grouped together, and
> also assigned a
Is there a reason why we do not have any release type for demo? Presently,
they have to be marked as 'other' to avoid mixing demos with albums. Having
'demo' as a secondary type would mean demos could be grouped together, and
also assigned a primary type without mixing them up with other albums, EP
24 matches
Mail list logo
