On 10 June 2012 16:29, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, lixobix pz57fiwef6cd...@jetable.org wrote:
David Gasaway wrote
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Andii Hughes lt;gnu_andrew@.fsfgt;
wrote:
It also means they no longer share
On 8 June 2012 17:43, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
I don't see what you disagree with here.
That's because I didn't actually disagree with you. :)
Ok :-)
I didn't say that the
copy-on-write (COW
On 8 June 2012 07:41, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
It also means they no longer share a tracklist:
No longer sharing a tracklist is not an issue in itself. In fact, it
sounds a lot like copy-on-write
On 6 June 2012 12:31, lixobix pz57fiwef6cd...@jetable.org wrote:
This has been bugging me for a while. I accept that not all sites can be
accessed from all countries, but when should we use [worldwide] and when the
country in which the site is based?
Some stores are country specific (amazon,
I've opened a bug relating to this issue here:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-4785
but posting here is likely to get more comments/insight on the subject.
Releases have a number of tracklists e.g.
http://musicbrainz.org/tracklist/1266911 which in many cases are
shared by multiple
On 7 June 2012 14:19, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 06/07/2012 07:09 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
The default could be the same as now to
reduce the chance of accidental propagation through editing. Note
that there's nothing to stop someone making changes to all involved
releases now
On 5 June 2012 09:25, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
On 05/06/12 10:24, Kuno Woudt wrote:
If they're credited like that on the release, the artist credits for the
track should not deviate from that. For the recording however I think
it makes sense to always credit that to the remixer/mashup
On 28 May 2012 22:47, Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely it's good to store that in MBz, but not to make it
unmanageable and less useful for any other purpose until there is a
good way to store this.
I would not say it makes it unmangeable and less useful. How do you
think
On 27 May 2012 23:55, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 5/27/2012 5:31 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Oh yeah you're right. My bad. Sorry.
My bigger concern is with the second point that hasn't been addressed:
Use a comma between multiple artists.. Won't this lead to X,
Y, Z instead
On 28 May 2012 17:22, Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com wrote:
If a European release is released in Germany a couple of days earlier
than in the UK, that's not that more interesting than if a US release
is available in one state before another. Nor is an artist only
selling their own cd on
On 28 May 2012 21:33, Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com wrote:
If a European release is released in Germany a couple of days earlier
than in the UK, that's not that more interesting than if a US release
is available in one state before another. Nor is an artist only
selling their own cd on
On 27 May 2012 19:12, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
Andii disagreed, so I'd like to have a proper vote in
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17774115
The issue as I see it is whether or not we should have separate
MusicBrainz releases for the same physical release sold in most of or
On 27 May 2012 19:55, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
On 27 May 2012 19:12, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
Andii disagreed, so I'd like to have a proper vote in
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17774115
The issue as I see it is whether or not we should have separate
On 26 May 2012 05:42, Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 10:42 -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
This is the RFC for a new Soundtrack style guideline. This proposal is
to make soundtrack style official, and similar to the newer Classical
guidelines. It also documents
On 27 May 2012 20:47, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 26 May 2012 05:42, Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 10:42 -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
This is the RFC
On 27 May 2012 20:27, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 27 May 2012 19:55, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
On 27 May 2012 19:12, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
Andii disagreed
On 27 May 2012 21:06, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't follow you. As I understand it, a title like X: Original
Motion Picture Soundtrack would be added as simply X. This was in
a guideline as I remember, but I can't find it now.
This seems to be implying that we
On http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Recording_Engineer_Relationship_Type it
implies that it can be specified which vocals or instruments were
recorded:
“instrument”
This indicates specific instruments which were recorded.
“vocal”
This indicates specific vocals which were recorded.
This is
On 27 May 2012 23:16, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Andii Hughes
gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
On 27 May 2012 20:27, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote
On 27 May 2012 21:37, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Andii Hughes
gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
On 27 May 2012 21:06, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't follow you. As I understand it, a title like X
On 23 May 2012 09:04, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
Hello
If we want to reproduce the released type as said by the artists
and labels, we are missing a few options in our RG types
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/RG#Type
As those two terms (MINI ALBUM and MAXI SINGLE)
are very
On 9 May 2012 18:03, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
This hasn't changed much from RFC, except for a small change in
wording. Here it goes.
On the next schema change (May 15) we will
On 10 May 2012 05:57, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
I would suggest that all the ARs available to releases are available
for release groups. If it suits releases, then it also suits a set of
them in my opinion.
The exception I would make is the composed/wrote
On 10 May 2012 05:30, Dibou d...@boudon.nom.fr wrote:
And what about mediums / tracklists ?
You maight be interested in reading that post
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2011-July/012391.html
Thanks; I didn't see this.
A seems like the same solution but going down a
On 11 May 2012 13:41, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 10 May 2012 05:30, Dibou d...@boudon.nom.fr wrote:
And what about mediums / tracklists ?
You maight be interested in reading that post
There is an issue with the way performance / technical ARs were split
between releases and release groups that has come up before:
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14960762
and to which I believe we still don't have a solution. I've just
encountered it again when doing the ARs for Madonna's MDNA
On 5 May 2012 04:13, practik kronp...@yahoo.com wrote:
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
So:
A DJ-mix is a sequence of several recordings played one after the
other, each one modified so that they blend together into a continuous
flow of music. A DJ mix release requires that the recordings be
On 23 April 2012 18:30, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
lorenz pressler wrote
recording - disamig. comment only
tracklist - if its on the tracklist then it should be included in the
trackname
Well yes, and I think it’s even quite obvious enough not to have to write
another
On 4 April 2012 16:15, Per Øyvind Øygard per...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2012 22:15, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
Hello,
On 02/04/12 17:23, Andii Hughes wrote:
Where I think things get fuzzy is if you have a title X on an album,
but a compilation lists X (album version) (i.e
On 2 April 2012 22:17, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 22:58, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote:
Am 02.04.2012, 22:36 Uhr, schrieb Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org:
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16971109 reminded me of this issue, which
I haven't understood
On 1 March 2012 21:57, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 03/01/2012 12:10 PM, practik wrote:
instead. On recording pages, relationships to works would show up as
recording of instead of performance of. Et cetera.
My reasoning is basically that:
a) it's too hard to define what a
On 21 February 2012 23:22, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 02/21/2012 04:47 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
Expiration: 2012-02-28
This RFC is to move the “medley” relationship to an attribute of the
“performance of” relatonship.
More details in jira,
2012/1/30 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
Does this mean that soundtracks will now be credited to performers?
I have no idea about the musicals, but there's actually no guideline
that says
On 29 January 2012 18:56, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/1/28 Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca
OK as long as we don't revert back to the composer then + 1 from me
Sorry, I was mixing things up. I agree, I wouldn't want to repeat all
performer ARs in the artist field. I'm
2011/12/12 Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk:
one of my favourite things about Musicbrainz is that it doesn't try and deal
with genre.
Genres are massively subjective and also incredibly fluid and i'm not sure
how useful they'd be to end users of MB data. i think attaching an artist to
a
2011/11/8 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Andii Hughes wrote:
What's the status with this? I don't recall seeing an RFV.
When I asked Nicolás about it, he said he wanted to wait until we get
types
2011/11/8 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
What I mean is: currently Dj-mixes are in the category they're expected to
be (compilations). But by adding DJ-mix, they'd suddenly all be in the wrong
place (compilations) until manually fixed.
Sure. But how would a schema change
On 4 November 2011 16:14, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording
###
3. What should and shouldn't be merged together?
# change:
shouldn't merge different edits, mixes, remixes or remasters of a
performance.
# into:
shouldn't merge different edits,
On 11 October 2011 23:58, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
2011/9/22 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
We want this. I think most people (people I've talked to at least)
agree on that. At the moment DJ-mixes are in most cases thrown
together with compilations, which
2011/9/22 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
We want this. I think most people (people I've talked to at least)
agree on that. At the moment DJ-mixes are in most cases thrown
together with compilations, which gives us the quite absurd situation
of having compilations of tracks by
On 4 October 2011 19:51, Philipp Wolfer ph.wol...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote:
Well because of pretty wide support for removing the Cover attribute and
IMHO it shouldn't be implemented unless we can find a way to do it properly,
On 17 September 2011 21:37, David Saunders drsau...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Songfacts_Relationship_Type
The only real opposition came in the form of I'm not going to use this,
which unfortuantely I am not going to accept as its not constructive and
On 17 August 2011 18:31, Tanu Kaskinen ta...@iki.fi wrote:
Hello,
New subscriber here. This mail is sort of continuation to the thread
from last month:
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2011-July/012343.html
The edit that motivated me to subscribe and write this mail
credited:
and add (like in 4.): Adding new collaborations to this list should be
approved by the style council
I agree. I guess I was already reading the existing guideline as
saying this with 'specifically'.
Chris/chabreyflint
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and
On 10 August 2011 22:25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Andii Hughes
gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
On 10 August 2011 22:16, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
For me the way it is now makes sense following the general rule
On 9 August 2011 16:59, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
Look people,
We have plenty of obscure* classical work types out here.
But I feel we are missing some basic types.
At the moment, the list of understandable work types is :
→ Song (music + melodic lyrics)
→ Song cycle (I
On 9 August 2011 16:50, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
Lukáš the point of a database is to
Lukáš store *consistent* normalised
Lukáš data so it can be used for interesting retrieval purposes.
If *consistent* as in consistent with physical releases, yes, this is
useful.
in ARs.
FWIW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 9 August 2011 16:59, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
Look people,
We have plenty of obscure* classical work types out here.
But I feel
2011/8/10 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 10 August 2011 00:19, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
+ 1 for spoken word
For instrumental I see that we are missing something, but I don't think
2011/8/8 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:21 PM, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
LL It's been more than a week since the RFC and to my surprise there has
LL been only one negative feedback, which I don't think is justifiable,
LL because it ignores the
On 7 August 2011 17:01, Chad Wilson chad.wil...@gmx.net wrote:
On 6/08/2011 9:22 a.m., Andii Hughes wrote:
On 6 August 2011 00:22, David Gasawayd...@gasaway.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 06:28, Ryan Torchiaanarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, David Gasawayd
On 6 August 2011 04:13, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't have much time to respond to all these now, but just quickly...
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Paul C. Bryan pbr...@anode.ca wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 05:34 -0700, Ryan Torchia wrote:
Nobody tried to improve the
2011/8/6 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com:
It's been more than a week since the RFC and to my surprise there has
been only one negative feedback, which I don't think is justifiable,
because it ignores the basic problems that motivated me to propose
these changes, which I mentioned in the
2011/8/6 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:04 AM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
…oops. What I mean is point 1.7 in Style/Recording guidelines overview:
On 6 August 2011 10:09, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
2011/8/6 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com:
It's been more than a week since the RFC and to my surprise there has
been only one negative feedback, which I don't think is justifiable,
because it ignores the basic problems that
On 6 August 2011 23:11, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:39, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
On 6 August 2011 10:09, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote:
1. Will this RFV also add guidelines for what ETI should be included
in track
On 6 August 2011 00:22, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 06:28, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
Please give specific examples.
There are currently 373 artist that have feat in their
On 4 August 2011 07:15, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:05 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 16:53, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
I listed the most egregious off the top of my head, but they're hardly
edge
On 4 August 2011 07:45, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 4 August 2011 02:45, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan
On 4 August 2011 07:24, voiceinsideyou chad.wil...@gmx.net wrote:
Given the manner with which I quit mb-style 18 months ago, please consider
the mental effort it has taken for me to rejoin for the purpose of putting
my utmost weight behind this most sensible proposal.
+1
Thanks! It is VERY
On 4 August 2011 12:28, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 4 August 2011 07:15, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be under the assumption that you have to use every piece
of data
On 5 August 2011 00:02, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently in queue are these three Add Release edits...
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14922828
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14922796
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14922852
...which appear to differ only in what size T-shirt is
2011/7/26 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com:
I've seen that many editors are unhappy about the differences between
track and recording style guidelines. As far as I understand, the main
goal of the relaxed track style guidelines was to simplify editing for
new users. This is not what is
On 5 August 2011 01:00, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/26 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com
I've seen that many editors are unhappy about the differences between
track and recording style guidelines. As far as I understand, the main
goal of the relaxed track style
be silly, but it just reflects the silliness of the real world ;-)
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 5 August 2011 00:02, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently in queue are these three Add Release edits...
http://musicbrainz.org/edit
On 3 August 2011 10:27, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/3 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com
wrote:
1) The term Feat. isn't always used to indicate this kind of
relationship
(and likewise, isn't the only
On 3 August 2011 23:37, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
It's been 24 hours and I still don't see a valid veto on this. I do
see a possible additional
feature that could be added (filtering collabs/feat
On 4 August 2011 02:08, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 3 August 2011 10:27, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/3 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:53 AM
On 4 August 2011 02:45, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan Torchia wrote:
OK then, how about this: it's feature regression. If this happens, I
have
no way of excluding guest performances from an MB artist's list
On 30 July 2011 18:06, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
Expected passage date: 1st of August, 2011 (~2 days)
The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
updates the
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording_and_release_group_titles/Featured_artists
On 2 August 2011 03:12, Bill Purosky bpuro...@verizon.net wrote:
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 05:15:01 -0700
From: Ryan Torchiaanarchyr...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists (attempt 2)
snip
I don't think it'd be hard to come up with a solution that is much more
2011/8/2 Kovács Endre János kovacsendre.pub...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Bill Purosky bpuro...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't see a functional or semantic difference between a
performance(primary) AR and an Artist field. Wouldn't the easiest way
out of this controversy simply be
On 2 August 2011 18:36, Wieland Hoffmann themi...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hallo, Andii Hughes:
Expected passage date: 1st of August, 2011 (~2 days)
The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
updates the
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style
On 2 August 2011 22:42, Paul C. Bryan pbr...@anode.ca wrote:
Next generation schema is in place now, and many of us have begun to get our
bearings on how to use them. Prior to NGS, we deferred the issue of how to
express commonly credited composer/lyricist collaborations in theatre style
On 3 August 2011 05:36, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:51 AM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com
wrote:
(On the back cover doesn't cut it.)
Why?
Ask the question in context:
On 1 August 2011 08:42, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
-1
IMO we should follow actual release style.
Sometimes the guest artist is part of the artist → we already use artist
credit for that.
Sometimes the guest artist is part of the title → somewhere in time we shall
have the
On 1 August 2011 11:10, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
Maybe I didn’t understand anything but this thread seems deprecated by the
“RFC-327: Featured Artists (attempt 2)”, according to its title, isn’t it
RFC-327: Featured Artists (attempt 2) →
On 1 August 2011 13:15, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/1 Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Even the long-term solution wasn't seeking to find a way to include
featured
guests into the artist
is just the inverse, stating
they should always go in the title.
Finally, this sounds more like I don't like it than an actual
critique of the proposal.
--Torc.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 1 August 2011 11:10, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac
On 1 August 2011 14:28, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
-1
VETO
I don't accept this veto as you haven't given any grounds for it.
Hum, so this is the actual thread we should reply to then.
There are guest artists belonging to the track (T) title and collaboration
artists in
On 21 July 2011 02:58, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
Attempt 2. The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
updates the
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording_and_release_group_titles/Featured_artists
guideline for recordings and release groups
Expected passage date: 1st of August, 2011 (~2 days)
The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
updates the
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording_and_release_group_titles/Featured_artists
guideline for recordings and release groups.
Instead of the old form for
On 26 July 2011 18:36, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote:
Lukáš Lalinský lalinsky-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org
writes:
The situation is now different and we are using track titles for
as-on-cover titles, which I believe it wrong. It is wrong, because
we have no
On 23 July 2011 11:06, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
jacobbrett wrote:
I don't mean to set the discussion back, but perhaps an additional field
for
featured artists (and other, non-equal/non-collab. artist
On 23 July 2011 00:08, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
That's a rather large except though, isn't it? That essentially
narrows
down the scope of your sample to title tracks of singles.
No, I
On 22 July 2011 08:20, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 21 July 2011 18:07, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
On most of the physical releases I've looked at the featuring artist is
credited
On 21 July 2011 04:11, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 21 July 2011 00:53, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Andii Hughes
gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote
On 21 July 2011 13:17, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Ryan Torchia wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net
wrote:
Seems to me like this credit *should* appear in relationships for the
guest
artist, because that's (usually) the most accurate
On 21 July 2011 05:07, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 07/20/2011 08:58 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Attempt 2. The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
Comments?
The examples are confusing with all those numbered lists.
I don't see what's confusing
On 21 July 2011 07:54, Aurélien Mino a.m...@free.fr wrote:
On 07/21/2011 03:58 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Attempt 2. The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
From introduction:
This guideline applies to cases in which one or more artists are
featured
On 21 July 2011 10:31, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
Attempt 2. The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
updates the
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style
2011/7/21 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
On 21 July 2011 05:07, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 07/20/2011 08:58 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Attempt 2. The proposal:
http
Expected passage date: 23rd of July, 2011 (~2 days)
The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
updates the
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording_and_release_group_titles/Featured_artists
guideline for recordings and release groups.
Instead of the old form for
be shown on the server).
We could link the artists, I agree on that.
Nikki
Andii Hughes wrote:
Expected passage date: 23rd of July, 2011 (~2 days)
The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
updates the
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style
On 20 July 2011 18:12, Aurélien Mino a.m...@free.fr wrote:
On 07/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Expected passage date: 23rd of July, 2011 (~2 days)
(snip)
This covers recordings and release groups *ONLY*. The discussion on
this at RFC clarified that the current guidelines only apply
On 20 July 2011 18:58, Paul C. Bryan pbr...@anode.ca wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 19:12 +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion on the RFC, and very recent changes to
the proposal itself. So I was expecting that you send a second RFC, so
things can be reexamined from
On 21 July 2011 00:49, Aurélien Mino a.m...@free.fr wrote:
On 07/21/2011 12:33 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
I really don't think we need a whole RFC again... we've already had
over a hundred messages,
most of which essentially seem to bring up the same point about track
titles over and over again
On 21 July 2011 00:53, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org
wrote:
Please be advised that vetoing this proposal will retain the current
recording guideline of including 'feat.' crediting in the track title
Attempt 2. The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
updates the
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording_and_release_group_titles/Featured_artists
guideline for recordings and release groups.
Instead of the old form for featured artists:
X (feat. Y) by Z
a new
On 18 July 2011 07:09, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote:
Am 12.07.2011, 16:45 Uhr, schrieb Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org:
This deals with the legacy data issue (ws/1 still provides data in
pre-NGS format) by retaining the existing guideline for track
listings, while making use
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
