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
genre in particular isn't a good start. eg Miles
Their history definitely warrants that they that they be included as a
single entity in MB.
definitely agree with this. their solo releases (such as they are) came
some while after their collaboration began. Hall Oates releases form
the vast bulk of both men's recorded output. they're
i would have thought that most Orchestrator relationships are at recording
level
-Original Message-
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nicolás
Tamargo de Eguren
Sent: 22 August 2011 16:47
To:
I think that no matter how controversial work types can be, they are
essential for filtering works in prolific composers as mentioned above.
could you not just use filtering on the title field to sort? symphonies,
nocturnes, sonatas, concertos etc are titled as such which is why i'm
not sure work
: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Frederic
Da Vitoria
Sent: 12 August 2011 11:10
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Add work types
2011/8/12, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk:
as someone
hi
in case anyone's interested here's the work types spreadsheet I put
together some while ago. it was compiled using definitions taken from
Radio 3's specialist Classical Music d/base - some are clearly rather
eccentric as a result - i whittled it down to 18 work types I thought
were workable
yes, i think what i wrote is an argument for abandoning work tyoes
(certainly as structured data).
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of
Paul C. Bryan
Sent: 12 August 2011
Some while ago I started compiling a list of work types, predominantly for
classical music use. But even there (where one could argue that the work type
is an important concept) it's often hard to arrive at an objective definition.
Most work types in classical music are explicit in the title
...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of
Paul C. Bryan
Sent: 08 June 2011 23:46
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Works and remixes/covers
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 16:16 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote:
This makes my head hurt, but here's a couple of questions just
to make sure I'm
This makes my head hurt, but here's a couple of questions just to make sure I'm
kind of understanding it
1) how do we ascertain that a remix has enough new content to make it a new
work? (it's going to be the exception rather than the rule to have new
lyricist/composer credits). it would
I support the complete overhaul and that the normal process has been
circumvented. Most of the old guidelines don't make sense with NGS, and
doing such a big change by RFC/RFV would have been extremely painful. I
think we're much better off taking the rewrite and working from there.
I couldn't
and IMHO it would have been impossible to get the guidelines right in
advance
I think it would have been possible, but we would still be waiting for
NGS two or three years down the line.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
/ gets a +1 from me...
p
-Original Message-
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Nikki
Sent: 20 May 2011 09:28
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] CSG: Less VA?
Lukáš Lalinský
looks sensible to me, though I'm imagining that Urtexts for some
composers/works might be hard to find.
and with Mozart for instance...would Köchel numbers go into the comment field
for diambiguation too (as they're not Mozart's) but be allowed in aliases?
cheers
p
-Original
-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of symphonick
Sent: 18 May 2011 12:03
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] CSG: Work aliases
On Wed, 18 May 2011 12:51:00 +0200, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk
wrote:
looks sensible to me, though I'm imagining that Urtexts for some
+1. absolutely essential!
-Original Message-
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Maurits
Meulenbelt
Sent: 18 May 2011 13:52
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Extends
+1
-Original Message-
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of
symphonick
Sent: 18 May 2011 17:10
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: [mb-style] CGS: Comment field for recording names
disambiguation
i'm definitely up for this...any opportunity to discuss concept albums
is too good to miss. :-)
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of
Paul C. Bryan
Sent: 15 December 2010 19:54
Q1. Should a work have an primary artist credit (AC) or are advanced
relationships (ARs) more appropriate?
ARs.
Q2. What is your rationale for your answer to Q1?
As Brian and others have pointed out, it's hard to quantify who is the
artist 'most associated' with a work. Who would you
I suggest that a minimum delay be applied between the last answer to a
RFC and the RFV. This would avoid frustration for the champion.
+1 to that idea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of the BBC
hi brian
Live Compilation would be for compilations of live tracks.
i think this could do with a bit of expansion. do you mean various
artists? (eg woodstock, live at the roxy etc)
or would this kind of thing count as well? (even though none of the
tracks had been previously issued)
that is a really nice (in the true sense of the word) definition.
+1
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of SwissChris
Sent: 11 October 2010 18:25
To: MusicBrainz Style
hi
my feeling is that video is outside the scope of this AR and that if
video is included the AR becomes so generalised and vague as to be
useless. there's already a youtube channel AR, isn't there? if that's
not seen as adequate for outr YT needs then why not expand or alter that
AR?
cheers
, for example.)
Brian
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk
wrote:
Hello
I've removed the Whitelist from the proposal...
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free_
at
any
describe - essentially the rss version of a stream, then I'd agree,
because of the implicit permission grant.
Brian
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Hi Brian
Yes, the original intent was a deep link to the stream, but it is
within the context
Hello
I've removed the Whitelist from the proposal...
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free_
at
any other feedback welcomed...I've kept Nikki's link phrasing on the URL
as it's consistent with existing ARs which makes sense to me...
-Original
I think that artist pages/sites that carry streaming music are covered
well enough by other ARs to official sites/myspace etc. As you say, most
artists sites will offer streaming, but the location of the streaming
might be such that it's impossible to link to (a java player that sits
on every
1. Expected Passage Date - 20/08/10
2. The proposal is at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free_
at and is essentially unchanged from the initial proposal apart from
some clarification around the Whitelist.
Peter
Peter Marsh | BBC Music Interactive | Room
Hi
I think Artist music can be streamed for free at URL looks odd,
shouldn't it be Artist's music can be streamed for free at URL?
I think you're probably right there. and thanks for fixing the URL
(worked ok for me!)
I'd add that NPR should be on the whitelist. As was pointed out before
Of
Alex Mauer
Sent: 12 August 2010 18:55
To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music can be streamed
forfree at
On 08/12/2010 12:04 PM, Pete Marsh wrote:
services that have a large catalogue of legally available streamed
music
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of
Nikki
Sent: 13 August 2010 00:36
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC - AR proposal - Add Music cn be streamed for
fre at
Pete Marsh wrote:
Thanks Nikki
I think a whitelist would be the most sensible option
at
Pete Marsh wrote:
RFC Expires 22/07/10
The purpose of this AR is to allow linkage from Artist Pages and
Release Group/Releases or Tracks/Recordings to free streaming music
services such as Spotify or we7.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_fre
e_
to be on the whitelist. Paste?
NPR? Stereogum? etc. etc. etc.
-Mark/InSinU8
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Thanks Nikki
I think a whitelist would be the most sensible option.
I wasn't imagining that YouTube and MySpace would be appropriate,
mainly
RFC Expires 22/07/10
The purpose of this AR is to allow linkage from Artist Pages and Release
Group/Releases or Tracks/Recordings to free streaming music services
such as Spotify or we7.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Add_Music_can_be_streamed_for_free_
at
34 matches
Mail list logo
