On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Kuno Woudt wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:32:45AM +0100, Steve Wyles wrote:
Equal credit was given to both artists on the original release, but
FeaturingArtistStyle seems to be implying Use whatever is on the cover of
he release you are entering, which could undermine
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Toni Panadès wrote:
The problem begins for me when I add a new artist: Love Song
Surprise artist
(http://musicbrainz.org/artist/553a3f2c-2600-46ce-8f60-24e6ee6f13c6.html).
LSS it's a group where the main artist is Dennis White (AKA Static
Revenger), and in some places (and
For those that haven't had the time to read all the previous discussion,
please summarise the changes that you are putting to RFV.
Thanks.
Steve
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Chris B wrote:
Right, RFV time :)
2008/5/21 Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/5/21 Chris B [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/5/21
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Some generic items in the instrument tree use the word instrument, some
don't. Of those which do, I found 3 where we would IMO improve things by
removing the word instrument:
- Wind instruments - Winds
- string instruments - Strings
-
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
So I suggest that part #1 of BSNS be completely stricken. It's
counter to normal practice, counter to every discussion I've ever
seen, until now, about allowing otherwise duplicate entries for box
set discs, and can be (and is) being used *now* in
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
1. All ArtistSortNames must be in Latin script. ArtistSortNames in all
other scripts should use the transliterated or translated name in
Latin script by which they are commonly known.
I feel the second sentence is a little confusing, I think this
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, we're not using A / B for anything, and
it seems more accurate - it presents both artists, as on the liner,
while still defining that there is some sort of separation between them,
a separation not implied by the A B
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Matt Howe wrote:
Pretty simple, most artists have a manager and we can't currently represent
this in MB. It should be a link between a person and an artist/group. I'm not
sure what else to say. any opinions on this?
I feel this is moving into the 'legalities' of the
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
Was there a resolution on this issue? If so, I'd like to include this in the
next server release...
I believe it was agreed to add it and it was being tested on the staging
server before implementation.
If I remember, it was accidently included in
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Redman wrote:
This issue needs to be raised on the style mailing list. We can discuss this
to death here but it will not matter. The only instance in MusicBrainz that
could come to a binding decision on this matter is the StyleCouncil.
So, please move this thread
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Steve Wyles wrote:
3) The same work can be shown differently depending on the release it
appears on. Particularly when it comes to VA compilation releases.
So? Label them differently then. There is no written down guideline to make
titles
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Lauri Watts wrote:
If it must be mentioned at all, I would like to see it reworded as:
Note the release attribute of bonus discs are not necessarily the same
as the album they were distributed with. Use 'live', 'remix' or
'compilation' as most appropriate.
Yes, this
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Mangled wrote:
From the opinions expressed on the thread, we suggest the following:
- abbreviated words begining with a quote, when in the middle of a
sentence, must have their first letter lowercased
- abbreviated words begining with a quote at the begining of a
sentence
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Schika wrote:
Well, I was going to try this on test for an russian artist I know,
who also use LiveJournal. Now I came across a tiny problem: if the
artist use some unconventional chars in his LJ-name, the proposed
url-type
h++p://artist.livejournal.com/
can't be used (a
I also don't have a clue of the coding needs, but will there be someone that
will take up that part of the coding before we even start on the discussion
of whether not to accept them, we need someone willing to create the code to
make them admissible in my opinion.
The 99 track limit was
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Steve Wyles wrote:
The 99 track limit was removed about 5 months ago, but seems to have been
reintroduced in this release.
removed in http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/changeset/6672
added again in http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/changeset/7584
it needs a bug report raising
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Don Redman wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:50:09 +0200, Steve Wyles wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize.
Please advise if I should:
1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize.
Please advise if I should:
1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type from the
live server or
2. don't sweat it and call it a done deal or
3. Have the RFV now and
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 6/20/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:05:58AM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote:
This implies two different entities: the predecessor and the successor.
If a band simply changes its name, I think it is still one entity.
If
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
On 20/06/06, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/20/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:10:45PM +0100, Steve Wyles wrote:
I believe the current trend is to separate previous names out into
separate artists
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, teleGUISE wrote:
There is a need to clarify the imdb format once and for all and write
the wiki doc to reflect so as well as the JS code to work accordingly.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/IMDbRelationshipType
At present the wiki doc says to add imdb url's without the
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
It's about what you'd want to see as a user - I am of the opinion that
the same band should be under the same name, and I believe this was
the intension of the ArtistAlias page.
Artist aliases are used to aid searching for mis-spellings or typos of
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
My stance is similar to Don's. I think they should be under the same
artist where possible, but when the names (intentionally) represent
distinct styles, keep them seperate.
They do represent distinctly different styles. You obviously don't know
the
On Sat, 27 May 2006, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
I think they should definitely be allowed. Apart from providing a direct
link to the Amazon page, they are also a source of revenue.
I'm not certain commission is earned on amazon reseller sales. This needs
to be confirmed.
Steve (inhouseuk)
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652
I agree with the 'yes' voters here - the same track can be 'x (feat.
y)', 'y (feat. x)', or 'x y', on different releases. eg, a guest
artist is typically billed as (feat.) on a release on which their
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
IMO sg5 was a problem because you HAD to make everything an X (feat.
Y), regardless of how it was actually billed. This is obviously crap,
but it seems now we're going the opposite way and making everything a
collaboration!
what i want to know is: are
It seems we really need to clamp down on the creating of bogus accounts
used for voting.
Creating an account
http://musicbrainz.org/user/view.html?uid=229805 purely for the purpose of
forcing mod http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652 through in
the last hour is not the way the
capable of spotting those people voting on their own votes. Also it is not
much of a system change, and I think when it's kept in check, it works
really well.
Nyght aka Beth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Wyles
Sent: Thursday, May 25
On Mon, 22 May 2006, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Alexander Dupuy wrote:
I'm afraid that I agree with mudcrow on this; there are a number
of reasons that it makes sense for the composer to be credited
as the primary artist for soundtracks in most cases (with an
exception for non-classical music
I've just done a quick check of the URL AR links and it appears there are
27 album URL AR links and 7 artist URL AR links into www.allmusic.com
It is my understanding that AMG don't allow deep linking[1] and linking
into a competitor is also a little cheaky. Additionally, the wiki[2] also
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Beth wrote:
I personally think it's better safe than sorry! Let's get rid of them, and
request in the review page URL wiki page that AMG not be added as a link due
to their TOS.
I've just found their TOS:
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote:
i think we need a way to differentiate singles form albums with the same
name.
For example Morphine has an album titled Cure for Pain they also have
a single Cure for Pain as well.
I have both ripped and tagged but they end up in the same folder. Also
if
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote:
Steve Wyles wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote:
i think we need a way to differentiate singles form albums with the same
name.
For example Morphine has an album titled Cure for Pain they also have
a single Cure for Pain as well.
I have
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote:
Steve Wyles wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote:
Steve Wyles wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote:
i think we need a way to differentiate singles form albums with the
same
name.
For example Morphine has an album titled Cure
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Don Redman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:23:57 +0100, Alexander Dupuy wrote:
With this additional context, it's pretty clear what the difference between
DJ-mixed by and mixed by is, and few editors will make the wrong
choice.
That is a very good point.
I support this.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, I wrote:
I hate to open this issue again, but have a look at:
http://musicbrainz.org/showartist.html?artistid=94575
where is has:
produced Misguided from 1995 until 1995
recorded Misguided from 1995 until 1995
What do you think the Recorded means to a novice user going
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, derGraph wrote:
Are we discussing what the current style guide says about (instrumental), or
are we discussing to change the style guide?
In the first case, the answer is pretty clear: [1] says (on the bottom of the
page) the following details should be left out: [...]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Beth wrote:
Is a large album annotation so daunting? I've seen a few. I offered to do
it. So far I haven't seen even the comment annotation noted. Yet less a
request that I do it. I am more than happy to do it.
Large annotations can currently cause problems with some
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote:
Beth wrote:
My thoughts...
Q1. Which DVDs to add?
A1. All DVD musical rips.
Arguments: it was argued MB was a music database. Music
DVD's are based on music and bands. That in itself seems to be a good reason
to add them. If MB is supposed to
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Nikki wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 04:22:52PM +0100, Steve Wyles wrote:
I feel that if DVD's are added, they should have a DVD-discid (this can
be obtained using libdvdread) attached to them. This is the probably the
best way to determine if something is an official
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Don Redman wrote:
The current Recording Engineer debate is a good example: Simon thought he
was requesting a veto (but did not say so explicitly), but Steve put forward
a dissenting oppinion (he did not label it as a veto) and spared another
discussion.
I've just
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Hi,
any objections against http://test.musicbrainz.org/trac/ticket/54 ?
I will wait some days and then edit it. :)
I think that would cause confusion. Frequently the phrase Recorded By is
understood to refer to the artist that performed it.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, derGraph wrote:
I didn't realise this before, but there's a release country missing in the
list: the German Democratic Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany. Sure, it does not exists any
longer, but still it feels wrong to add GDR releases as e.g. 1989 -
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I'd say it is. As far as I know, librettist is only used for someone who
wrote the text for an opera.
yes, that appears to be the case:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=librettist
2006/2/2, Luká? Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Don
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
Agreed. Personally I think all 'non musical' relationships would be
better suited to annotations. Even better, annotations that can
contain hyperlinks to other musicbrainz artist pages, should they
exist.
Erm, and how is that any different from
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
On 30/01/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
Agreed. Personally I think all 'non musical' relationships would be
better suited to annotations. Even better, annotations that can
contain hyperlinks
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Jan van Thiel wrote:
On 1/30/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, we can only show both parents of an artist if both of them
would be in the database for another reason.
An example here is:
http://musicbrainz.org/showartist.html?artistid=40437
which
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Don Redman wrote:
Robert and me talked on the telephone today, and I asked him what he thinks
about this. He said that he does not like the idea that possibly thousands of
nonmusical artist get added to the db, just because they were maried to a
musician.
This decision
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, david scotson wrote:
On 1/16/06, Rod Begbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/16/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tis ok :) i just am trying to work out what album artist means in the
context of a tag.
Right now, with the current limitations of ID3 tags, it's not
49 matches
Mail list logo
