Re: [mb-style] DiscogsRelationshipType and pending Discogs releases

+1 for removal On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would agree as well; an AR or verification url in edit note to a pending > release at Discogs would still seem to have some value, and for edit notes, > it's still better than many other

Re: [mb-style] RFC: DiscogsRelationshipType and pending Discogs releases

+1 On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Leonardo Prado wrote: > +1 > > 2009/7/22 Paul C. Bryan : > > +1 > > > > On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 08:22 -0700, MeinDummy wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> This is the RFC for the discussion started in > >> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2009-Jul

Re: [mb-style] Release Groups guideline

Even if I can't follow Brian in many of his conclusions, he's got a point here. We should try to have some consistency.Right know we have basically two different cases regarding "main artist" in MB: The ones where the "author" (composer or writer) is considered the main artist (Classical, Musical,

Re: [mb-style] RFV: DiscogsRelationshipType and pending Discogs releases

+1 On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Mark Woodson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:17 AM, MeinDummy wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I propose to delete the phrase 'Do not add relationships to pending > releases > > from Discogs. You never know if they get accepted.' from > > http://musicbrainz.org/doc

Re: [mb-style] Post NGS Style, Titles, regarding abbreviations and 'song' vs 'track'

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:11 AM, jacobbrett wrote: > > > > Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Kuno Woudt wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 09:24:52PM -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Kuno Woudt wrote: > >> > > >> > > http:/

Re: [mb-style] iTunes AR links revisited

-1 What's the benefit of this? With amazon we get the cover art. Otherwise I see no reason to change our linking guidelines for ''any'' download site, including iTunes (but for exclusive, or hard to find stuff) On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Fabe56 wrote: > > Hi, > > just in the same kind, wha

Re: [mb-style] Request for Debate: Two decisions on gender needed for the NGS devs: Q2: Alternate Genders

jacobbrett wrote: > > > Kuno Woudt wrote: >> >> I'd vote for: >> >> - unknown, female, male, other. >> >> +1 >> >> "it's complicated" is not a label for "other" I can agree with. For >> many people who would not identify as female or male it is quite >> clear and not complicated at all. >>

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add UMD as a release format

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/3/6 Lukáš Lalinský > >> >> >> I'd like to see 5 UMD audio releases listed here first. >> >> Lukas >> >> -- >> Lukas Lalinsky >> lalin...@gmail.com >> >> > Well, there's the original example, > http:

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add UMD as a release format (SwissChris)

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:26 AM, neothe0ne wrote: > >From: SwissChris > >I don't doubt that these releases do exist somewhere :) But same as Lukas > >I'd like to see 5 (or better 10, or 20) of these actually listed *here*, > >that is entered in MB, before we

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add UMD as a release format (SwissChris)

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Pavan Chander wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:37 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:26 AM, neothe0ne wrote: >> >>> >From: SwissChris >>> >I don't doubt that these releases do exist somewhere :) B

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add UMD as a release format (SwissChris)

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/3/8 Lukáš Lalinský > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Brian Schweitzer >> wrote: >> > Rather than a bunch of different responses to different issues raised, >> I'll >> > try to just summarize my th

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Add a few more release formats

Seen the ongoing discussion on adding UMD as release format (1) I don't think this should pass without some more reflection and debate. No to new formats which have not at least 5 entries already in MB. And should these be added I'd at least strongly support hiding them in some way or another (as s

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add UMD as a release format (SwissChris)

M, jacobbrett wrote: > > Here are some Australian music/movie UMD releases, if anyone's interested: > http://www.dvdorchard.com.au/productfound.asp?GenreID=91&CN= > -- > View this message in context: > http://n4.nabble.com/Re-RFC-Add-UMD-as-a-release-form

Re: [mb-style] The return of an old SortName Style issue...

I can't see your problem (and not only because of your elaborate english syntax ;-). The rationale behind sort names is to find all my Jimi Hendrix discs (with or without "Experience") and all my Bill Haley releases (with or without "The Comets") at the same place in a sorted list. The guidelines a

Re: [mb-style] The return of an old SortName Style issue...

+1 On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Pavan Chander wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Brian Schweitzer < > brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> The above may even make sense to some people. To me, it takes the "2 >> artists vs 1 artist" distinction and turns it into a much

Re: [mb-style] Parent Relationship Type and Sibling Relationship Type issues

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've run into another 2 ARs with open issues and suggestions dating back > anywhere from 1 to 4 years, without any resolution, so the AR's use in > various cases still is open to debate. I'll try to just

Re: [mb-style] Parent Relationship Type and Sibling Relationship Type issues

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/3/17 Chad Wilson > >> On 17/03/2010 7:34 a.m., SwissChris wrote: >> >> 2) Adoptive family, step-family, in-laws, and half-family: Parent >>> Relationship Type makes no provision for

Re: [mb-style] Parent Relationship Type and Sibling Relationship Type issues

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/3/17 SwissChris > > >> Not "important" AND not "frequent" if we consider the guideline >> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Personal_Association_Relationship_Class >> > > I coul

Re: [mb-style] Parent Relationship Type and Sibling Relationship Type issues

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:03 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria < >> davito...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: [mb-style] Parent Relationship Type and Sibling Relationship Type issues

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Brian Schweitzer < > brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM, SwissChris wro

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Require +1 for RFC text prior to moving to RFV

+1 On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Edward J. Shornock > wrote: > >> Paul C. Bryan kirjoitti torstai, 18. maaliskuuta 2010 21.58.26: >> > Problem summary: >> > Style council members want some ass

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Require +1 for RFC text prior to moving to RFV

Consider this a group hug *grin* On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Andrew Conkling wrote: > On Mar 18, 2010, at 16:30, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > Lol... perhaps we ought to request that, if you've already seen a > second, there's no need for a third (and fourth, fifth, sixth...) :D > > Haha, ye

Re: [mb-style] Does death end a marriage?

''Philosophically'' this is an interesting concept. But ''legally'', ''officially'' death obviously ends a marriage with your marital status changing from ''married'' to ''widowed''. On a side note: Do we have (do we need?) guidelines for same-sex marriages? (Or, since the term "marriage" is often

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Detail and Clarify Personal Association Relationship Class and its Relationship Types

On http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Personal_Association_Relationship_Class_Proposal : I'm still not really happy with adding all this stuff, and thus adding (unnecessary IMO) complexity. I could live with most of it, though. But I'd veto the addition of godparents as a specific cat

Re: [mb-style] Does death end a marriage?

al understanding and common sense. On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM, SwissChris wrote: > >> ''Philosophically'' this is an interesting concept. But ''lega

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Detail and Clarify Personal Association Relationship Class and its Relationship Types

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 8:52 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> On >> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Personal_Association_Relationship_Class_Proposal >

Re: [mb-style] Slow down.

Just to show you why we ask to slow down: that's the stuff I was asked to read (often with several links to check as well), understand (not always that easy, if only because english ain't my mother tongue), consider, think over as to eventual unthought of fallbacks and consequences and then taking

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Detail and Clarify Personal Association Relationship Class and its Relationship Types

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 9:43 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Brian Schweitzer < >> brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com>

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Detail and Clarify Personal Association Relationship Class and its Relationship Types

ee cases") or (even worse) "it could exist" ("we haven't ever seen such a case, so we're making up a hypothetical example, just in case") is not a good policy IMHO. On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/3/21 SwissChris > >

Re: [mb-style] RFC3: Add a few more release formats

My opinion on this hasn't changed: I'll gladly say yes to this as soon as the UI is adapted in order to privilege the most popular formats, as suggested (quote) SwissChris to MusicBrainz show details Mar 11 (11 days ago) It's not just about UMD : There's a proposal suggesting

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Detail and Clarify Personal Association Relationship Class and its Relationship Types

-parent-relationships, at least without a proper debate – the "edge case" of 3/4 brothers, which really is so rare that IMHO it shouldn't even be mentioned at all On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/3/22 SwissChris > >> Yes, I still be

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Document Live Performance Relationship Type

This seems to link only release->release. Shouldn't this cover track->track relations as well? On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is RFC-259. Without objection, it will move to RFV on 2010-03-30. > > This does not add a relationship

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard wrote: > > > (snip) > > I'd also like to point out that DMRC is badly written and incredibly > confusing, as evidenced > by this discussion, not actually followed (see the Jackson family and the > Wilson brothers), and from what I understand, neve

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Chad Wilson wrote: > >> On 24/03/2010 8:53 a.m., Brian Schweitzer wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Chad Wilson wrote: >> >>> On 24/03/2010 8:

Re: [mb-style] What Track ARs should become Work ARs, or both Recording and, Work ARs?

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:56 AM, neothe0ne wrote: > Brian: What is the current status of the definition of a "Work"? There is > no way for us to decide which AR's should apply to Recordings or/and Works > unless we know. > > For example, if a Work is still a "composition" and includes all > "v

Re: [mb-style] A proposal has passed (was: RFV2: Add a few more release formats)

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > The RFV period now having expired, and no veto having been heard, this > proposal has now passed. Thanks everyone - and I'm sure the proposers of > the half dozen add format proposals, which were wrapped

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Detail and Clarify Personal Association Relationship Class and its Relationship Types

So, my last comment was 5 days ago and spelled: SwissChris to MusicBrainz show details Mar 22 (5 days ago) "Please note that I never said anything against the addition of half-relations or step-relations. These are obviously frequent enough to be addressed in the guidelines and can easi

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Clarify order of precidence of guidelines and principles

+1 On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > * The Capitalization Standards are the biggest one; they were originally > left out of the Style guidelines, and that was never changed. > >> * Box Set Name Style - not part of any principle >> * Mu

Re: [mb-style] RFV2: Detail and Clarify Personal Association Relationship Class and its Relationship Types || RFC: RFC-255a: Godparent attribute of Parent RT

e-proposal, arriving in the midst of what I and several other members of the style council consider a "flood". Let's discuss this again when the "flood" has calmed down and hear what other editors think. I personally don't feel this to be a good idea, and it will need b

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: was RFV2: Detail and Clarify Personal Association Relationship Class and its Relationship Types...

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:02 AM, SwissChris wrote: > >> I'll try to reformulate more concisely what I have said several times >> before, since my concerns obvi

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

Just asking: If this proposal passes, what will happen to the links? Right now quite a few AR-guidelines are linking to this page. On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is just a heads up, so noone is caught by surprise. :) > > This p

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal

What do you mean by "unselectable, if possible"? On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > As I said in my last email, it seems to me that the tree itself isn't > debated, but that it's only certain items in "Other" which have ever held up > act

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

a less metaphoric wording) swisschris /chabreyflint On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > As promised, moving this to RFV. Without veto, the proposal will pass on > 2010-03-31. For any considering a veto, I'd just ask that you

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

this proposal will > shortly be bringing a rewritten version which addresses all of the current > problems in DMRC. > > I would also point out that I have yet to see any AR mentioned as having a > AR set problem but not already having language which actually does block it. > > Brian

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:08 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> (quoting myself (march 25) on MB-style): >> "Confusing as it may be: This guideline has been helpful for

Re: [mb-style] Other AR proposals; any of these interesting or objectionable?

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:26 PM, symphonick wrote: > 2010-03-29 07:16, Brian Schweitzer skrev: > > Outside of those ARs which change due to Works and RGs, I still have 22 > > AR-related things which seem decent, compiled from various older stalled > > proposals, or just oversights I've noticed (m

Re: [mb-style] Other AR proposals; any of these interesting or objectionable?

we really losing valuable information when entering simply" performed choir" instead of "performed guest choir" swisschris / chabreyflint On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 201

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

ot; – Artist 'held position with' artist-AR: Another 10 – All style guidelines and their interrelations " Can anyone see anything missing or wrong in this list or ordering?" – What tracks should become work AR: another 50+ and then there's – Important: NGS ARs are now o

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal

as "sub-optimal credit") a new vocal part may be added. swisschris / chabreyflint On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Helpful is always good :D > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria > w

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Ignore All Style Guidelines Style

edit? – am I free to rework these edits, according to the guidelines, 2 hours or 6 months later? swisschris / chabreyflint On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Fred Marchee wrote: > Yeah, best proposal ever, and hopefully NGS will solve the problems > (looking good last time I checked) an

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Ignore All Style Guidelines Style

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> Just a few questions: >> – am I right in assuming that this new guideline would apply to new edits >> only,

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal

nd > opera collection, I have many releases where the performer bios specify the > exact classical voice type (quite in a similar manner as to Wikipedia). But > even outside of the liner, it's also knowable from their bio, or othe

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't have time at the moment to dig through this entire email, but... > > Re: "barely one of the first sentences" (Wikipedia): You must be looking at > different pages than I, as almost every single op

Re: [mb-style] Spurrious works

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/4/4 Brian Schweitzer > >> Just a minor nit, but... >> >> >> > A work has 0 to n composers, >> >> Doesn't a work have to have at least one composer, even if that composer >> is unknown, or 'traditional'? >> > > Yes, of course. No mu

Re: [mb-style] A proposal has un-passed :P (was RFV: Supporting Release Relationship Type)

While you're at it, you may also add that "RFV proposals should include links to the original RFC, to the debate (if there was any) and to the actually proposed changes (after debate)". :P Chris On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon,

Re: [mb-style] Chris' process change suggestion (was: A proposal has un-passed...)

ail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:15 AM, SwissChris wrote: > >> While you're at it, you may also add that "RFV proposals should include >> links to the original RFC, to the debate (if there was any) and to the >> actually proposed changes (after deb

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

:15 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > As another week has now passed without reply, Chad / SwissChris? > > Brian > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-s

Re: [mb-style] NGS RFC: Make works not be filed under an artist (Was: Spurrious works)

Sorry, Guys, but I'm completely lost. What are we talking about? What are the proposals exactly? And what the f… is ISMWC? Chris On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria > wrote: > >> 20

Re: [mb-style] NGS RFC: Make works not be filed under an artist (Was: Spurrious works)

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria > wrote: > >> 2010/4/7 Brian Schweitzer >> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria >> > wrote: >>> 2010/4/7 Brian Schweit

Re: [mb-style] RFC2: Release Event Style

Looks good at first sight. But shouldn't there be something about LabelCodes for Label identification? On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM, jacobbrett wrote: > > This is RFC-43. It will expire 2010-04-14. > > Following previous discussion[1], I have refined and lessened the scope of > this style guid

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

No. Counterintuitive and wrong: Side 1 and 2 of a vinyl disc is one and the same medium: it uses exactly the same tool on the production and on the listeners side: one medium. DualDiscs and audio/MP3-Cds use a different (software or hardware) tool to encode and a different tool to read: two media.

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

t they exist. DVDs > with audio on both sides, on the other hand, are hugely common, and the same > logic would apply there... > > Brian > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:39 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> No. Counterintuitive and wrong: Side 1 and 2 of a vinyl disc is one an

Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: The Advanced Vocal Tree proposal

would > > > anyone debate any of the tree as it would now be proposed > > > > Just a note that I agree with SwissChris that the current classical > > vocal types are enough. > > > > > > What about the non-Fach (or French/etc systems) ite

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

Entering each side of an LP as separate release is counter-intuitive and counter-everything :P Why not simply provide the possibility to enter tracks as A1, A2… B1, B2… where this makes sense? On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

ed 1 to 5 on side A and 1 to 6 on side B: that's how they should be entered. If we have multiple disks: follow whatever is on the disc :) > > 2010/4/30 SwissChris > > Entering each side of an LP as separate release is counter-intuitive and >> counter-everything :P >>

Re: [mb-style] Add assistant attribute to lyricist relationship

So here we go again. The argument of "parity" brought up by Brian, which will lead to adding "this attribute to every relationship type" whether ever occurring or needed or not. So again I'd plead for the 5 cases rule (which we have for the instrument tree): If you can provide five (or even three)

Re: [mb-style] Add assistant attribute to lyricist relationship

ed (in more than just one single occurrence) I will not oppose the addition of the attribute. Chris On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> So here we go again. The arg

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Musical Soundtrack Style: Well-known collaborationsexception

I still would like to see first how exactly NGS will deal with collaboration artists, before we take any decisions :) On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Fred Marchee wrote: > +1 > > will add some more on the list > > Fred > - Original Message - > From: "Paul C. Bryan" > To: > Sent: Sund

Re: [mb-style] Aliases and performance names

Brian, I don't see your problem. The guideline spells, slightly reformulated to make my point:: "When an individual or group have multiple "projects" under whose different names they release different musical works, you should *not* use aliases for (such) Performance Names

Re: [mb-style] Aliases and performance names

usly be entered under the wrong artist since "alias" is defined as "same". On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Andrew John Hughes < > gnu_and...@member.fsf.

Re: [mb-style] Aliases and performance names

.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:17 PM, SwissChris wrote: > >> Adding aliases instead of proper artists with the proper ARs will just >> make things fuzzy. I still can't see why such an alias could be helpful or >> "benef

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Netherlands Clarification

Go ahead! +1 On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:21 AM, jacobbrett wrote: > > Is anybody willing to endorse, or disagree with, this RFC? > > I'm not sure what happens upon the expiry date if nobody has commented. I > suppose I'd resubmit it? > -- > View this message in context: > http://musicbrainz-mailin

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

Hold on. I'll probably veto this if the changes and clarifications suggested by Per are not added to the guidelines, with some *examples* showing at least that (a) the AR for a (vocal) track with one single writer should be entered as composer + lyricist (not as writer) and that (b) if one can not

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

learly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track >(clearly just >composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly >composer and >lyricist). > > > I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and > SwissChr

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Per Starbäck wrote: > > That's exactly what I fear will happen. > > To avoid that happening maybe the user interface should present "was > written by" explicitly as four choices: > > [x] Unknown role > [ ] Wrote the text > [ ] Composed the music > [ ] Wrote the tex

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

for the lyrics and/or the music") the "wrote"-AR should not be used here. I can't find a better example – and don't have the time to search for one right now. Chris On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > Thanks Brian, I changed both lines. > > Sw

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

But why, among the many Lennon/McCartney songs from which we may probably never know what part John and/or Paul had exactly in the collaboration, pick one where we do have such an explicit quote? Take instead maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Days_a_Week_(song) On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:19 A

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Re-add [traditional]

Yes! +1 great job On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > +1. Beautiful work. > > - Jeroen > > > > Op 11 okt. 2010 om 17:57 heeft caller#6 < > meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com> het volgende geschreven: > > Hi all, > > On 10/11/2010 04:16 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > > 2010/10/10

Re: [mb-style] RFV2: Writer Relationship Type

t; when "artist" is (listed as) an "entity", but "song" obviously is not… On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > Despite you not being Per or SwissChris, I still like it. > > - Jeroen > > Op 15 okt. 2010 om 23:55 heeft "Paul C. Bry

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

Sorry to disagree. It still doesn't look good at all to me and I have to veto. 1) On attributes: Using the term "songwriter/songwriting" is definitely wrong after we added "librettist" (Think of a classical composer who wrote himself the libretto to his opera). I'd use "artist" instead of "songwrit

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

This guideline is not for the dedicated (auto-)editor like you or me who will do a lot of additional research "elsewhere", but for the average or newbie editor. "Credited", in general understanding, is used for what's on the CD cover or in the liners. And there are way too many poorly credited comp

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

I still don't understand what's so terribly wrong about saying: If we have an ordinary simple (pop) song and the liner says: "written by" *one single artist* this stands semantically for "wrote the words and the music" and can (IMHO: should!) translate, in MB terms, into the two ARs "wrote the lyri

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:48 PM, jacobbrett wrote: > > I like how it is structured currently for two reasons: > 1) There should be a more ambiguous term (as it currently stands, "writer") > when it is unknown whether the particular entity was the composer, > lyricist, > or both. > 2) Creating a n

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

s track has words and music, then you're saying that this *“one single artist" * *wrote the words and the music*. The two statements are logically and semantically identical. > > 2010/10/24 SwissChris > > I still don't understand what's so terribly wrong about sayi

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/10/24 SwissChris > >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria < >> davito...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> That's the old discussion about what is wri

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > SwissChris, your thoughts? > What should I say? I still think the (frequent) case of one single artist (particularly singer/songwriters) being credited (as "written by") on CD-Covers or in liners should be explicitly addr

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/10/27 Aurélien Mino > > On 27/10/2010 02:39, SwissChris wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: >> >>> SwissChris, your thoughts? >>&

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

Forget about Mozart or show me one single CD cover of "Don Giovanni" that says explicitly "All tracks written by Mozart". This exact wording, though, is common for singer/songwriters. All my Bob Dylan vinyls and CDs use exactly these words "All tracks written by Bob Dylan". Because of this identica

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

What this guideline should achieve, IMHO, is to tell editors that "written by" on a sleeve, in a liner or on Discogs does not and should not * automatically* translate into this "written by" AR. So it's not about * dissuading* them to use it (well, maybe it is ;-), but about *persuading*them to do

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Per Øyvind Øygard wrote: > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 01:37:46 +0530, Brian Schweitzer > wrote: > > > However, > > just as an example, take many classical CDs. "Mozart wrote Don Giovani" > > would become "Mozart composed Don Giovani" *and* "Mozart wrote the > > librett

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/10/30 SwissChris > > All my Bob Dylan vinyls and CDs use exactly these words "All tracks written >> by Bob Dylan". >> > > You don't have "the Freewheelin' Bob Dylan", or

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

Happy holidays, Brian, from me too (and we'll wait with this till you are back :-) On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > At the risk of sounding overly pendantic, I refer you to the RFC2119[1]: >> >> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Re-add [traditional]

I still prefer "canonical" to "authoritative" or "definitive". Why not put * canonical* in quotation marks (…predates any "canonical" version(s)…). [meaning: what one may call "canonical"] or simply "Used when the work pre-dates any *written or recorded *version(s), having originally been passed d

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Nikki wrote: > >> Brian Schweitzer wrote: >> >> > In short, the guideline you want directs people to enter incorrect >> > data. It makes assumptions that are not saf

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

tten equals composing by default. And I doubt it's the only case. A > strong rule is good, but some leeway is needed, imho. > +1 > Oh, and hi, people. > Nicolas Tamargo > > On 11 Nov 2010 03:28, "Brian Schweitzer" > wrote: > > > > On Wed

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Remove banned characters (from misc. guideline)

I think we should add at least a warning that the use of such special punctuation Characters is language specific and should not be changed according to english rules in other languages if one isn't absolutely certain of what he does. A link to the language specific CapitalizationStandard guideline

Re: [mb-style] Round 2: Artist Credits for Works

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:50 AM, symphonick wrote: > > > Q1. Should a work be disambiguated via composer/lyricist/librettist, via > > recording artist, or by work comment? > > > I think composer would work best. But it would be great if the UI could > display 3-5 of tho most popular (tagged?) re

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Remove banned characters (from misc. guideline)

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 11/17/2010 02:06 PM, SwissChris wrote: > > I think we should add at least a warning that the use of such special > > punctuation Characters is language specific and should not be changed > > according to english rules

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> While discussing the RFC to add a Writer AR Type, it became clear that the >> guidelines we were discussing applied equally to

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

t;> data. Note that the proposal says 'easily deduce'. >>> Chris, I've also made no distinction between ARs for Works and ARs for >>> Recordings. Like Frederic, I don't yet see the reason for doing so. >>> >>> Brian, I've mentioned the

  1   2   3   4   >