Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:25 AM, David Gasaway lt;
dave@
gt; wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
lt;
reosarevok@
gt; wrote:
tl;dr: Style system has changed, new info at
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Proposals
Hi. How
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
Hi! So, this has already been posted to the blog, but for those here who
don't read the blog, I'll repost:
At the MusicBrainz Summit last month in Copenhagen, one of the topics to
be discussed was the state of the style guidelines and style process.
One thing
tommycrock wrote
On 25 September 2014 12:18, Frederic Da Vitoria lt;
davitofrg@
gt; wrote:
2014-09-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt;:
Back to the fundamental question: should the master entity link to
releases,
or to recordings and / or tracks? I'm uncertain as to what
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2014-09-24 23:50 GMT+02:00 symphonick lt;
symphonick@
gt;:
2014-09-24 7:54 GMT+02:00 Frederic Da Vitoria lt;
davitofrg@
gt;:
2014-09-23 23:31 GMT+02:00 symphonick lt;
symphonick@
gt;:
2014-09-19 11:34 GMT+02:00 Frederic Da Vitoria lt;
davitofrg@
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
There must be something I am missing here: Our developers have created a
quite efficient release tracks editor which enables us to enter ARs for
all
the tracks at the same time with almost no more work than entering a
release level AR. So why not enable something
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2014-09-19 11:32 GMT+02:00 LordSputnik lt;
ben.sput@
gt;:
KRSCuan wrote
Thing is, we used to have those separated by them being different
recordings. We then chose to throw that info away by merging different
masters/remasters, even in cases where they have
-09-16 16:39 GMT+02:00 lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt;:
It's questionable whether
SPARS codes should be used at all as a reference for mastering info (I
think
not), as the mastering aspect of them refers merely to the nature of the
medium onto which the master is pressed, and bears no relation
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2014-09-14 14:00 GMT+02:00 LordSputnik lt;
ben.sput@
gt;:
Master audio could be represented in one of two ways:
- 1. as an entity which groups releases with identical mastering.
- 2. as an entity which seamlessly fits between recordings and tracks,
and
allows
tommycrock wrote
Re: compilations. I can now get that a series of albums simultaneously
released separately and as a set would be an original box set (see 1;
lixobix I guess you might say this was contentious). I was keen to avoid
splitting the studio album discography. I'll try adapting what
Here's how I see it. We should have each of RG RG, R RG, and R R
relationships. The relationship should be expressed at the most abstract
level possible (RG RG). I don't see why having similar titles is
important, as I see this relationship merely illustrating that all the music
available on
1) A release group includes another when it retains:
The track list in essentially the same order as the original
The original title, possibly as a medium title, a super-title in the track
list, or in reproduced cover art
It's not clear to me whether this means that both conditions must be met in
caller#6-2 wrote
On 09/10/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Crocker wrote:
On 10 September 2014 22:17, caller#6 lt;
callerno6@
gt; lt;mailto:
callerno6@
gt; wrote:
On 09/05/2014 10:54 AM, lixobix wrote:
I think we're overcomplicating this. Perhaps something simple would
work: A Box
caller#6-2 wrote
On 09/05/2014 01:23 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
Same as before. Tell us what you think!
1st RFV:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-335-Add-Box-set-as-a-primary-type-of-Release-Group-tp4667826.html
On 24 August 2014 22:15, Tom Crocker lt;
tomcrockermail@
caller#6-2 wrote
On 08/22/2014 09:03 AM, lixobix wrote:
Users seem to be misusing the DC only because it's easier than having
to click through each entity to access the full data related to it. So
until full data is readily visible, we should alter the DC guide to
allow for more freedom
tommycrock wrote
Although structured data can be shown it isn't for artist/label editing
drop down boxes. I agree with the principle of not duplicating stuff,
particularly not structured data as free text. The problem, particularly
for artists, is it's much easier for an editor to decide
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 07:15:53PM +0100, Tom Crocker wrote:
I think there's a bunch of different things going on here. There are
demos, which are often 'official'. There are bootlegs of albums that
were initially made only for family or friends - to my mind these are
I'd distinguish release status as follows:
Official: a release consisting of material recorded by the artist, and
sanctioned by the label or artist, made available to the wider public
Promo: a release consisting of material recorded by the artist, and
sanctioned by the label or artist, made
lixobix wrote
I'd distinguish release status as follows:
Official: a release consisting of material recorded by the artist, and
sanctioned by the label or artist, made available to the wider public
Promo: a release consisting of material recorded by the artist, and
sanctioned by the label
. studio recordings, or a soundboard recording of a live show etc. It
would thus include studio master tapes, but would not include a bootleg made
from those tapes.
Staffan Vilcans wrote
lixobix skrev:
Private: a release consisting of material recorded by the artist, and
sanctioned by the label
Staffan Vilcans wrote
th1rtyf0ur skrev:
The issue here is that I find it difficult to mark something as
official
that has literally only one (or very few) hand-made copy, given directly
to another band member, recording engineer, close friend, etc., not
necessarily with any intention of the
Perhaps 'private release' would be a better name.
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Non-commercial-limited-release-status-tp4664240p4664294.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Staffan Vilcans wrote
Kuno Woudt skrev:
Wasn't a demo typically used by bands to try to get a record deal? So
they would make several (or more) copies of such a demo, to give to
agents and send to record labels and maybe music press. So as a
release it is not intended for the general
Staffan Vilcans wrote
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev:
Purely internal versions (even if leaked) should not be listed.
But why not? Aren't we supposed to be the ultimate source of music
information? Why should we put such a limit to it then? It does seem
like
interesting data for me at
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Staffan Vilcans lt;
liftarn@
gt;wrote:
lixobix skrev:
The issue isn't whether the release is a demo, it's about non-public
releases. The release could be an entirely new studio album (see BoC),
but
its the manner
Following an editing discussion (https://musicbrainz.org/edit/27310045), a
new release status for non-commercial / limited releases might be useful.
This would include demos, studio sessions, or other releases that are
ultimately created by the artist that are distributed to band members, label
David Gasaway wrote
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:40 AM, lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt; wrote:
The advantage would be similar to that of having different RG types, i.e
it
would be possible to group recordings according to type. So you could
have a
list of all studio recordings, without live
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Yes, in the current situation, you can not be sure an album is studio or
if
nobody bothered to check live.
This is a small problem that could would be solved. Currently there is no
distinction between a studio album and an album lacking the correct
secondary type. So
rossetyler wrote
As much as possible, I don't like to (re)define things and, I would
think, MB guidance shouldn't strive to either. So, if the artist (by way
of an official publication/release) infers that it is live and/or
studio by using those words, then it is. Of course, using the name
Staffan Vilcans wrote
We already have a free text entry that can be used for that and much more.
David Gasaway wrote
I would like to see some of the above as additional attributes on the
recording-of AR. Of course, it would be silly to have the same list
of types on both the Recording and
tommycrock wrote
Based on suggestions here I've updated my proposed changes. A comparison
with the existing text can be seen at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User:Tommycrock/proposal/Release_Group/Type/Compilationdiff=65830oldid=65824
I'm not trying to change meaning (except
Following on from the 'Demo' RG type discussions, what does everyone think
about the idea of 'Studio' as secondary RG type? This would cover releases
consisting predominantly of recordings made in studios, i.e. would cover
most artists' main albums, singles, and EPs. This would mean most of what
How about adding types to recordings, corresponding to release types (or most
of them)? We already have a 'Specific recording types' section in the
Recordings guide, currently with only 'live' listed. The following could
possibly be used:
Spokenword
Interview
Audiobook
Live
Remix
Edit
DJ-mix
Demo
tommycrock wrote
While I was looking at compilation, I thought there were some problems
with
the primary type section in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type.
I thought the guidance on albums wasn't great and got a bit mixed up about
defining primary or secondary types, but it turns
Frederik quot;Fresoquot; S. Olesen-2 wrote
Den 31-03-2014 15:12, lixobix skrev:
and if in doubt to choose album.
Please don't. if in doubt - leave blank. Missing information is
infinitely better than wrong information. If you're not sure whether
something is an album or EP or something else
tommycrock wrote
I want to clarify the use of compilation to include 'rarities' albums, and
get your suggestions. I also want to fix a discrepancy with the official
release group style guide.
I want to change the start of
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type#Compilation to :
A
Add 'Demo' as secondary release group type. This would allow demos and
(non-live/broadcast) studio sessions to be categorised correctly.
Definition:
A demo is a release that contains preliminary material by an artist, with
the intention that some of the material will be worked on and used for a
tommycrock wrote
I want to clarify the use of compilation to include 'rarities' albums, and
get your suggestions. I also want to fix a discrepancy with the official
release group style guide.
I want to change the start of
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type#Compilation to :
A
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
It's just that adding two rels (well, for bandcamp, three, with the
streaming one
which I do add) feels a bit over the top.
Perhaps we should allow multiple relationship types to be mapped to one URL?
--
View this message in context:
tommycrock wrote
On 23 Mar 2014 19:09, lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt; wrote:
Add 'Demo' as secondary release group type. This would allow demos and
(non-live/broadcast) studio sessions to be categorised correctly.
Would it be useful to give a (rough) definition? I'm not sure I'd put most
tommycrock wrote
On 24 Mar 2014 18:28, lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt; wrote:
The problem is, where do you draw the line? There are many types of
compilation, and deciding which would fit into which of two categories
could
be difficult. Some compilations are a mixture of released
tommycrock wrote
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
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,
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM, lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt; 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
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.
___
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:
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
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2014-03-06 13:23 GMT+01:00 Frederik Freso S. Olesen lt;
freso.dk@
gt;:
Den 06-03-2014 12:33, jesus2099 skrev:
could be called unsure, unverified, etc. I let the english speakers
find
the
appropriate work.
for cases like The song is sometimes co-credited
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:33 PM, jesus2099 lt;
hta3s836gzacohe@
gt;wrote:
could be called unsure, unverified, etc. I let the english speakers find
the
appropriate work.
for cases like The song is sometimes co-credited to Reginald Connelly
but not only
Staffan Vilcans wrote
30 januari 2014, drsaunde lt;
drsaunde@
gt; skrev:
What i'm saying is that mini-album and EP are the same thing with a
different name. Why should we have 2 categories that represent the same
thing?
I'd say they are not. An EP is generally 4-5 tracks while a
+1
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-287-Move-USB-and-slotMusic-formats-out-of-Digital-Media-tp4661867p4661881.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
drsaunde wrote
What i'm saying is that mini-album and EP are the same thing with a
different name. Why should we have 2 categories that represent the same
thing?
Albums are sometimes called LP's. Should the fact that we have a category
Album block us from adding a new category LP, well
drsaunde wrote
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
Not really - proposals pass if they're not vetoed. kuno specifically said
he wasn't vetoing this - I'm not sure about drsaunde so let's wait a bit
and see if he clarifies it :)
Based on the examples provided and the proposal, I cannot find any
drsaunde wrote
Mihai Spinei wrote
Got a couple of +1s for mini-albums, so I'd suggest to add just them for
now, will debate maxi-singles later. RFV
ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-282
wiki:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:D4rkie/Release_Group/Type#Mini-Album
+1, I don't see any problem here, nor with Church, Buddhist Temple, Community
Centre, Music Hall, MUsic Venue, Club etc.
Although I would say 'Stadium' and 'Arena' should be separate.
--
View this message in context:
I know this is closed, but I may as well write it here. I don't see any
problem with a list of venue types as places. What is a problem is the
definitions in https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Place.
The dichotomy between Studio and Venue does not make sense. The venue has no
relevance to whether the
jacobbrett wrote
I can't see a single track listed as …Baby One More Time (radio version)
under the linked recording.
Third one down?
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/9aa77fa3-1a7d-4ff9-a5ce-8c3dc072fa52
jacobbrett wrote
Also, in the second example you're advocating that the recording should
jacobbrett wrote
Tom Crocker wrote
It seems to me that for bootlegs we should be putting the track titles as
they are on the release (correcting typos and order issues) and entering
fully corrected names for the recordings. That seemed to be what demono
thought when I asked about this in
Looks good to me.
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Fwd-RFC-STYLE-248-tp4657617p4657626.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
symphonick wrote
1) not unless we can have the same page for both classical
non-classical.
maybe look into merging the pages in a later step, if possible?
2) capitalisation, especially regarding classical, is language-dependent
2013/9/3 lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt;
1) Since you
Mike Morrison wrote
Hi all,
Continuing the thread below from the mb-users list; thanks for the
replies so far there. I'm coming to this list to ask whether some of
the MB documentation could be clarified with respect to this
distinction? My sense is that prior to NGS, many variant spellings
+1
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-240-add-whosampled-to-other-db-whitelist-tp4657454p4657515.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style
+1
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-233-New-cover-art-types-tp4657293p4657411.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
+1 from me, except that I'm still a bit unclear what a snap case is!
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-227-More-new-packaging-types-tp4655769p4657412.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
+1
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Add-Resident-Advisor-to-Other-Databases-whitelist-tp4657327p4657413.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style
1) Since you are incorporating and modifying sections from CSG, would that
render those sections obsolete? It seems that the gap between
classical/non-classical style is closing in most respects, so amalgamating
the relevant sections would be an idea.
2) I would suggest we have one general page
Sheamus Patt wrote
What I want to avoid is having locations in countries other than the USA
or Canada omit this level just because it's not one of those two
countries. I'm pretty sure that, for example, Australia and Russia have
these same issues, and so locations should include the extra
LordSputnik wrote
So this is going to be dealt with in track title guidelines? Is the
sentence in my first post OK temporarily, until the track titles proposal
is done?
Well, it reads as an odd phrase to me:
Parts of the chosen track title which relate it to a release
Relate it to a release,
LordSputnik wrote
Yeah I disagree about using the outermost packaging, because, for example,
I'd much rather know that a CD came in a digipak than know the CD had a
slipcover. They're both useful to know, but different people will have
different preferences for which should be recorded.
Could
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:08:30AM -0700, lixobix wrote:
One minor point: The second sentence in the description for city
should be removed (Additional disambiguation should be given...) as
the disambiguation is now included in state. Perhaps move the example
to state, just
1) Wouldn't it be better to move the live recordings section from
Style/Recording to here, rather than referencing Style/Recording?
2) There's still the issue th1rtyf0ur highlighted in the RFC: what happens
when two tracks contain different ETI, or one has none? Do we keep both/it?
Tom Crocker wrote
I'd prefer it if items were more optional and we trusted to common sense
(or altered and voted where we disagreed with what someone else had done).
I don't see the benefit in adding a 'Venue', 'City' or 'State' to
Glastonbury festival or Rock Am Ring.
Something like:
Live
Tom Crocker wrote
1) is probably dependent on the outcome of the live RFC
2) is covered by the rule, select the recording title based on the most
common track title. If it includes ETI, keep it. (in other words, if it's
in one track title and not in two track titles, you wouldn't keep it
Tom Crocker wrote
2) What about a 50/50 split? Leave it to user discretion?
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/a948c4ab-cc2e-4419-bb62-6a59c6899726
That recording looks like it only has one track, but my memory was
Consistent Original Data said use the most common and if there's a tie,
use
Sheamus Patt wrote
Yes, state should definitely be included for those countries that
commonly use it. I don't like USA and Canada being exceptions here where
it's mandatory, but I don't have a good alternative. Perhaps we could
just say State (or province) should be included where it's
Looks good to me.
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-240-add-whosampled-to-other-db-whitelist-tp4657248p4657259.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Tom Crocker wrote
To me, this is more a question of what the track title should be. I don't
use iTunes so I don't know if they put that splash on every explicit
track.
If not, then I'd have thought it goes with the track as ETI. Looking at
listings on other sites and Puddy Suspectz soundcloud
+1 :)
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-240-add-whosampled-to-other-db-whitelist-tp4657248p4657263.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style
LordSputnik wrote
Another thing which we haven't considered is removing the title
altogether.
Since the recording title is so dependent in track titles, it seems almost
redundant. But please let's not go there!
I don't see why that makes them redundant.
--
View this message in context:
LordSputnik wrote
I've tweaked the proposal to improve the wording. I think this should
solve
lixobix's problem with the contradictory paragraphs.
Will keep the expiration time the same, since there has been no change to
the actual guidance in the proposal. Please let me know if you prefer
th1rtyf0ur wrote
OK, I'm hoping this is the last edit, as we've gone WAY off my original
intended purpose (lesson learned, heh).
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Th1rtyf0ur/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Live_bootlegs
Per nikki's suggestion, I've moved the Recordings block into this
jesus2099 wrote
*1.* We already can have dates on recording-work AR (only medley is
missing yet)
*2.* nikki says that areas will be linkable too in the future
So we will have to make dates and areas information visible in a new
column of the /artist/mbid/recordings page.
I don't understand
Tom Crocker wrote
I've no idea how you construct a good guide, unless it either
has to do with being 'named' or by listing a set of things to move, and
keep all others.
I think your right. That said, as I suggested earlier, I would be happy for
everything to go in the ETI, giving each
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Ben Ockmore lt;
ben.sput@
gt; wrote:
I've tweaked the proposal to improve the wording. I think this should
solve lixobix's problem with the contradictory paragraphs.
Will keep the expiration time the same, since there has
Perhaps this would work for now:
Live Release Groups, and untitled live Releases, should be named by
concatenating the date and location. With the exception of state, which has
special rules below, include as much information as is known, following the
format below.
Syntax: -MM-DD: Event,
Alex Mauer wrote
On 2013-08-22 06:00, lixobix wrote:
Perhaps this would work for now:
Live Release Groups, and untitled live Releases, should be named by
concatenating the date and location. With the exception of state, which
has
special rules below, include as much information as is known
Kuno Woudt wrote
A simple suffix like '(live)' or '(acoustic)' is arguably not part of the
title, so I can understand moving that to the disambiguation field, but
the default should be to keep things with the title.
So what is a simple and what is a non-simple suffix?
Kuno Woudt wrote
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:20:36PM -0700, lixobix wrote:
Alex Mauer wrote
I understand why we would want to record the state, for certain
countries, but I don’t understand why it matters that the country’s
postal system uses the state in their addresses. It’s not like we’re
Sorry, was typing my response whilst you replied!
I would change these two bits:
City can be the city, town or village where the concert was held.
Additional disambiguation should be given if there are multiple
identically-named cities in the same state or country, e.g. Franklin,
Franklin
LordSputnik wrote
I don't see why disambiguation is poorly defined - it's whatever needs to
be in the field to disambiguate the name.
Well yes, but it's circular logic, because it assumes you know what the
title is.
LordSputnik wrote
I still believe that the definition of ETI means that this
LordSputnik wrote
Yes, and so you'd move the ETI to the disambiguation. The proposal says
if
the chosen track title contains ETI... Move it to the disambiguation
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz
Alex Mauer wrote
On 08/21/2013 05:42 PM, Tom Crocker wrote:
Maybe it could be organised better but it's there.
Live concerts with a single, unique release title should extend the
title of the release group with date and location information as above,
using the syntax [-MM-DD: ]Title[:
Tom Crocker wrote
I think the logic is :
Title = most common track title = Song (acoustic)
if the chosen track title contains ETI... Move it to the disambiguation
Title = Song, disambiguation = acoustic
On Aug 22, 2013 12:39 AM, lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt; wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
Yes
th1rtyf0ur wrote
Anyway, there haven't been any major changes to this lately, so if there
are no further issues, anyone want to +1 the current entry so we can move
to the RFV stage?
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Th1rtyf0ur/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Live_bootlegs
1) The guide still
Alex Mauer wrote
On 08/20/2013 11:02 AM, Sheamus Patt wrote:
Why does it matter if it’s used in the address?
It matters precisely because editors might not know it's unique. E.g.
few editors would know that Pasadena, USA might be referring to
Pasadena, TX, USA and not the better known
symphonick wrote
2013/8/18 lixobix lt;
arjtaplin@
gt;
symphonick wrote
The language parts still need some work. I'm not a fan of English for
everyone, and I'm not a fan of consistency either; I prefer that we
simply store the original title in the title field. Actually, I don't
Looks good to me. Are there any particular criteria for whitelisting a site?
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-Add-Rockipedia-to-the-Other-Databases-whitelist-blup-tp4656977p4656994.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at
caller#6 wrote
On 08/18/2013 08:39 PM, th1rtyf0ur wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 08:27:24AM -0700, lixobix wrote:
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:30:55PM -0700, caller#6 wrote:
(Slight tangent, sorry, but) I've never liked how MB uses bootleg.
Unofficial would make more sense
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:30:55PM -0700, caller#6 wrote:
(Slight tangent, sorry, but) I've never liked how MB uses bootleg.
Unofficial would make more sense to me.
To my ear, bootleg and pirated copy and unlicensed compilation and
sanctioned audience recording and
LordSputnik wrote
But you wouldn't say a Calvin Harris remix of XYZ, you'd say the Calvin
Harris remix of XYZ. Good points on the other two though.
Perhaps we could do something like:
IF the ETI is a named version (eg. remix/mix/edit) of the song, then
include it in the title. In all
Bill Purosky wrote
Wouldn't media given away like that be promotional instead of official
or bootleg?
--
Billy Yank
Bill Purosky
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
- probably Paul Rodriguez (not Ambrose Bierce)
On 8/16/2013 6:42 PM,
lixobix wrote
1 - 100 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
