On 29/04/2015 17:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Hello,
I just entered release 6c73c660-f0c9-45c5-841f-f7e429d99d8d. This one
disc release has been also entered previously in a multi-disc
compilation. During my editing, I changed the track title for tracks 9
to 12, so that checking the
On 27/04/2015 14:03, monxton wrote:
I'm late to the party as usual, but on the subject of Simon Rattle, I
did change his name a while back to eliminate the title from his primary
artist name, on the grounds that he didn't use it professionally. I'm
not sure if I realised at the time
On 21/03/2015 07:55, David Gasaway wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:55 PM, bflaminio
bflaminio-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
I agree with Trevor Downs. If an artist makes a point to include the title,
and if the title is used on cover art, liner notes, and other artifacts of
On 02/01/2014 17:14, Frederik Freso S. Olesen wrote:
Den 02-01-2014 12:30, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
I may be wrong, but I don't think a
user will one day need an easy way to select together the cathedrals and
the Buddhist temples.
If you can think of it, chances are someone will want to be
On 29/11/2013 08:24, Staffan Vilcans wrote:
monxton skrev:
The ETI guideline you point is for Additional information on a release
or track name that is not part of its main title, but intended to
distinguish it from different releases or tracks with the same main
title.
Yes, the title
On 27/11/2013 07:16, Staffan wrote:
Tue Nov 26 2013 17:04:20 GMT+0100, monxton
musicbrainz-m5hwismppitqbiwwtkqawx2eb7je5...@public.gmane.org skrev:
OK. So does that mean that:
a) you think that the guidelines:
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release do not apply to this release, or
b) you
On 27/11/2013 10:14, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I started creating an updated version of
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Classical_Music_FAQ here:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Classical_Music_FAQ.
I only ensured that the points were still relevant and their solutions
up to date,
So it's been established that the translations are indeed what's on the
cover, and we are always on shaky ground when it comes to that because
some editors rate that very highly.
Not that I'm bitter or anything, but having been previously outvoted
when I objected to an editor changing a track
On 26/11/2013 15:16, Staffan Vilcans wrote:
monxton skrev:
This album of Bulgarian songs was produced by Joe Boyd, essentially for
an English-speaking audience, and the cover has titles in Bulgarian with
English translations in parens. Does anyone here think that the
translations should
On 25/11/2013 10:00, Staffan Vilcans wrote:
Per Starbäck skrev:
Often original titles are formatted in a special way, often in a smaller
or
different typeface. It can look like in this extract:
[image: Infogad bild 1]
from http://musicbrainz.org/release/7051fd1a-0b4a-4de5-b827-5591d4bf61c3
On 25/11/2013 21:27, Per Starbäck wrote:
Now I think I worded my question wrong. It's not actually about
translations of the song titles. It's about mentioning the original song
that this is a (translated) version of.
I have releases with translations of the titles (for the benefit of
those
On 20/11/2013 13:11, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
Yeah. That classical FAQ is horribly outdated, and I think the best
option is to simply remove it.
I knew you were going to say that :-)
That particular answer is quite wrong, I agree. But there is some good
stuff in there, and there is
On 05/10/2013 10:43, symphonick wrote:
IMO classifying works as classical / non-classical should be
avoided at all costs. You'd have to spend a LOT of time defining
classical first.
You're right, but then we do this every time we make the decision does
CSG apply to this release? or sometimes
On 20/04/2013 01:51, pabouk wrote:
I did not read all the discussion yet but I think that the recordings should
be credited to the real artists because there are many cases where the same
recording is released with real credits and also with Alfred Scholz
credits. IMHO such recording should
On 19/04/2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Shouldn't of audio track be of an audio track or of audio tracks?
Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying the job involves eating pieces of
chocolate bar.
Brilliant! Is the job available?
On 18/04/2013 18:55, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
See
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type
for
the proposed changes to the relationship.
Ticket is at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-168
Expected passing date is April 21
+1, oh yes!
This is another what's printed on the cover vs. what we know
dilemma, and I'd appreciate a discussion among classical editors who
care.
The problem is how to handle the recordings of Alfred Scholz, a prolific
creator of budget classical recordings the 1970s. I won't go into all
the details
On 19/04/2013 23:41, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
(...) Moving back here for the discussion. My last suggestion was
creating one dummy artist for this. Dummy because we don't know who the
real artist(s) for those performances is/are. This dummy artist could
have aliases to allow using him in an
On 04/04/2013 02:06, Sheamus Patt wrote:
Seems I was wrong though - Diana - Princess of Wales is already an MB
artist
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/5c216e1a-cfda-445a-b6cd-c30b90b12bb8 .
Yes, but those credits are just wrong:
On 01/04/2013 19:48, Deanna Earley wrote:
Songs are sometimes written with a dedication to another artist, but MB
doesn't seem to have any way to mark this yet.
Can a in homage to relationship be added to works?
We do already have the tribute to relationship for release groups. So
I think
On 09/04/2013 13:37, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM, monxton wrote:
We do already have the tribute to relationship for release groups. So
I think this should use the same form of words.
That'd restrict it quite a lot, though. Britten's Cello Symphony
Alex Mauer wrote
http://notlob.eu/labels/op-test?id=f91e3a88-24ee-4563-8963-fab73d2765ed
for example (Schubert works list organized by opus — try it for most any
artist that uses opus numbering and you’ll find similar huge swathes of
red indicating missing works).
Related:
On 29/03/2013 19:44, monxton wrote:
c) It would save time if the work disambiguation comment, if any, was
included in the display.
Ignore this one, I see now it already does that.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style
On 06/03/2013 21:31, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Lastly, a general remark for future development: There are many kinds
of events we could capture, many date fields and place fields and ARs
we could add. But I wouldn't want this to turn into BiographyBrainz
so we should restrain ourselves here. We
On 06/03/2013 16:07, Alastair Porter wrote:
I had a quick talk with #musicbrainz
(http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2013/2013-03/2013-03-06.html#T14-52-01-64904)
and a few solutions were proposed (each with good (+) and bad (-) points:
1) Create a regular release that represents
On 05/03/2013 09:45, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
From http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Artist :
For people, use the country where they were born and raised. For
groups, use the country where the band was formed. If the artist is
predominantly active in a different country, use that
On 18/02/2013 20:10, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:05 PM, symphonick wrote:
The last part of my split proposal.
It will expire next Monday, the 25th of February 2013.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Symphonick/Works_based_on_Works
On 14/02/2013 16:17, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 02/14/2013 05:09 AM, symphonick wrote:
Allright, let's give it a shot. I've updated arrangement to be more
precise. When we think the text is OK, I'll resend the RFC without CSG in
the subject line.
It would be nice to get some input from someone
On 20/02/2013 23:50, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 02/20/2013 05:24 PM, monxton wrote:
Yes, I'd like to see all the pop songs that are based on classical
themes here - the sort where they take a hook and its essential
harmonies and build a song around them. Like this one:
http://musicbrainz.org
On 01/02/2013 20:40, LordSputnik wrote:
This proposal is designed to improve the correctness of artist names in the
database, where the artist name starts with The or some other definite
article. It also aims to improve the consistency of artist credits for these
artists.
No fundamental
On 15/11/2012 08:35, LordSputnik wrote:
Ah, but if a rule is only good sometimes, then it can't really be a rule :P
That's why they are not rules but guidelines. The details can always be
overridden if doing so gets us closer to their intent.
___
On 13/11/2012 22:39, LordSputnik wrote:
Profpatsch wrote
What about this recording that appears byte-by-byte as *exactly* the
same binary file on two different releases? How would you treat that
after removing recordings?
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/e23043c0-c744-4c22-bcb1-f39fa19ae5ed
On 12/11/2012 01:03, Sheamus Patt wrote:
So, I'd be happy to support this proposal, but only once we have better
ways in MB to deal with cases like this and many others where we still
need to associate those different unique audio segments to a common
session, with common performers, venue
On 05/11/2012 19:00, Frederik Freso S. Olesen wrote:
Expiration: 2012-11-11
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-160
The Sessionhttp://thesession.org/ is a jam session resource for
primarily Irish trad. musicians. It contains a a listing of sessions
(e.g., sessions in Barcelona[1]),
On 02/09/2012 14:53, Dibou wrote:
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
This I don't like too much. I mean, I'm just treating the list as a comma
separated performer list with further details in the relationships and I
like it like that - adding more details there makes it more cumbersome
IMO.
On 21/07/2012 20:17, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
Hi all! We just got a mail in support asking to fix some contra-tenor
credits to countertenor, since contra-tenor is not the same thing in
English. Admittedly, I know very little about this, but it's not the
first time someone makes similar
On 05/07/2012 16:35, caller#6 wrote:
On 07/03/2012 11:09 AM, monxton wrote:
On 01/07/2012 19:15, caller#6 wrote:
Along with the ordinality, I think it's necessary to have an optional
text field, c.f. the Disc title on Releases with1 Medium. This would
hold ETI relating the Release
On 01/07/2012 19:15, caller#6 wrote:
On 07/01/2012 08:05 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
My current idea is a pretty simple thing: a series has an MBID, a
name, and a list of things (releases or recordings [1]) in an order.
Is there anything else they need?
I'd imagined a series would
On 30/06/2012 19:39, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really see a big issue with listing Beethoven as composer,
although I know monxton and I won't agree on this one.
As I said in the edit
On 25/06/2012 19:48, Kuno Woudt wrote:
On 25/06/12 20:35, Johannes Weißl wrote:
So why not using Song for all popular works? It could be the first
item on the list or even be selected by default.
What concerns me about this discussion is an unspoken consensus that all
music is either
On 01/06/2012 19:09, SwissChris wrote:
Using just commas to separate (summarized) performers on classical
releases is a very old and widely accepted convention in real-life which
every classical editor is (or should be) familiar with. Ampersands are a
no-go.
The only question would be:
On 30/05/2012 19:26, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 05/29/2012 04:15 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Something like this:
Use a comma to separate multiple artists, except for the last which should
be separated by an ampersand. This is the default offered by the
release editor.
It's probably worth giving an
On 01/06/2012 17:16, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 06/01/2012 10:16 AM, monxton wrote:
Yes, I am fairly sure that that was the intention - to make the
composer section and the performer section uniform in their use of
the comma and separated from each other by a semi-colon.
But recordings don’t have
On 01/06/2012 17:20, Alex Mauer wrote:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-117
This proposal is to suggest that recording artist ACs should use an
ampersand as a final artist separator, following the default behavior of
the AC editor.
In case you are wondering what this is about,
On 01/06/2012 17:32, monxton wrote:
On 01/06/2012 17:16, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 06/01/2012 10:16 AM, monxton wrote:
Yes, I am fairly sure that that was the intention - to make the
composer section and the performer section uniform in their use of
the comma and separated from each other
On 17/05/2012 10:10, symphonick wrote:
2012/5/17 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com
mailto:symphon...@gmail.com
2012/5/17 monxton
musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org
mailto:musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org
On 17/05/2012 00:37, Alex Mauer wrote:
What does “Following
On 09/05/2012 12:45, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
What we must maintain, which was why Recordings were created AFAIK, is a
way to mutualize data in general and specifically ARs, to avoid data
duplication with all the mistakes (and user frustration) which stem from
such duplication. I believe
On 17/05/2012 14:47, symphonick wrote:
2012/5/17 monxton musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org
mailto:musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org
Now you have an example Concerto in c (lowercase) which deserves some
explanation if it is to stay, please. I would prefer to add some advice,
like if you
On 17/05/2012 17:47, caller#6 wrote:
On 05/17/2012 09:12 AM, monxton wrote:
On 17/05/2012 14:47, symphonick wrote:
It's just to show that it's possible that a track can have keys in lower
case. I see it the other way around; if the user is not required to
change c into C minor we don't have
On 17/05/2012 00:37, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 05/16/2012 05:42 PM, symphonick wrote:
A very rough draft:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:symphonick/CSG/Language/English
What does “Following the style in Grove, major or minor does not
have to be added” mean?
If it’s omitted, is major to be
On 01/05/2012 18:52, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 05/01/2012 09:21 AM, monxton wrote:
I don't find this a useful response. Actually I find it quite annoying,
as it's a classic example or arguing against something I did not say -
that we should have EITHER the composer OR the performers.
Yes, I have
On 02/05/2012 18:28, caller#6 wrote:
Hi all,
as discussed recently[1], there are a few problems with the logic of
sort names.
[1]
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Artist-Sortname-for-Knights-of-the-Realm-tp4595524.html
I can't find a copy of RFC-203. Can you point me at one?
On 02/05/2012 20:13, caller#6 wrote:
On 05/02/2012 11:55 AM, monxton wrote:
On 02/05/2012 18:28, caller#6 wrote:
Hi all,
as discussed recently[1], there are a few problems with the logic of
sort names.
[1]
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Artist-Sortname-for-Knights-of-the-Realm
On 30/04/2012 17:51, Dibou wrote:
monxton-2 wrote
d) We should also say that these credits are not a substitute for full
ARs for the recordings. ARs list all the given performers, not only the
most important ones. Moreover, ARs tell us what role was performed.
With just credits, we don't
On 30/04/2012 17:44, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 04/28/2012 06:52 PM, monxton wrote:
c) I would consider it a highly undesirable outcome if the recording did
not identify the composer. So personally I would only find it acceptable
for the credits to list the performers in place of the composer
On 29/04/2012 23:33, symphonick wrote:
2012/4/29 monxton musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org
c) I would consider it a highly undesirable outcome if the recording did
not identify the composer. So personally I would only find it acceptable
for the credits to list the performers in place
On 30/04/2012 18:26, Dibou wrote:
What about adding words in the artist credit? I just tried this:
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/e10513ee-e859-4a46-9d68-8b3d477cadb5
The credit is Philharmonic Festival Orchestra, conductor Alfred Scholz
, conductor being the join phrase.
It could also
On 29/04/2012 08:29, practik wrote:
What's RL?
I'm not sure if that was irony, but if not, RL stands for Real Life :-)
... in this world, the
prefixes clearly belong at the end ... which means I have a bunch of edits
to cancel, argh.
Thanks!
By the way, in doing those edits I came
On 25/04/2012 18:39, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 04/25/2012 02:21 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
In theory, there's nothing wrong with this. In practice, it's
completely unreasonable until a different UI is in place that allows
to do these changes - nobody is going to go changing all recording
Editor practik has submitted a series of edits to change the artist
sortnames of a load of knights from, e.g.
Sargent, Malcolm, Sir
to
Sargent, Sir Malcolm
His/her reference to the guidelines is:
Names beginning with an abbreviated title, such as Dr., DJ, or MC
should have the
On 28/04/2012 11:45, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
Can we actually act on this now? We still have a lot of Beethoven
concertos with cadenza: Beethoven, while I bet it's not even true for
a lot of them - anyone wants to help clean up? ;) Anyone opposes this?
I'm a little bit bothered that
On 19/03/2012 20:06, symphonick wrote:
I was going to start another thread about CSG track titles when I found
a couple of pages where it says that you should not capitalize op.
no. in English:
https://www.areditions.com/mla/notes/stylesheet.html#musical_compositions
On 22/02/2012 05:30, Nikki wrote:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Medley_Relationship_Type will also need
updating if the separate recording-work relationship goes away.
Currently the displayed phrase is {partial} {live} {instrumental}
{cover} performance of, where would medley go in here?
This
On 09/02/2012 15:33, symphonick wrote:
monxton wrote:
- I've mentioned before that ARs and ACs are not symmetrical, because
ARs have a role (e.g. conductor, cello ...) and ACs do not. I like to
see the role. Conversely, ACs have performance credits and ARs do
ARs and ACs have different attributes at present. With an AR you can
only use the artist's standard name, not a performance name.
Conversely, with an AC you cannot specify a role (e.g. conductor, violin
...) so the AR is much more useful.
I have a few other thoughts which may not necessarily
On 02/01/2012 14:31, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tude (needed for, say, half the
works of Chopin, for example)
Wondering why the name for this type would be in French? Of course in
your example of Chopin they were named in French, but plenty of other
On 04/01/2012 01:25, SwissChris wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:42 AM, ChurruKa churr...@hangar18.cc wrote:
On the work types definitions, I'm not sure Song has to cover
instrumental
works (i.e. compositions with no singing).
I'd propose Tune for instrumental songs
I
On 04/01/2012 12:14, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
About song / tune... http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-2766 is
there, although the fact that Mendelssohn's songs without words are
*songs* without words and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mogwai_songs (all but one or two
On 04/01/2012 19:15, Stephen wrote:
On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I believe we should separate songs (with vocals) from tunes
(without vocals), this seems to me one of the lowest levels, apart
maybe from music versus spoken word, I think we should state it
On 29/11/2011 09:33, Rupert Swarbrick wrote:
I don't have a problem with performed, incidentally. After all, if
you're looking at an artist that you know is a string quartet and you're
told they performed on a certain recording, it's pretty clear how they
did so... Maybe we should work at
On 11/06/2011 01:35, Nikki wrote:
The collaboration relationship is still needed in some cases - if the
collaboration has its own name. I suppose we could theoretically merge
it with the member relationship (removing the distinction between long
term projects and named short term projects) if
On 10/06/2011 05:08, Nikki wrote:
monxton wrote:
You'll have noted Nikki's response where he says that the distinction
between collaboration and member-of-band has not changed with NGS.
Short-term or one-off projects are collaborations.
I'm not the same person as Nicolás. ;)
Excuse me
On 10/06/2011 08:24, Alex Mauer wrote:
I'm not talking about collaboration relationships here,
OK. Look in the corner of the room. See that big grey thing with the
flappy ears?
I'm talking about situations where it is appropriate to
use artist credits instead of creating separate artists
On 09/06/2011 16:35, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 06/08/2011 09:16 AM, monxton wrote:
This (collaboration) relationship type is only intended for short-term
projects consisting of independent artists, who move on after the
collaboration is finished. If the target artist was not this type of
project
I'd like some clarification please, about Duos and their representation
in NGS.
I do a lot of editing of traditional folk music, and in this world there
are many duos. It's always been something of an exercise of judgement to
decide which to enter as collaborations and which as groups, but I
On 24/05/2011 16:59, Philipp Wolfer wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
gnu_andrew-igugqlvvqircv4ilt04...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Sorry, but a process taking time or being painful is not a reason to impose
the views of a few people on everyone else.
I don't think
On 01/02/2011 13:28, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
May I suggest gmane?
It already mirrors many musicbrainz mailing lists, -style for example:
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.style.
It offers an RSS feed for the messages, an old-style frame interface and
a blog-like interface.
David Gasaway wrote:
In a recent edit of mine(1), KRSCuan questioned whether knighted
artists should have Sir in their artist name. I haven't found
anything in the style guides that addresses this.
Arthur Sullivan is a concrete example. His artist name in MusicBrainz
is Sir Arthur
78 matches
Mail list logo
