Jan van Thiel wrote:
2008/8/18 Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe that unique tracks should have unique track names across all
releases. This seems to be essential for distinguishability of tracks by
their track names...
Each name has one sound and each sound has one name.
[...]
2008/8/18 Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe that unique tracks should have unique track names across all
releases. This seems to be essential for distinguishability of tracks by
their track names, effectively describing any differences in sound (ie
unique tracks) with unique, specific track
What about Metallica and U2 both having a song called one,
should we add [the U2 song] and [the Metallica song] in the track title?
Or when Johhny Cash covered the the U2 one, should we add that
explicitly to the track title?
And with live versions, should we enter the date of the performance to
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:56:18PM -0400, Tim wrote:
Forgive me for beating a 2-years-dead horse, but I have not yet given my
thoughts on the issue. I believe that if there was any consensus in the
discussions I have been catching up on, it is all voices are welcome. To
begin:
[...]
I
Bram: Sure, two artists creating unique tracks called one would break my
system as written earlier; again, I am coming from the tagging perspective
so I should have written the idea as: each unique sound is paired with one
and only one unique title, where title is of course Artist Name - Track
Forgive me for beating a 2-years-dead horse, but I have not yet given my
thoughts on the issue. I believe that if there was any consensus in the
discussions I have been catching up on, it is all voices are welcome. To
begin:
I believe that unique tracks should have unique track names across all
Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Robert Kaye wrote:
Agreed 100%. If anyone needs any _more_ reason than that, I can put my
evil overlord hat on. Between TaggerScript becoming a reality and this
reasoning, there is no logical way to support the removal of (Album
version). Period.
Can I take as a final
Robert Kaye wrote:
Agreed 100%. If anyone needs any _more_ reason than that, I can put my
evil overlord hat on. Between TaggerScript becoming a reality and this
reasoning, there is no logical way to support the removal of (Album
version). Period.
Can I take as a final decision and update the
reasoning, there is no logical way to support the removal of (Album
version). Period.
Can I take as a final decision and update the wiki pages?
this will not be stated more definitive than that. please go ahead :)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:53:28 +0200, Nikki wrote:
If Picard 0.8 comes out within a month, then would be two consecutive
changes. (this argument does not hold if Lukas says Picard 0.8 takes
longer)
Well, 0.7 is not a stable release yet (according to the wiki page...),
so I
can't imagine 0.8
i'll quote from the other thread, because it might not be read by all
users who are interested into the album version issue:
I am _extremly_ sceptic that these problems will be solved by
TaggerScript , given the ideas i've picked up in this thread (i don't
want to dampen the euphoria, but it
On 19/06/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:19:41 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
firstly, i don't think any DB/Tagger changes will change the situation
(see my previous post).
Well, my experience says the opposite. In my very humble experience here
at MB, every
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 09:03:49AM +0200, Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
The argument of how ones tags would suffer by a SG change should be
banned from the mb-style mailing list, if there is a majority of the
community for a change.
Hmm, I mostly agree. However, I think we should still consider the
On 6/20/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Against doing it now:
- SameTrack ARs will get entered much more frequently if the TaggerScript
uses them. We will probably need a Style change in this area anyway. If
Picard 0.8 comes out within a month, then would be two consecutive changes.
Citerar Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we decided to, sure why not? Then we would know the live songs are
(live), but it isn't super critical because in most cases, the live
recording is of the original recording. One exception to this is when
a band plays only a portion of the original
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:50:11 +0200, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
On 6/20/06, Don Redman wrote:
(this argument does not hold if Lukas says Picard 0.8 takes longer)
No, Picard 0.8 will not come within a month.
OK, I withdraw my argument (which was not a veto anyway).
Since this issue has been more
On 18/06/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means we may need to add single version to an edited track on a
single that isn't marked like that on the cover. Sometimes this track
may be the first released. But it can be very confusing to do it
otherwise.
say you have a single
On 18/06/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be concrete: If people are able to retrieve this informtation for
tagging purposes, and if ARs are displayed in a more practical way,
THEN, there will be no need anymore to give the same track title to all
versions of the same song, because
I agree with Nikki's original request, that (album version) be left
alone if that is what the original CD carries.
We've already got to the tagging vs. music encyclopedia stage of the
debate so to avoid this bogging down into those camps my question is:
what problem is/was the guideline
Chris Bransden wrote:
i'm not sure i'm reading this right, but surely this is the wrong way
round? we should be keeping contextual information *now*, and then
perhaps thinking about moving it to ARs when this info can be moved to
tags?
No, in my opinion this is not the wrong way around. The
Cristov Russell wrote:
since the release type isn't tagged.
Just as a side note: it is! There just are no players etc. that use
these tags.
--
derGraph
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On 6/19/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18/06/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means we may need to add single version to an edited track on a
single that isn't marked like that on the cover. Sometimes this track
may be the first released. But it can be very
On 19/06/06, derGraph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
i'm not sure i'm reading this right, but surely this is the wrong way
round? we should be keeping contextual information *now*, and then
perhaps thinking about moving it to ARs when this info can be moved to
tags?
No, in
On 6/19/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18/06/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In conclusion I propose to postpone this debate until Picard 0.8 comes
out. I then propose not to lead a debate about principles, but a debate
about concete solutions to this and the related
Hi,
First of all: I think it's a very bad idea to remove information just
because people want their music collections ordered nicely. If you
have problems with ' (album version)' in a track title, Why not just
remove it in your tags?
On 6/18/06, Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Title (XY
Removing a version name like 'album version' is completely arbitrarily
and must stop. If I had anything to say.
of course you do. your position as a major contributor (#1 on the top
editors list) gives your voice a bit more weight IMHO than a normal
contributor might have.
regards, stefan
On 6/19/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Removing a version name like 'album version' is completely arbitrarily
and must stop. If I had anything to say.
of course you do. your position as a major contributor (#1 on the top
editors list) gives your voice a bit more weight IMHO
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:19:41 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
firstly, i don't think any DB/Tagger changes will change the situation
(see my previous post).
Well, my experience says the opposite. In my very humble experience here
at MB, every change at the fringes of the overall structure of
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:46:40 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote:
The big problem I see with AR's, is that we have to make them before
we can use them. At this time, you don't link each song from an
Add/Import to the original recording, and I for one will not go
through the database now and link
On 6/19/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:46:40 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote:
The big problem I see with AR's, is that we have to make them before
we can use them. At this time, you don't link each song from an
Add/Import to the original recording, and I for one
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:15:19 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
On 6/19/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
by saying that all
indentically named tracks are indenticle in contet you require users
to have heard all instances of the track in question.
It's not a bijection, it's an injection
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:42:22 +0200, david scotson wrote:
I personally ran a script over my collection to attach the original
release date (or at least the earliest in MB) to the version I had,
even if it was on a greatest hits or compilation. I simply ignored any
text in brackets (you can go
On 6/19/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:15:19 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
On 6/19/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
by saying that all
indentically named tracks are indenticle in contet you require users
to have heard all instances of the track in
? This is not a democracy. (thank
god!)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron
Cooper
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:12 AM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On 6/19/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
derGraph
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 2:34 PM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version)
Beth wrote:
I disagree. [...] Why should someone how barely edits
have the same say as a major contributor
On 6/19/06, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't say only by the number of edits. That states contributions, there
are many ways to contribute. Zout happens to contribute with edits, has been
on the style council has done a lot for MB, I think that is a fair reason
zout's thoughts should have
On Jun 19, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
Removing a version name like 'album version' is completely
arbitrarily
and must stop. If I had anything to say.
of course you do. your position as a major contributor (#1 on the top
editors list) gives your voice a bit more weight IMHO
Sorry, I stand corrected.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert
Kaye
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:18 PM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version)
On Jun 19, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Stefan Kestenholz wrote
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:18:16 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote:
Everyone in the Style Council has a voice and that voice is not really
connected to the number of edits made by that person. We do appreciate
the hard work by all of our editors, but that shouldn't give them
greater power here. If we
1) the style council does not exist, for a long time now already.
everybody who speaks here (except rob and don) are community members
like everybody else.
2) the reason i wrote that statement before is because jan said if i
had a say here which, if you read between the lines, speaks for a
guidelines over to the highest modder. If styleguides were decided by
the top 10 modders only, then we wouldn't have these mailing lists...
but we don't have the mailing lists for unbelievably bloated
dicussions like this one. please be aware, that this is a personal
opinion, and does not
On 6/19/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And now back to the topic!
now that the discussion finally was getting interesting ;-)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:17:38PM +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote:
I've made a small summary, I hope I haven't forgotten any arguments.
If so, please reply and add them in one of the lists below.
Thanks for this!
Against
---
- people like having the same track name for the same tracks on
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:17:38 +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote:
The Idea: Keeping 'album version' in track titles as opposed to the
present situation.
Against
---
- people like having the same track name for the same tracks on
different releases. this, however, is already the case for e.g. live
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:38:14AM +0200, Don Redman wrote:
Against doing it now:
- SameTrack ARs will get entered much more frequently if the TaggerScript
uses them. We will probably need a Style change in this area anyway.
I don't quite understand the point here, once we have tagger script
it seems to step on toes. That as well I am sorry about. :(
Can't win 'em all. :)
Nyght aka Beth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan
Kestenholz
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:56 PM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style
This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says If the
release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the album
version. I think this is completely wrong. A single does not necessarily
have to include an album version and to me, the 'default' version on a
What she said. Really. I can't phrase it any better than what Nikki did, but
those are words straight out of my heart as well.
It's so totally arbitrary that it sickens me, and we're losing information over
it all the time which will be if not impossible, take lots and lots and lots of
work to
On 6/18/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What she said. Really. I can't phrase it any better than what Nikki did, but
those are words straight out of my heart as well.
It's so totally arbitrary that it sickens me, and we're losing information over
it all the time which will be if not
All support dropping the getting rid of (album version) too.
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Nikki wrote:
By removing '(album version)', we're making it
completely ambiguous.
I disagree.
For my own use, if the track on the single is the same version as that
on the album, it gets no version info because it is *the same track*.
When I search for this track I see that it appears in
Agree completely.
Michelle (dirtyboots)
This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says If
the
release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the
album
version. I think this is completely wrong. A single does not
necessarily
have to include an album
: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:28 AM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version)
You'll never git reid of the fact that same tracks have different names in
different contexts. For example live tracks will have the same effect.
To sort out which tracks are exactly the same you
: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:28 AM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version)
You'll never git reid of the fact that same tracks have different names in
different contexts. For example live tracks will have the same effect.
To sort out which tracks are exactly
On 6/18/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal
collection, which ARs don't cover.
I don't really understand how or what, but I suppose it's a tagger issue then?
//[bnw]
No, I guess that Paula don't want to see the exactly same
Thomas Tholén wrote:
And I don't really see (album version) as stating that it is the same verion
as on an album, I see it as recording the title under which this particular
track is present on this particular release.
But just as (feat. artist B) is not part of the track title, neither is
Schika wrote:
On 6/18/06, Thomas Tholén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also felt spacefish was referring to their own personal
collection, which ARs don't cover.
I don't really understand how or what, but I suppose it's a tagger
issue then?
//[bnw]
No, I guess that Paula don't want to see
On 6/18/06, Paula Callesøe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But just as (feat. artist B) is not part of the track title, neither is
(album version). The problem with MB is that there is no separate field
for version information and there really ought to be.
I like the idea of a seperate field for
I really don't want *identical* tracks to have different Titles. If
the track was *originally* released on an album then the *identical*
song on a Single release should have an *identical* title to the
original Album release. Adding (album version) makes these songs
completely different (when
By my reading of the rules (and in my opinion, too), the rule for
(album version) is:
(1) _usually_ tracks are released as album tracks. The _usual_
situation is that some tracks from the album are released on singles
too.
It's true that some tracks are released initially on singles, or only
on
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 05:30:02AM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote:
I really don't want *identical* tracks to have different Titles. If
the track was *originally* released on an album then the *identical*
song on a Single release should have an *identical* title to the
original Album release.
I agree totally with removing the album version rule.
To answer a few points raised.
Identical tracks should always (in theory) all be identically titled, but
in reality this will never happen. A live track will have (live) added to
the title if its released as a track on a studio recorded
On 6/18/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(2) It's reasonable to expect (though here I'm sure there are
disagreements) that a song have a single name (by a song I mean the
exact same song, not remixes, edits, etc.), no matter where it
appears. So at least some people (me included, I'd
the db.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron
Cooper
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 4:47 AM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] (album version)
mudcrow, if there is an original version of the song Lift then the
point I
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 06:46:47AM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote:
I am more than happy having live recordings of songs titled the same
as the original recording. In fact, it works out great on Last.fm
because the stats grow for a specific song whether I play a bootleg
recording or the original.
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 05:30:02AM -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote:
I really don't want *identical* tracks to have different
Titles. If
the track was *originally* released on an album then the
*identical*
song on a Single release should have an *identical* title to the
original Album
It also means putting (live) onto live albums. Do you support
adding that to every single track of a live album for consistency?
No but if it's listed that way it should not be removed.
By the way, we do have the
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameTrackRelationshipType to
clarify the
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:15:16AM -0500, Cristov Russell wrote:
This is dangerous logic. While MB may not be just for tagging, people
contribute to MB primarily for tagging purposes.
I'll agree there, the data should still be useful for tagging. I'm just
pointing out that titles don't have to
cases where we simply don't have the flexibility in Picard for everyone to
be satisfied, so it's not a very good argument.
i agree completly with nikkis suggestion, and the PRO arguments to this change.
i'd just like to add to this discussion, that although it might be
nice to have some field
You sure won't get a veto from me! Please go ahead...
azertus
Nikki schreef:
This keeps coming up and I hate it. ExtraTitleInformationStyle says If the
release is a single, of course one of the tracks is going to be the album
version. I think this is completely wrong. A single does not
On 6/18/06, Schika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my very first reply I had a single in my hands I got as promo - it
sounds really shit and I wouldn't buy an album from this artist if
they would make one. However, here's the track list again:
1. Title (XY remix)
2. Title (original mix)
3. Title
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:46:47 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote:
I am arguing
that *identical* songs should be *identically* titled. I think most
people would agree with that dream.
No, I don't and I soppose that there is a considerable amount of people
here who disagree.
Actually I think this is
Citerar Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think it is easily assumed that any track on a Single release
without any special attributes (live)/(acoustic)/(demo)/(remix)/(edit)
is a song which has been previously recorded or is not live/acoustic/a
demo/remixed/edited version of the orginal. I
73 matches
Mail list logo
