On 01/12/2012 03:05 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
This is RFC-347, expiring 2012-01-19.
It updates the CSG for the NGS schema, without trying to do anything too
ambitious (cf. CSGv2).
With symphonick resuming work on the full CSG update, I am withdrawing
this RFC in favor of that one (RFC-348 et
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:12 AM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 05:20, pabouk pab...@centrum.cz wrote:
I am glad that you like the idea but I see much more use for the
major artists at release level. They are not only for disambiguation.
Please see above.
Yes.
2012/1/27, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 05:20, pabouk pab...@centrum.cz wrote:
I am glad that you like the idea but I see much more use for the
major artists at release level. They are not only for disambiguation.
Please see above.
Yes. I think it's important to
2012/1/27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:12 AM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org The line
for prominent credit gets a lot murker at the
recording/track level, I think. I'd prefer to keep our composer-as-AC
status quo (at least for now). If only to
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:10, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not so much the wording as the uselessness of the information.
When I am looking at a Beethoven quartet, I don't need to reminded
that Beethoven composed composed that quartet on each performance!
But I very
On 01/27/2012 02:30 PM, David Gasaway wrote:
An assumption that the AC on the recording represents a performance.
The fact that the UI uses the combination of words performance:
recording byAC leads people to read that the artists in the AC
performed the recording. That's not the case.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:40, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
I don’t see how it would help — in fact, I see no difference there. No
matter how you slice it, composer is not a useful thing to put there.
For classical music, the composer generally has little or nothing to do
with the
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:40, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
I don’t see how it would help — in fact, I see no difference there. No
matter how you slice it, composer is not a useful thing to put there.
For classical music, the composer generally has little or nothing to do
Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
writes:
The API should not be changed such a non-systematic way
just to avoid changing applications.
If we were only to consider MB applications such as Picard, I would agree
with you. But I believe we should also think of the non-MB applications.
Alex Mauer wrote
On 01/25/2012 11:35 AM, pabouk wrote:
Why would it be temporary? Why do you think we will change this again?
As I wrote lower in my previous e-mail I think we should
not store objects of the DB (artists) as re-typed plaintext names.
Instead we should relate to the
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 05:20, pabouk pab...@centrum.cz wrote:
I am glad that you like the idea but I see much more use for the
major artists at release level. They are not only for disambiguation.
Please see above.
Yes. I think it's important to remember that we're dealing with
artist
On 01/24/2012 08:15 AM, Marco Curti wrote:
Hi,
Why are we switching from composer to performer in recordings and not in
releases? In my opinion is exactly the same concept, but maybe I'm wrong.
IMO the release artist is much fuzzier than the recording artist, so
there’s more wiggle room
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2012/1/24, pabouk lt;pabouk@gt;:
I forgot to write that I completely agree that the disambiguation field
is a
more appropriate place than the release title for indicating major
release
performers. I never liked putting the performers into the release title.
I
Please excuse me for hurrying. I have to precise the first part of my last
message.
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2012/1/24, pabouk lt;pabouk@gt;:
I forgot to write that I completely agree that the disambiguation field
is a
more appropriate place than the release title for indicating major
2012/1/25 pabouk pab...@centrum.cz
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2012/1/24, pabouk lt;pabouk@gt;:
Yes, tagging is important to bring new users to MB. But using the
disambiguation field would not necessarily break it. It depends on how
the interface presents the data to client applications.
2012/1/25 pabouk pab...@centrum.cz
Please excuse me for hurrying. I have to precise the first part of my last
message.
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2012/1/24, pabouk lt;pabouk@gt;:
I forgot to write that I completely agree that the disambiguation field
is a
more appropriate place than
On 01/25/2012 11:35 AM, pabouk wrote:
Why would it be temporary? Why do you think we will change this again?
As I wrote lower in my previous e-mail I think we should
not store objects of the DB (artists) as re-typed plaintext names.
Instead we should relate to the objects. (the good DB
Thx...
- Original Message -
From: Frederic Da Vitoria
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC-347: CSG update for NGS
2012/1/25 pabouk pab...@centrum.cz
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2012/1/24, pabouk
Am 25.01.2012, 18:48 Uhr, schrieb pabouk pab...@centrum.cz:
As I wrote lower in my previous e-mail I think we should
not reference objects of the DB (artists) by their re-typed
plaintext names. Instead we should unambiguously relate
to the objects by their unique IDs. (the good DB practice)
2012/1/25 lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at
Am 25.01.2012, 18:48 Uhr, schrieb pabouk pab...@centrum.cz:
As I wrote lower in my previous e-mail I think we should
not reference objects of the DB (artists) by their re-typed
plaintext names. Instead we should unambiguously relate
to the objects
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2012/1/17, pabouk lt;pabouk@gt;:
You may enter performance data (e.g. orchestra, conductor, soloist,
and/or
performance year) into the release’s disambiguation comment, as a means
of
identifying a specific release.
Why should we change the CSG rules so much
2012/1/24, pabouk pab...@centrum.cz:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2012/1/17, pabouk lt;pabouk@gt;:
You may enter performance data (e.g. orchestra, conductor, soloist,
and/or
performance year) into the release’s disambiguation comment, as a means
of
identifying a specific release.
Why
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
We will need at least a plug-in for Picard (if it is realizable by a
plug-in).
Probably, but not necessarily: the API could return the concatenation
of the title and the comment. This may be a bad idea fr other reasons,
but at least we should check.
The API
: Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC-347: CSG update for NGS
2012/1/19, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com:
pabouk pab...@centrum.cz writes:
The recording artist should be similar to the disambiguation comment.
Enter the main orchestra or other artist, plus any
pabouk pab...@centrum.cz writes:
The recording artist should be similar to the disambiguation comment.
Enter the main orchestra or other artist, plus any featured artists...
This is a fundamental change too.
- Any proposals how will we handle the resulting inconsistency of the MB
database?
2012/1/19, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com:
pabouk pab...@centrum.cz writes:
The recording artist should be similar to the disambiguation comment.
Enter the main orchestra or other artist, plus any featured artists...
This is a fundamental change too.
- Any proposals how will we handle
Am 19.01.2012, 14:14 Uhr, schrieb Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.com:
I agree that the Recording Artist is meaningless
i don't think it is completely meaningless since it describes somehow what
are the main/important performers, while with ARs i can add lots of names
which migth be of
just read through it again and i'm quite satisfied with the changes.
+1
--
lorenz pressler
PGP 0x92E9551A
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
writes:
I agree that the Recording Artist is meaningless, so this should be
mainly a question of finding which option brings the best benefits to
the end user. Hawke's argument seems right to me: in the performance
list, having the (main) performer(s) is
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
writes:
I agree that the Recording Artist is meaningless, so this should be
mainly a question of finding which option brings the best benefits to
the end user. Hawke's
2012/1/19, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
writes:
I agree that the Recording Artist is meaningless, so this should be
mainly a question of finding which
2012/1/19, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com:
Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
writes:
I agree that the Recording Artist is meaningless, so this should be
mainly a question of finding which option brings the best benefits to
the end user. Hawke's argument seems right to me: in the
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Rupert Swarbrick
rswarbrick-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Eugh. But I dislike the idea of having most recordings in MB not conform
to the style guidelines. When I was learning how to edit
Frederic Da Vitoria writes:
2012/1/19, Rupert Swarbrick wrote
Eugh. But I dislike the idea of having most recordings in MB not conform
to the style guidelines. When I was learning how to edit stuff, I did
two things. Firstly, I looked at things like the CSG. Secondly, I found
releases that
Alex, thank you for updating the CSG.
I am very new in this mailing list so please excuse me that I did not bring
some ideas earlier or that I do not know if they were not discussed already.
The Release Title should be the title of the release. Often this is the
name of the work, or the name
2012/1/17, pabouk pab...@centrum.cz:
You may enter performance data (e.g. orchestra, conductor, soloist, and/or
performance year) into the release’s disambiguation comment, as a means of
identifying a specific release.
Why should we change the CSG rules so much when the CSG+MB is not close to
On 01/13/2012 08:29 PM, lorenz pressler wrote:
i like it but:
You may enter performance data (e.g. orchestra, conductor, soloist,
and/or performance year) into the release’s disambiguation comment, as a
means of identifying a specific release. For instruments, do not use the
perfomer's role
For those who weren't on IRC when we were talking about it,
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Hawke/Proposal/CSG-mod#Keys has been
updated to stop telling people to use the wrong capitalisation for
things like German and Spanish.
I noticed you changed the ASCII quotes to English-style quotes,
On 01/16/2012 11:09 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 01/13/2012 08:29 PM, lorenz pressler wrote:
i like it but:
You may enter performance data (e.g. orchestra, conductor, soloist,
and/or performance year) into the release’s disambiguation comment, as a
means of identifying a specific release. For
-Original Message-
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On
Behalf Of Alex Mauer
Sent: January-16-12 12:09 PM
To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC-347: CSG update for NGS
@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC-347: CSG update for NGS
[snipped]
I didn't change what performance data should be entered, only
where it goes. If it would be bloating up the disambiguation
field, it's currently bloating up the title field instead.
Current CSG
Disambiguation comments *are* shown in searches:
http://test.musicbrainz.org/search?query=testtype=release_gro
uplimit=25advanced=1direct=1
(guess which 4 I just added!)
I'm using a direct search because they haven't been indexed
yet, but the display is the same for the indexed search
On 01/16/2012 03:49 PM, Brant Gibbard wrote:
[snipped]
Is the intention here that the information should be entered in the
disambiguation field INSTEAD of in the title, or in addition to it?
Instead. If there is a situation where the disambiguation comments need
to show up and they don’t,
On 1/12/2012 3:05 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
This is RFC-347, expiring 2012-01-19.
It updates the CSG for the NGS schema, without trying to do anything too
ambitious (cf. CSGv2).
Further discussion has brought forth the point that the Works definition
in CSG-mod was rather tautological
2012/1/14 lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at
i like it but:
You may enter performance data (e.g. orchestra, conductor, soloist,
and/or performance year) into the release’s disambiguation comment, as a
means of identifying a specific release. For instruments, do not use the
perfomer's role
On 01/12/2012 03:49 PM, Ian McEwen wrote:
Generally good; my only comment is that the linked [[Classical Release
Title Style]] doesn't include your changes to disambiguation comments --
you should put up a modified version of that page and link it properly
from the page you link below.
i like it but:
You may enter performance data (e.g. orchestra, conductor, soloist,
and/or performance year) into the release’s disambiguation comment, as a
means of identifying a specific release. For instruments, do not use the
perfomer's role (pianist) but instead note the instrument
This is RFC-347, expiring 2012-01-19.
It updates the CSG for the NGS schema, without trying to do anything too
ambitious (cf. CSGv2).
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Hawke/Proposal/CSG-mod
This draft has not been specifically discussed on IRC, though I have
referred there to the new ideas
Generally good; my only comment is that the linked [[Classical Release
Title Style]] doesn't include your changes to disambiguation comments --
you should put up a modified version of that page and link it properly
from the page you link below.
[[Classical Release Artist Style]] and other linked
49 matches
Mail list logo
