Expiration: 2012-02-28
This RFC is to move the “medley” relationship to an attribute of the
“performance of” relatonship.
More details in jira, http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-97
This was not previously discussed.
___
MusicBrainz-style m
On 02/21/2012 04:47 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> Expiration: 2012-02-28
>
> This RFC is to move the “medley” relationship to an attribute of the
> “performance of” relatonship.
>
> More details in jira, http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-97
>
> This was not previously discussed.
Proposed updat
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 will require one of the devs to wri
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?
On 02/21/2012 11:30 PM, Nikki wrote:
> Currently the displayed phrase is "{partial} {live} {instrumental}
> {cover} performance of", where would medley go in here?
Probably the new join phrase should be “{partial} {live} {instrumental}
{cover} {performance|medley} of”. Though it seems to me that
Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 11:30 PM, Nikki wrote:
>> Currently the displayed phrase is "{partial} {live} {instrumental}
>> {cover} performance of", where would medley go in here?
>
> Probably the new join phrase should be “{partial} {live} {instrumental}
> {cover} {performance|medley} of”.
On 21 February 2012 23:22, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 04:47 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>> Expiration: 2012-02-28
>>
>> This RFC is to move the “medley” relationship to an attribute of the
>> “performance of” relatonship.
>>
>> More details in jira, http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-97
On 02/22/2012 07:39 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
>
> Looks good to me.
Can I get an official +1 on that?
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrain
I think picking the right join phrases is the key to preventing confusion
here. The potential trouble spots I see are "partial medley of" and "cover
medley of," because the attributes would seem to apply to the entire medley,
though really they only apply to parts of it.
If I were completely new
On 03/06/2012 12:05 AM, practik wrote:
> I think picking the right join phrases is the key to preventing confusion
> here. The potential trouble spots I see are "partial medley of" and "cover
> medley of," because the attributes would seem to apply to the entire medley,
> though really they only a
Alex Mauer wrote
>
> These all agree with my understanding of the attributes as they’d be
> used with medley.
>
Would specifying the join phrases not be part of the change proposal? I was
assuming it would be. Sorry if I went off-topic there.
> It may just have to be “medley performances:
Alex Mauer wrote:
> Interesting point. I would expect that in such a case the medley itself
> would be a new work, and we’d need to have a work-work “medley of”
> relationship.
[snip]
> Good idea, but I’m not sure how that will work with the display system.
> It may just have to be “medley per
On 03/09/2012 01:25 PM, practik wrote:
> Alex Mauer wrote
>>
>> These all agree with my understanding of the attributes as they’d be
>> used with medley.
>>
>
> Would specifying the join phrases not be part of the change proposal? I was
> assuming it would be. Sorry if I went off-topic there.
I
On 03/09/2012 02:00 PM, Nikki wrote:
> There already is a work-work medley relationship, so that page needs to
> be updated too and the text you're referring to won't go away just by
> getting rid of the recording-work relationship.
I don’t see a need to change that, as we don’t have a “performanc
On 03/05/2012 09:38 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 07:39 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
>> Looks good to me.
> Can I get an official +1 on that?
>
> —Alex Mauer “hawke”
>
My only reservation is the "medley" definition[1]. It seems too broad.
Not every multiple-titled track is a medley, is it?
Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 02:00 PM, Nikki wrote:
>> There already is a work-work medley relationship, so that page needs to
>> be updated too and the text you're referring to won't go away just by
>> getting rid of the recording-work relationship.
>
> I don’t see a need to change that, as
Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 01:25 PM, practik wrote:
>> Alex Mauer wrote
>>> These all agree with my understanding of the attributes as they’d be
>>> used with medley.
>>>
>> Would specifying the join phrases not be part of the change proposal? I was
>> assuming it would be. Sorry if I went
We were talking about some suggestions I made in a post further up the
thread, on March 5:
practik wrote
>
> EDIT: is a {*partial*} {live} {instrumental} {cover}
> {performance|*medley*} of
> RESULTS: (on release and recording pages) medley including parts of:, (on
> work pages) partially includ
On 12-03-22 01:07 PM, caller#6 wrote:
On 03/05/2012 09:38 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 02/22/2012 07:39 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Looks good to me.
Can I get an official +1 on that?
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
My only reservation is the "medley" definition[1]. It seems too broad.
Not every multiple-titl
On 03/26/2012 01:50 PM, Sheamus Patt wrote:
> I've agree - the current definition is not at all what I think of as a
> medley. Here's the guideline, from
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Medley_Relationship_Type.
>
> This indicates that a track is a compilation of several other
> tracks. This
On 12-03-26 03:17 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 03/26/2012 01:50 PM, Sheamus Patt wrote:
>> I've agree - the current definition is not at all what I think of as a
>> medley. Here's the guideline, from
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Medley_Relationship_Type.
>>
>> This indicates that a track is a
hello,
I also share the concerns about definition of medley stated here
and agree that it would be better under "a performance of" relation, but I
also agree with caller#6, that you gave a really vague meaning to medley
here.
So, I came up with the idea of using the word "juxtapose" as a wider grou
Çilek Koçak wrote
>
> I also share the concerns about definition of medley stated here
> and agree that it would be better under "a performance of" relation, but I
> also agree with caller#6, that you gave a really vague meaning to medley
> here.
> So, I came up with the idea of using the word "j
>
> I'd be inclined to keep it simple and enter potpourris and quodlibets as
> medleys. My gut feeling is that creating separate subcategories for them
> would generate lots of unwinnable arguments ("It's a potpourri!" "No, it's
> a
> medley!") without adding much value to the database.
>
These ty
2012/4/4 çilek
> I notice, though, that you started your forum thread with a question about
>> how to edit some "potpuri" tracks. It's unclear to me whether "potpuri"
>> is
>> a distinct musical form, or simply the Turkish word for "medley." If it
>> is
>> a distinct form, there might be an ar
OK, new attempt at defining "medley":
This indicates that a recording includes two or more otherwise unrelated
works performed as a single continuous piece, in which all of the works are
given roughly equal prominence.
"two or more otherwise unrelated works" to exclude works designed to be
perfor
2012/4/5 practik
> OK, new attempt at defining "medley":
>
> This indicates that a recording includes two or more otherwise unrelated
> works performed as a single continuous piece, in which all of the works are
> given roughly equal prominence.
>
> "two or more otherwise unrelated works" to excl
On 04/05/2012 11:10 AM, practik wrote:
> OK, new attempt at defining "medley":
>
> This indicates that a recording includes two or more otherwise unrelated
> works performed as a single continuous piece, in which all of the works are
> given roughly equal prominence.
>
> Better? Hopefully not wors
On 04/05/2012 12:59 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 04/05/2012 11:10 AM, practik wrote:
>> OK, new attempt at defining "medley":
>>
>> This indicates that a recording includes two or more otherwise unrelated
>> works performed as a single continuous piece, in which all of the works are
>> given roughl
2012/4/5 Alex Mauer
> Does the name of the song/track matter?
>
> e.g. I wouldn’t say “We Will Rock You / We Are the Champions” is a
> medley, even though they’re customarily played as a single continuous
> piece and given equal prominence. (But if the track were titled
> “Medley: We Will Rock Y
This kinda died out, but it seemed that the main problems with it were
about defining "what is a medley" rather than about the change itself
- and since we already have a medley relationship, that seems to be a
second, already existing problem that doesn't necessarily have to
affect the merging of
On 05/16/2012 11:28 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> This kinda died out, but it seemed that the main problems with it were
> about defining "what is a medley" rather than about the change itself
> - and since we already have a medley relationship, that seems to be a
> second, already exist
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
>
> apart from the already existing "what's a medley" problem, are there
> any other issues people have with it?
>
I've been waiting for a dev response to the (possibly overly ambitious) join
phrases I suggested on March 5 and again on March 26:
practik wrote
>
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:33 PM, practik wrote:
>
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
>>
>> apart from the already existing "what's a medley" problem, are there
>> any other issues people have with it?
>>
>
> I've been waiting for a dev response to the (possibly overly ambitious) join
> phrases I s
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
>
> Sadly, join phrases can only depend of whether *one* attribute is
> present or not (in the way that you can change different things if
> different attributes are present, but you can't change the same thing
> in different ways if two attributes are combined). S
OK, here's a second attempt:
On release and recording pages, the base phrase ("medley of:") would be
modified by adding any or all of the following:
"live "
"instrumental "
"including covers "
"of parts "
So if you selected all four attributes, the join phrase would be:
"live instrument
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:41 AM, practik wrote:
> OK, here's a second attempt:
>
> On release and recording pages, the base phrase ("medley of:") would be
> modified by adding any or all of the following:
> "live "
> "instrumental "
> "including covers "
> "of parts "
>
> So if you selecte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/30/2012 01:02 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:41 AM, practik
> wrote:
>> OK, here's a second attempt: It also occurs to me that the wiki
>> page for this RFC should be updated to reflect the current
>> wording of
>> htt
38 matches
Mail list logo
