The original NGS documentation which was written by me [1] says that
works with different remixes should be merged together. The Work page
[2] however says that they should be kep separate. All people I've
discussed this with agree that they should be merged. Can I change the
Work page to remove th
Since the remix credits are at the recording level. Remixes are not separate
Works... and should be linked to the original work.
2011/5/18 Lukáš Lalinský
> The original NGS documentation which was written by me [1] says that
> works with different remixes should be merged together. The Work page
On 05/17/2011 10:27 PM, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
> The original NGS documentation which was written by me [1] says that
> works with different remixes should be merged together. The Work page
> [2] however says that they should be kep separate. All people I've
> discussed this with agree that they s
I guess I have less than 20 remix tracks in all my CDs, so my point of view
is essentially theoretical, but I believe you are confusing what happens to
be technically implemented in MB and what should be done in order to have a
satisfying database structure. The fact remix credits are currently at
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:55 AM, caller#6
wrote:
> Do you disagree with the concept of "Derivative Works" [1]? How many of
> the items listed under "Distinctiveness" should be removed?
My problem is that the situation is not consistent. We are merging
cover recordings into the same work, but remi
caller#6 wrote:
>
> Do you disagree with the concept of "Derivative Works" [1]? How many of
> the items listed under "Distinctiveness" should be removed?
>
i think a derivate work has to earn it's status of an own work and (as
Frederic said) this would have to be decided for each derivate work
lorenz pressler wrote:
> this would deny most pop-remixes and the likes an own work entry i guess.
> so i would deny creating independent works for remixes, mashups,
> instrumental work with lyrics added later, translation of a work into a
> different language in general while making it possible
> Translations have been migrated as different works, they have different
> lyricists and we store lyricists at work level.
Are covers without lyrics its own work then? Like for instance
"Yesterday" with Oscar Peterson:
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/b0da13b6-12db-4391-9a2c-1dd26fb4cf3a
And is
On 18 May 2011 19:12, lorenz pressler wrote:
>
> caller#6 wrote:
>>
>> Do you disagree with the concept of "Derivative Works" [1]? How many of
>> the items listed under "Distinctiveness" should be removed?
>>
>
> i think a derivate work has to earn it's status of an own work and (as
> Frederic sai
It is always questionable. Other example in Classical:
Satie composed "Gymnopédie No. 1" for piano solo ==> one work.
Debussy orchestrated this work ==> another work (Orch. AR is at work level!)
Jeroen van Veen "arranged" the orchestrated version to get a four-hands
piano version.
Arr. AR is at re
2011/5/19 caramel
> It is always questionable. Other example in Classical:
>
> Satie composed "Gymnopédie No. 1" for piano solo ==> one work.
> Debussy orchestrated this work ==> another work (Orch. AR is at work
> level!)
> Jeroen van Veen "arranged" the orchestrated version to get a four-hands
On 05/18/2011 01:00 AM, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:55 AM, caller#6
> wrote:
>> Do you disagree with the concept of "Derivative Works" [1]? How many of
>> the items listed under "Distinctiveness" should be removed?
> My problem is that the situation is not consistent. We a
On 19 May 2011 17:21, caller#6 wrote:
>
>
> On 05/18/2011 01:00 AM, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:55 AM, caller#6
>> wrote:
>>> Do you disagree with the concept of "Derivative Works" [1]? How many of
>>> the items listed under "Distinctiveness" should be removed?
>> My probl
On 05/19/2011 08:57 AM, caramel wrote:
> Jeroen van Veen "arranged" the orchestrated version to get a
> four-hands piano version.
> Arr. AR is at recording level ==> no work
It was planned to add "Arranger" at work level too after NGS migration,
exactly for this situation.
See
http://wiki.music
Aurélien Mino wrote:
> It was planned to add "Arranger" at work level too after NGS migration,
> exactly for this situation.
> See
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Next_Generation_Schema/Track_Relationships_Conversion#Artist-Track
>
> It just has not been added yet.
I thought the upgrades script w
Per Starbäck wrote:
> Are covers without lyrics its own work then? Like for instance
> "Yesterday" with Oscar Peterson:
> http://musicbrainz.org/recording/b0da13b6-12db-4391-9a2c-1dd26fb4cf3a
Hmm... Not sure. I think I would probably still use the original work,
the work still has lyrics even if
and vice versa you can say the work of a cover where lyrics where added still
has no lyrics. perfect solution imho would be an "additional lyrics" field
on recording lvl. however i guess i could live with an own work-entry and
work-work relationships in these cases although i personally won't credi
2011/5/20 Nikki
> Per Starbäck wrote:
> > Are covers without lyrics its own work then? Like for instance
> > "Yesterday" with Oscar Peterson:
> > http://musicbrainz.org/recording/b0da13b6-12db-4391-9a2c-1dd26fb4cf3a
>
> Hmm... Not sure. I think I would probably still use the original work,
> the
2011/5/18 Lukáš Lalinský :
> The original NGS documentation which was written by me [1] says that
> works with different remixes should be merged together. The Work page
> [2] however says that they should be kep separate. All people I've
> discussed this with agree that they should be merged. Can
On 05/24/2011 08:02 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2011/5/18 Lukáš Lalinský:
>> The original NGS documentation which was written by me [1] says that
>> works with different remixes should be merged together. The Work page
>> [2] however says that they should be kep separate. All people I've
>
+1 for merging remix and cover works into the original works
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Works-and-remixes-covers-tp3531609p3549034.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
I have a question that hasn't been addressed so far: sometimes a cover
will introduce a specific innovation (could be an extra verse,
dropping a verse, specific flourishes, restructuring, whatever) into a
song, and later covers will reproduce that innovation. So those later
covers aren't c
2011/5/25 Stephen
> I have a question that hasn't been addressed so far: sometimes a cover
> will introduce a specific innovation (could be an extra verse,
> dropping a verse, specific flourishes, restructuring, whatever) into a
> song, and later covers will reproduce that innovation. So those la
2011/5/25 Frederic Da Vitoria
> 2011/5/25 Stephen
>
>> I have a question that hasn't been addressed so far: sometimes a cover
>> will introduce a specific innovation (could be an extra verse,
>> dropping a verse, specific flourishes, restructuring, whatever) into a
>> song, and later covers will
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
wrote:
> 2011/5/25 Stephen
>>
>> I have a question that hasn't been addressed so far: sometimes a cover
>> will introduce a specific innovation (could be an extra verse,
>> dropping a verse, specific flourishes, restructuring, whatever) into a
2011/5/25 caramel
>
> 2011/5/25 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2011/5/25 Stephen
>>
>>> I have a question that hasn't been addressed so far: sometimes a cover
>>> will introduce a specific innovation (could be an extra verse,
>>> dropping a verse, specific flourishes, restructuring, whatever) into a
Looking at the work-work and work-recording relationships possible, all
these seem to be covered already... unless I'm missing something.
For example, wouldn't a cover from two (or more) distinct covers just be
a medley?
- Si
On 25/05/2011 19:34, dj empirical wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1
On 25 May 2011 17:12, Stephen wrote:
> I have a question that hasn't been addressed so far: sometimes a cover
> will introduce a specific innovation (could be an extra verse,
> dropping a verse, specific flourishes, restructuring, whatever) into a
> song, and later covers will reproduce that innov
+1
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Works-and-remixes-covers-tp3531609p3551452.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@list
On May 25, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> I think what these need is for a cover recording to be able to link
> back to either a work or a recording.
> At the moment, it seems I can't do a recording<->recording cover link
> but funnily enough
> I can do a recording<->recording A
On 26 May 2011 07:00, Stephen wrote:
>
> On May 25, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>> I think what these need is for a cover recording to be able to link
>> back to either a work or a recording.
>> At the moment, it seems I can't do a recording<->recording cover link
>> but funni
Now for some conflicting opinion: the Spanish work database includes
"Asómate" – http://musicbrainz.org/work/148859be-4c6e-30f1-9558-3f48a42c8101
– and "Asómate (remix)" –
http://musicbrainz.org/work/8eb73a24-e600-46a5-af42-0314e65775d2 – as
different works, with different ISWCs :)
On Thu, May 26,
Hello,
On 26/05/11 10:49, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 26 May 2011 07:00, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> On May 25, 2011, at 8:42 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> I think what these need is for a cover recording to be able to link
>>> back to either a work or a recording.
>>> At the moment, it
Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has
been demanding much of my time lately.
I would suggest the test could boil-down to whether a new artist work AR
is required to distinguish one remix from another (if a particular remix
contains new content, and has additional
On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has been
> demanding much of my time lately.
>
> I would suggest the test could boil-down to whether a new artist work AR is
> required to distinguish one remix from another (if a parti
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
>> Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has been
>> demanding much of my time lately.
>>
>> I would suggest the test could boil-down to whether a new artist wor
2011/6/6 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
> wrote:
>> On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
>>> Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has been
>>> demanding much of my time lately.
>>>
>>> I would suggest the te
On 07/06/2011 03:03, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2011/6/6 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
>> wrote:
>>> On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has
been
d
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
wrote:
> 2011/6/6 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren :
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
>> wrote:
>>> On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 23:50 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> > Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has been
> > demanding much of my time lately.
> >
> > I would suggest the test could boil-down to whether a new arti
the remix is a
work extrapolated from a recording?
cheers
P
-Original Message-
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Calvin
Walton
Sent: 07 June 2011 12:28
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re:
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 07:28 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
> One thing that concerns me a bit with a work→work remix ar: Remixes are
> typically based on a specific recording of a work. How do we represent
> this in Musicbrainz? Should we continue to use the recording→recording
> AR alongside the wo
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 16:16 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote:
> This makes my head hurt, but here's a couple of questions just to make
> sure I'm kind of understanding it
Take 2 ARs and call us in the morning. ;-)
> 1) how do we ascertain that a remix has enough new content to make it
> a new work
...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of
Paul C. Bryan
Sent: 08 June 2011 23:46
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Works and remixes/covers
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 16:16 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote:
This makes my head hurt, but here's a couple of questions just
to make sur
sicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul C. Bryan
> Sent: 08 June 2011 23:46
> To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
> Subject: Re: [mb-style] Works and remixes/covers
>
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 16:16 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote:
>
>
>
2011/5/20 Nikki
> Aurélien Mino wrote:
> > It was planned to add "Arranger" at work level too after NGS migration,
> > exactly for this situation.
> > See
> >
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Next_Generation_Schema/Track_Relationships_Conversion#Artist-Track
> >
> > It just has not been added yet.
>
On 08/05/2011 02:19 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> It's been more than 2 months, but a discussion with Jesus2099 made me
> realize this: a new arranger should not be considered as a sufficient reason
> to create a new Work. AFAIK the rules for considering 2 recordings are still
> being discussed,
2011/8/5 Alex Mauer
> On 08/05/2011 02:19 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > It's been more than 2 months, but a discussion with Jesus2099 made me
> > realize this: a new arranger should not be considered as a sufficient
> reason
> > to create a new Work. AFAIK the rules for considering 2 recordi
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 21:19 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2011/5/20 Nikki
> Aurélien Mino wrote:
> > It was planned to add "Arranger" at work level too after NGS
> migration,
> > exactly for this situation.
> > See
> >
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/N
We should clearly keep classical out of this debate, since "arrangement" in
classical also stands for everything we'd call "cover performance" in other
music styles. In Classical the ongoing discussion whether a specific
arrangement or orchestration qualifies as a new derivative work tends to ask
f
2011/8/5 SwissChris
> We should clearly keep classical out of this debate, since "arrangement" in
> classical also stands for everything we'd call "cover performance" in other
> music styles. In Classical the ongoing discussion whether a specific
> arrangement or orchestration qualifies as a new
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2011/8/5 SwissChris
>
>> We should clearly keep classical out of this debate, since "arrangement"
>> in classical also stands for everything we'd call "cover performance" in
>> other music styles. In Classical the ongoing discussion wh
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:10 PM, SwissChris wrote:
> We should clearly keep classical out of this debate, since "arrangement" in
> classical also stands for everything we'd call "cover performance" in other
> music styles. In Classical the ongoing discussion whether a specific
> arrangement or orc
2011/8/6, SwissChris :
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/5 SwissChris
>>
>>> We should clearly keep classical out of this debate, since "arrangement"
>>> in classical also stands for everything we'd call "cover performance" in
>>> other music styles. In Cl
+1
for keeping remixes, covers and other versions the same 1 work.
-
jesus2099 × Ti = Tristan + patate12 ÷ saucisson7
mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.co
Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
>
> The original NGS documentation which was written by me [1] says that
> works with different remixes should be merged together. The Work page
> [2] however says that they should be kep separate. All people I've
> discussed this with agree that they should be merged. Can I
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, MeinDummy wrote:
> This discussion seems to have faded out now.
> There are many unresolved specific issues regarding covers, translations,
> instrumentals, ... Most of them are beyond the remix work topic and should
> probably be further discussed in separate threa
Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, MeinDummy wrote:
>> This discussion seems to have faded out now.
>> There are many unresolved specific issues regarding covers, translations,
>> instrumentals, ... Most of them are beyond the remix work topic and
>> should
>>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM, MeinDummy wrote:
>
> Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, MeinDummy wrote:
> >> This discussion seems to have faded out now.
> >> There are many unresolved specific issues regarding covers,
> translations,
> >> instrumentals,
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
>
> While I agree that remixes in the classic sense are usually (always?) the
> same work, I won't accept a wording that says simply "all remixes should
> be
> merged into the original work". A lot of things called "remix" involve a
> completely new music or new l
Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
> Can I change the Work page to remove the mention of remixes?
+1
-
jesus2099 × Ti = Tristan + patate12 ÷ saucisson7
mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099
mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrai
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:30 PM, jesus2099 wrote:
>
> Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
>> Can I change the Work page to remove the mention of remixes?
>
> +1
Nobody seemed to oppose the change, so I've done it.
> -
> jesus2099 × Ti = Tristan + patate12 ÷ saucisson7
> mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jes
2011/11/9 Lukáš Lalinský :
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:30 AM, MeinDummy wrote:
>> This discussion seems to have faded out now.
>> There are many unresolved specific issues regarding covers, translations,
>> instrumentals, ... Most of them are beyond the remix work topic and should
>> probably be fu
63 matches
Mail list logo