On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:36:19 +0100, Björn Krombholz wrote:
On 2/6/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO the differentiation only makes sense, if there are works for which
you
can specify e.g. an orchestrator and a _different_ arranger.
[...]
BUT I do not listen to classical music.
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:21:43 +0100, Chris Bransden wrote:
hmm i think it's a bit more common than that. at discogs i'd say
1/4-1/3rd of all releases i add have an 'arranged by' credit. most
common being 'Arranged By [Strings]' (eg, rock songs with string
sections - most rock musicians wouldn't
On 2/7/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:36:19 +0100, Björn Krombholz wrote:
One possible example was given by azertus in the original discussion
in November:
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-November/021756.html
Although not
On 2/8/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally just to summarise, IIRC there are three proposals on arranging the
AR types:
/composition class
/arrangement
/instrumentation
/orchestration
(Lukas' original proposal. Fuchs did not like the logic of this, I think
it is
On 06/02/06, Björn Krombholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/6/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My conclusion is that arrangement-in-the-broad-sense should be
fine-grained enough.
That's exactly what I though when I saw this proposal in October. Even
the arranger type is an extremely
Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
I seem to care about this more then I realized, so I'll try it one
more time :)
What do you think about this? We will wait until 2006-02-26, when the
improved AR editor will available on the main server. This will allow
me to create a new AR class and reparent the
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:50:14 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Don Redman wrote:
Ok, I give up.
Does this mean I am formalizing things too much again? As I said, I
want feedback on this. Without your feedback it is impossible for me to
keep the balance between the formalization that really is
On 2/6/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO the differentiation only makes sense, if there are works for which you
can specify e.g. an orchestrator and a _different_ arranger.
[...]
BUT I do not listen to classical music. Maybe someone can provide an
example with an orchestrator and a
Don Redman wrote:
Third, in both your and my examples I see not a single one in which it
seems really important (to me) to differentiate between arrangement,
orchestration and instrumentation.
IMO the differentiation only makes sense, if there are works for which
you can specify e.g. an
Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Ok, I give up.
You've had more courage than me in holding out this long. I don't have
time for this now, I'm afraid (or better: I really shouldn't be making
time for this right now)
You could always try your luck with the SingleFromAlbumRelationshipType :s
In a week
Don Redman wrote:
Ok, I give up.
Does this mean I am formalizing things too much again? As I said, I want
feedback on this. Without your feedback it is impossible for me to keep
the balance between the formalization that really is needed to ensure
the quality in this horribly complicated
On 2/4/06, Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I give up.
Hehe, I can feel with you, although I don't agree because of the (for
me unresolved) questions below.
Let me just summarize:
1. The original proposal by azertus suggested adding 2 new AR types
for instrumentation and
Okay, if no one has anything against, I'll add them tomorrow. So you still have
some time to stop me :)
Don Redman wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:24:28 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Don Redman wrote:
Lukas, you seem to push for that.
Yes, I do. That's because *every* single AR type I've
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:34:10 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Okay, if no one has anything against, I'll add them tomorrow. So you
still have some time to stop me :)
I will not give you an approval before
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/InstrumentatorRelationshipType has not been
written, sorry.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I'd say it is. As far as I know, librettist is only used for someone who
wrote the text for an opera.
yes, that appears to be the case:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=librettist
2006/2/2, Luká? Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Don
Don Redman wrote:
Lukas, you seem to push for that.
Yes, I do. That's because *every* single AR type I've ever proposed here already
was proposed (and discussed) somewhere else and then successfully forgotten.
Can you please write up three short descriptions (that will then come
into the
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:24:28 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Don Redman wrote:
Lukas, you seem to push for that.
Yes, I do. That's because *every* single AR type I've ever proposed here
already was proposed (and discussed) somewhere else and then
successfully forgotten.
Can you please
Don Redman wrote:
Also, is Librettist not a special case of Lyricist?
Sorry, I don't know, I didn't add nor propse this AR type.
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:32:24 +0100, Lukas Lalinsky wrote:
2006/1/30, Björn Krombholz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I you can explain them with a bit more info than the standard
indicates that ... name of relationship on ..., why not. Though I
don't understand the difference between those two and between
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:30:00 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Could we add these subtypes for the 'arranged' relationship?
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-November/021782.html
I see no reason why we should not.
DonRedman
--
Words that are written in CamelCase
20 matches
Mail list logo
