On 18/09/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19/05/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 08/05/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i wish there was some kind of consensus on this - my tags are so
> > inconsistant. i have situations like global communication
On 9/20/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:02:44 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
>
> > On 9/20/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I am right of course,
> >> stop arguing already will you,
> >> it's you wh
On 9/20/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To me it looks like there is a difference in what people understand under
"album". In the past, MusicBrainz has had a very formal definition of an
album. It is my impression that Chris and Aaron are bringing in a
definition which is much more mean
On 20/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:02:44 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am right of course,
>> stop arguing already will you,
>> it's you who is wrong.
>
> There's my haiku!
Well, IMVHO it applies to you
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:02:44 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
On 9/20/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am right of course,
stop arguing already will you,
it's you who is wrong.
There's my haiku!
Well, IMVHO it applies to you as well. Neither of you have really been
trying to understan
On 9/20/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am right of course,
stop arguing already will you,
it's you who is wrong.
There's my haiku!
Regards,
--
Lauri "But I wanted one of my own!" Watts
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-styl
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:37:58 +0200, Matt Howe wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 3:37 pm, Lauri Watts wrote:
> off-topic. But I just didn't think that "almost all bonus discs are
> Albums" was a fair statement. In fact, I would (and am) argue that
I never said that almost all bonus discs
Warning! Do *NOT* eat the wheaties!!
:)
On 9/20/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/20/06, Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 8:42 pm, Lauri Watts wrote:
> > On 9/20/06, Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't know why you
> > > dislike
On 9/20/06, Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 8:42 pm, Lauri Watts wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know why you
> > dislike Chris and I couldn't care less, the point is that your personal
> > like/dislike of people should hav
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 8:42 pm, Lauri Watts wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know why you
> > dislike Chris and I couldn't care less, the point is that your personal
> > like/dislike of people should have no bearing on how you judge their
> > suggestions
On 9/20/06, Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't know why you
dislike Chris and I couldn't care less, the point is that your personal
like/dislike of people should have no bearing on how you judge their
suggestions/proposals.
I don't even know Chris, and have no opinion on him personal
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 3:37 pm, Lauri Watts wrote:
> > off-topic. But I just didn't think that "almost all bonus discs are
> > Albums" was a fair statement. In fact, I would (and am) argue that
>
> I never said that almost all bonus discs are albums. All I wanted to
> say was "bonus disc
On 9/20/06, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/19/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The situations you're describing hardly sound like bonus discs.
Reissued albums aren't bonus discs - they may come with a live bonus
disc so people will purchase it. Albums that have only been
eptember 20, 2006 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: RFC: BonusDisc ammendment (was: Re: [mb-style] x (disc 1)
&x(disc 2), vs x & x (bonus disc) / version info for special releases)
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
Okay - this may be over simplistic. To my mind, the issue of a bonus
dis
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
Okay - this may be over simplistic. To my mind, the issue of a bonus disc is
an inducement to buy.
If it is an inducement to buy - then surely it should be called a
"promotional" disc?
Yeah, I can where you are coming from. But, that would classif
al Message -
From: "Aaron Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "MusicBrainz style discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: RFC: BonusDisc ammendment (was: Re: [mb-style] x (disc 1) &
x(disc 2), vs x & x (bonus disc) / version info for s
On 9/19/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > They very ofte
On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What discogs considers an album has no bearing here. What MusicBrainz
considers an album is a something that contains largely previously
unreleased material, whether it's demos or not is irrelevant.
discogs doesn't consider anything to an alb
On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i think the reason a lot of them are classed as albums is because
> > users have been applying the attribute of the primary disc
On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i think the reason a lot of them are classed as albums is because
> users have been applying the attribute of the primary disc to all
> discs in the release, which is why i added the note
On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > They very often _are_ albums. Just because you choose to call them
> > >
On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They very often _are_ albums. Just because you choose to call them
> > other doesn't make them not-albums.
>
> example of a bonus di
On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why should the ReleaseAttribute for a Bonus Disc normally not be 'album'?
> >
> > because they are not normally albums :) (exceptions? i can't think of any)
>
> Your argument, then, is
On 9/19/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
> > Why should the ReleaseAttribute for a Bonus Disc normally not be 'album'
On 19/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:09:08 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
> On 19/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
>>
>> >> so, i tried to create some kind of rule for bonus discs -
>> >>
On 19/09/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
> > Why should the ReleaseAttribute for a Bonus Disc normally not be 'album
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:09:08 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
On 19/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
>> so, i tried to create some kind of rule for bonus discs -
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BonusDisc (the ammendment section)
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Lauri Watts wrote:
If it must be mentioned at all, I would like to see it reworded as:
"Note the release attribute of bonus discs are not necessarily the same
as the album they were distributed with. Use 'live', 'remix' or
'compilation' as most appropriate."
Yes, this wo
On 9/19/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
> Why should the ReleaseAttribute for a Bonus Disc normally not be 'album'?
because they are not normally albums :) (exceptions?
On 19/09/06, Don Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
>> so, i tried to create some kind of rule for bonus discs -
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BonusDisc (the ammendment section)
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> i still think this is a worthy ammendmen
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
so, i tried to create some kind of rule for bonus discs -
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BonusDisc (the ammendment section)
thoughts?
i still think this is a worthy ammendment, and noticed another case
for it today. any thoughts?
Why sh
From: "Chris Bransden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:31:00 +0100
On 18/09/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it makes sense. Are there examples of more than one bolus disc? If
so, we would need some way to distinguish them by title (even if they
don't
ha
2006/9/18, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 18/09/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I think it makes sense. Are there examples of more than one bolus disc? If> so, we would need some way to distinguish them by title (even if they don't
> have a specific title)."(bonus disc 1
On 18/09/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it makes sense. Are there examples of more than one bolus disc? If
so, we would need some way to distinguish them by title (even if they don't
have a specific title).
"(bonus disc 1)" / "(bonus disc 2)" maybe? i guess it follow
2006/9/18, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 19/05/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 08/05/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:> > i wish there was some kind of consensus on this - my tags are so> > inconsistant. i have situations like global communication's 76:14> >
On 19/05/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 08/05/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i wish there was some kind of consensus on this - my tags are so
> inconsistant. i have situations like global communication's 76:14
> special edition being a seperate release (
> http:
36 matches
Mail list logo
