On Oct 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Chris Bransden wrote:
i never felt it was resolved. i feel that group is a plural, person is
a singular, but project is pretty vague.
i agree with lauri's comments in the original discussion that if we're
to include project, we need collaboration, band, person and
We need it badly. I saw a lot of artists that could fit in this category.
On 10/10/06, Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was there a resolution on this issue? If so, I'd like to include this
in the next server release...
--
--ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
Was there a resolution on this issue? If so, I'd like to include this in the
next server release...
I believe it was agreed to add it and it was being tested on the staging
server before implementation.
If I remember, it was accidently included in
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 11:56:04PM +0200, pankkake wrote:
We need it badly. I saw a lot of artists that could fit in this category.
I'd really like to see it, too. There are a bunch of releases attributed
to projects on the FAX (http://www.discogs.com/label/Fax+%2B49-69%2F450464)
label that it'd
i never felt it was resolved. i feel that group is a plural, person is
a singular, but project is pretty vague.
i agree with lauri's comments in the original discussion that if we're
to include project, we need collaboration, band, person and group, and
all their definitions need to be rock
If this is what I think it is I'm all for it (NOT the solo project discussion
right?). But it's been a while since it was discussed and I can't seem to
find the resolution. How exactly is it being implemented and how will it
affect the grouping of artists? Is there a link to the test server
, 2006 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mb-style] artist type: project
If this is what I think it is I'm all for it (NOT the solo project
discussion
right?). But it's been a while since it was discussed and I can't seem to
find the resolution. How exactly is it being implemented and how will it
affect
My 2 cents are that the issue of types probably needs to be fleshed out better. As I recall, collaborations were not received as positively as projects, partly getting stuck on a matter of definitions. But it's a slippery slope adding one new type at a time
Nonethless, I'm not opposed to
