On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:50:09 +0200, Steve Wyles wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize.
Please advise if I should:
1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type from
the live server or
2. don't
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Don Redman wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:50:09 +0200, Steve Wyles wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize.
Please advise if I should:
1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project
On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:47 AM, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
You already know my opinion on this, but to reiterate it, I
definitely think that project should be added and as we have
already discussed this at some length, then it should be taken to
the Request for Veto stage.
Ooops. We screwed the
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize.
Please advise if I should:
1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type from the
live server or
2. don't sweat it and call it a done deal or
3. Have the RFV now and
On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Steve Wyles wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize.
Please advise if I should:
1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type
from the live server or
2. don't sweat it
, 2006 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Steve Wyles wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize.
Please advise if I should:
1. reset the four artists to unknown
On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in that case, maybe we should consider about introducing Project, and
rename the Group type to Band as well, to get rid of the ambiguous part
of the Group type. Is that a valid deduction?
Please no renaming! Collaborations are listed as
On 7/7/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan van Thiel wrote: On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: in that case, maybe we should consider about introducing Project, and rename the Group type to Band as well, to get rid of the ambiguous part
of the Group type. Is that
To: MusicBrainz style
discussion
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist
Type: Project
On 7/7/06, Simon
Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jan
van Thiel wrote: On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: in that case
limited,
but that's just my perhaps too broad opinion.
Nyght aka Beth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cristov Russell
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:54 PM
To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion'
Subject: RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cristov Russell
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:03 AM
To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion'
Subject: RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
Secondly, in reference to your comment about what people
I skimmed some of the emails but in actuality I don't think
it would make much difference since I disagree with the
general concept altogether. IMO the approach is wrong. Can
you point out what in my comments would have been argued by
the thread?
Cristov (wolfsong)
If you had
By that very comment Argyle Park is then indeed a project. I
would be more than happy to give you more indepth
information, since I hadn't yet covered that one.
Ummm are you saying the name of the release is Argyle Park? I'm not familiar
with this.
Cristov (wolfsong)
well, try google then. http://www.discogs.com/artist/Argyle+Parkand the release http://www.discogs.com/release/257385
On 7/5/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By that very comment Argyle Park is then indeed a project. I would be more than happy to give you more indepth
information,
discussionSubject: Re:
[mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
well, try google then. http://www.discogs.com/artist/Argyle+Parkand
the release http://www.discogs.com/release/257385
On 7/5/06, Cristov
Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
By that very comment Argyle Park
Of
Stefan KestenholzSent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:02
AMTo: MusicBrainz style discussionSubject: Re:
[mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
Please note that i agree with Beth that thisPre-Veto is a wee bit
unfounded. If you disagree with a proposal, you should first throroughly
well, its an album, official released by a project with founder(s) x, yand participants(s) a, b, c
On 7/5/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that case, you completely misread my comment. I said the term project describes the release not the artists.
.)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cristov Russell
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 1:38 PM
To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion'
Subject: RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
I disagree with this entire notion on 2 levels.
First, I don't agree
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Stefan KestenholzSent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:11
AMTo: MusicBrainz style discussionSubject: Re:
[mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
well, its an "album, official" released by a "
Second, from an interface stand point what we have today with Person orGroup should remain as is. What people are describing as collaborations and
projects are still groups (more than one person) so these terms really arejust group descriptors. If we want them then we should have group
On 7/5/06, Beth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_project
A wiki page on Artist/musician projects.
I note none of those commented on in this discussion seemed to be on it.
Maybe all of our ideas on what makes a project is flawed?
I stayed out of this discussion
in that case, maybe we should consider about introducing Project, and rename the Group type to Band as well, to get rid of the ambiguous part of the Group type. Is that a validdeduction?
I think its fair to try classifying artist types into Projects and Bands(Groups), because again this
] On Behalf Of Stefan Kestenholz
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006
4:18 AM
To: MusicBrainz
style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New
Artist Type: Project
in that case, maybe we should consider about introducing
Project, and rename the Group type to Band
as well, to get rid of the ambiguous part
yes, actually i'd like if we added Collaboration as well as changed Group to Band actually. i think it would be useful duplication of data to have Type: Collaboration in the artist box. Humans are visual beings, and looking at the relationships is a machine-like way to figure out if its a
On 05/07/06, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I agree more or less with Don (at least, if I understood him
right). If the choices were Person or Band then I could see a
case for covering things which are more than one person, but are not
a band. The choices are Person and Group
On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, actually i'd like if we added Collaboration as well as changed
Group to Band actually. i think it would be useful duplication of data
to have Type: Collaboration in the artist box. Humans are visual beings,
and looking at the
On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, actually i'd like if we added Collaboration as well as changed
Group to Band actually.
I'm not sure what the exact meaning of the word band; English is not
my native language.
Band works quite well for rock groups and such, but what
On 7/5/06, Bogdan Butnaru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Band works quite well for rock groups and such, but what happens withsymphonic orchestras and string quartets and choirs and such? Is
'band' general enough for those?
good point, browsing wikipedia for definitions of artist types turned up
I disagree with this entire notion on 2 levels.
First, I don't agree with examples and definitions used on the wiki [1]. In
particular the first one. While I'm unfamiliar with wumpscut and
Cedlldwellar, I don't see how Nine Inch Nails qualifies as a project. Also,
there's no such thing as not
place.
Nyght aka Beth
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cristov Russell
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 1:38 PM
To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion'
Subject: RE: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
I disagree with this entire notion on 2
After some more thought something else occurs to me. To me, a project is a
release by a group of artists; not the artists themselves.
Cristov (wolfsong)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
I've added [1] the new artist type, and it is ready on test to play around
with. I agree with robert that this has minimal impact, since it doesn't
influence ReleaseArtistStyle IMO, but helps to achieve a finer granulation
how we can represent an Artist (a project is very often clearly perceived
Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
I've added [1] the new artist type, and it is ready on test to play around
with. I agree with robert that this has minimal impact, since it doesn't
influence ReleaseArtistStyle IMO, but helps to achieve a finer granulation
how we can represent an Artist (a project is
That's about as much coding work as I had expected it to be. ;-)
Not so fast ;)
There are many applications where we don't know yet what the implications
may be (RDF webservice, the new xml webservice, the client libraries).. I'm
not sure that this will be included in the new server release, I
Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
That's about as much coding work as I had expected it to be. ;-)
Not so fast ;)
There are many applications where we don't know yet what the implications
may be
You're right, I was thinking about the changes to the web server only. I
don't know much about the
Yay!! Thank you both! /me off to test and play and batter :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon
Reinhardt
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 5:04 AM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
Stefan
I just realized that you (Beth) are not alone on this project (just
finished reading mb-users).
So, I want to bring Simon's excelent summary to everybody's attention:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Artist-Type%3A-Solo-Project-p5068189s2885.html
That mail could serve as a good starting point for
discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
OK, I think I got your point: There are artists in the DB that cannot be
clearly classified as either person or group, it is time to give them
a proper type of their own.
So, you got positive feedback on this. The only thing
On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Beth wrote:
Coding needed?: Unsure
Minimal. Not a worry, really.
Effect on the current system?: Unsure
Same, very minimal impact.
--
--ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot.
Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Proposal: Artist Type {person, group, project}
Why needed?: There are many projects entering the database that don't fit in
Person or Group. This makes the database less accurate.(more on this later)
Coding needed?: Unsure
Effect on the current system?: Unsure
I brought this up in Users
collaboration or even a VA.
Joan
- Original Message -
From: ZaphodBeeblebrox formerly known as mo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:22 PM
Subject: re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
Proposal: Artist Type {person, group
41 matches
Mail list logo
