> > I haven't seen any comments on this proposal on mb-style or on the > > referenced wiki page. > > > > If my proposal is so shiningly perfect that no improvement is possible, I'd > > appreciate a reply or two saying that people are comfortable with it. If by > > some wildly improbable circumstance you have ideas for improvements, please > > let me know. > > > > The process lets me proceed to RFV in the absence of discussion, but I > > prefer at least some discussion. > > I have never once seen anyone on the forums, the mailing list, or in > the voting queue, express any confusion over whether a cover applies > to classical music. > > As I have said elsewhere, I find it much more efficient to put on the > CSG that it ignores all the other MB guidelines, than to state on > every other page that it doesn't apply to the CSG. That goes ditto > for AR's. > > Remix AR's probably aren't appropriate for most classical music > either, and somehow, we survive without explicitly saying so all over > the place. > > There are better, more important things to be done, than post an RFC > and following RFV amending every single guideline and most of the AR's > to state the obvious. > > I'd rather put a stop to this already. Or if you really insist, make > a list of all the pages this 'needs' to be stated on, and do one RFC > for the lot, and make it a wiki include (macro, whatever moin calls > them) with a short statement.
Jim, I would agree with Lauri here, though for a different reason. I don't think we need this guidance on any of the ARs, including the cover AR. I also think it's too vague in what it does or doesn't cover; you intend, I assume, "classical music" as in the Bachs, Beethovens, Mozarts, etc. However, nothing in what you've listed wouldn't also include John Cage or Steve Reich - and one could, in some cases, make an easier claim that modern classical does allow "covers" in the common sense. (See the relatively well known case for Cage's 4:33 lately, etc.) I think what you're suggesting would already be covered by the common understanding, but it quite may be worth saying it specifically in a rewritten CSG - or rather, adding it to page defining ARs, as it's relevant to more than classical: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/AdvancedRelationships "Any track-track or release-release AR must refer specifically to the specific performance of the work described by the track/release on both sides of the relationship, and not simply using that track/release to indicate the work in a generic sense." I don't think CSG ignores other principles; rather, it follows them, but according to StylePrinciple, as it should. If the work has a distinct name (Reich, Cage, etc), it follows ArtistIntent. 1) Where there is no one specific name, as I mentioned in my reply to Cadalach, 2) there being no StrongGuideline that applies to the title of classical works (though either of them may apply to the title of a classical release), 3) we move to ConsistentOriginalData - and CSG's titling provides that structure. 4) But ARs and such for classical are not covered by ConsistentOriginalData, so we fall to the last step of StylePrinciple, "If 1 nor 2 nor 3 are not applicable, follow the StyleGuidelines" ... 4b) ...so the page defining ARs generically — and thus, defining something about every AR — says it, so it applies to any such case where we might have no solid instance to target on the other end of the relationship. Since we'd then be using the target generically, and not as a specific recording, QED the cover/remix/whatever AR is not right and should not be set. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
