+1 here as well, I also there should be an attribute for the Karaoke version!
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Calvin Walton <calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 15:55 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 22:46 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
>> > This would be pretty useful to make sure we don't claim "recording X
>> > (instrumental)" has lyrics by Y once we start showing the
>> > relationships at release level. Also, it would solve my doubts when
>> > dealing with instrumental versions of hip hop tracks: it would allow
>> > me to merge them as a same work unless they have their own ISWC (they
>> > normally do not, although some do).
>> >
>> > The best order would probably be "is a {partial} {live} {instrumental}
>> > {cover} performance of"
>> >
>> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Performed_Relationship_Type_Instrumental_Attribute
>>
>> This should probably have some extra wording added to take into account
>> karaoke recordings: In particular, that karaoke recordings /should not/
>> be marked as instrumental.
>
> Oh, and other than that, you have a +1 from me :)
>
> --
> Calvin Walton <calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
