Robin Bowes Wrote: > Nigel, > > Have you seen http://musicbrainz.org ? > > I think what they are striving for is similar to your aims. > > Look for Advanced Relationships on that site. > >
I looked at Musicbrainz with some hope but they made a decision to store the Composer name in the Artist tag and place the major performer name in parens after the work name in the album field. That choice to live with the Artist, Album, track title set of tags supported by most players removes any real value for this project. Try searching for artist=Ludwig van Beethoven. The results are not sorted in any useful order. The album names vary in content; some have the composers name then the work and the performers while other album names have just the work and performers. The album names often refer to more than one work. There is a style guide at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion Here is what the author says about having a separate Composer field and making Artist = performer: --- Since we now have relationships, wouldn't it make more sense to make Classical the same as other types of music and make the artis the performer, and use a relationship to link the composer? This would make life easier for people looking for performances by a specific orchestra, and would make the cover issue moot. --Trongersoll IMHO there's no way: if an Album is all by a Composer it should be under that composer. That it's mostly because it is also difficult to choose wich performer it should be under. For example where do have to stick into a Mozart concerto by Berliner with Mutter on violin and Muti conducting...? But in case of classical compilation by Various Artist where often the performer is clearly the main reason of the release (ie a Gould performance or a Callas recital) I think it could be left under performer, also because listerners are often more interested by who's playing rather than what he's playing. ---- It is clear that the person writing the style guide wants to organize the information in a rigid hierarchy. This defeats the purpose of storing the data in an SQL database and doing queries. You don't have to impose one heirarchy on the data and in the process suppress useful data. The idea that you would store the composer name in the Artist field for some Cds and the performer name in the same field for other CDs is just bizarre. This is the product of an limited, inflexible mind. There is an article on work in progress on Advanced Relationships at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/AdvancedRelationships but if you read it, the purpose is rather general. --- a quote Advanced Relationships is a way to represent all the "miscellaneous" relationships between Artists, ?Albums and ?Tracks that are stored in the MusicBrainzDatabase. For example: * The song [WWW] Rockafella Skank by Fatboy Slim includes a sample from the Just Brothers song [WWW] Sliced Tomato. * [WWW] Paul Di'Anno was a member of [WWW] Iron Maiden from 1977 until 1981. * The Metallica album [WWW] St. Anger was produced by [WWW] Bob Rock & [WWW] Metallica. All of this information is stored in a single table in the database, and there is a single user interface for adding new information. In this way, MusicBrainz has a fairly simple way to deal with extremely complicated data. --- I don't see that the advanced relationships stuff addresses the basic problems: you can't have both composer and performer fields and there isn't a place for a single work name as a field. Bill -- Listener ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Listener's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2508 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19858 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
