Re: [mb-style] RFC: Group all “tape” medium formats
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 08/10/2011 03:23 PM, Calvin Walton wrote: Makes sense to me, but I’m not completely sold on having a generic “Cartridge” type – is it likely that someone might have a release on a cartridge without knowing whether it’s a 4-track or 8-track? Besides, there’s only two subtypes… Then again, it shouldn’t hurt anything. That’s mostly there to hold anything already in the database as “cartridge”. On the other hand, 8-track is far far more common, so it might be better to just rename the current “cartridge” to “8-track cartridge” and change the few cases where it’s something else. Video tape is also magnetic, and a form of tape cartridge. Cassettes and DATs are also a type of cartridge, technically. --Torc. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Include double-album rereleases in “compilations”
2011/8/11, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: On 08/10/2011 04:41 PM, SwissChris wrote: Then changing this would probably be the better way to solve your problem, than to call compilation a release that most people feel is an album ;-) Would “most people” consider that to be an album? I don’t, and I don’t know how others feel; that’s why I brought up the topic. Now I know that Reosarevok and I do not, and you do. I don't consider the release (box set) to be an album, but I consider each the MB Release from that box set as a re-release. This means that I must currently enter such box sets as releases. In any case these would not be compilations for me. For me, a compilation implies removing at least something like half the tracks. In other words, I see a compilation as implicitly a compilation of tracks, not of releases. Extending the concept to releases would lose information IMO: when I buy a compilation, I understand that I will be missing some of the original tracks. This would not be true anymore if compilations were extended to include compilations of releases. Maybe the best route is to allow a release to be in several RGs, maybe it isn’t. The question has to be asked before it can be considered. I believe it could indeed be a good answer to this problem. Each disc is part of the box set new release and is also a re-release of a first release. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Group all “tape” medium formats
2011/8/10, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: I forgot to add “DAT” to that as well. It could go directly under magnetic tape, or under cassette (I think it’s technically a cassette, but since it’s not the standard compact cassette format, it might be better to leave it directly under magtape) On 08/10/2011 03:12 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: It seems to me that the format types for tape would be better off grouped together. Currently there is “Cassette” as its own category, and “Cartridge” and “Reel-to-reel” under “Other” I have also found a few releases on 4-track cartridges, and so I think it would be useful to be able to specify this. I think this would be better organized as: Magnetic tape -Reel-to-reel -Cassette -Cartridge --4-track cartridge --8-track cartridge What do the members of this list think about this? I'm more reluctant about DAT. For me it would be the same as putting vinyls and CDs under disc. The old issue about cramming physical format and encoding type into the same field :-) -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
2011/8/11, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 08/09/2011 09:39 PM, Ryan Torchia wrote: Well songs, by definition, have singing. -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Song -- Works or pieces refer to a broader category, but that includes vocal and instrumental works. Hmm, Mendelssohn and Holst both have works entitled “Song without words” so it seems that in at least some cases there is a broader definition at play. In fact, that’s given as an example in definition 2. True, but I did say that songs had *singing*, not that they necessarily had words. (And arguably, not that they'd have human beings singing.) But even those tend to be somewhat unusual cases. Pretty much any category we come up with is going to have some exception, given how many cultures we're trying to cover and how frequently artists try to blur boundaries. What is the purpose to all this, anyway? I'm not asking to be snarky -- if we have a clear idea how the data is going to be used functionally, we can design this to fit that purpose better. Right now it doesn't seem clear whether we're trying to use this field to define ensemble, structural form, function, or some other musical property. Yes, Rupert asked more or less the same question earlier in this thread and I believe it should be answered first. These informations are quite interesting and relevant to a music database and it would be nice being able to enter them somewhere, but is this the right place? And what about covers? If we are too specific here, there will probably be covers which we would have otherwise set under the same Work which we will have to separate because the Work Types differ. Actually, this could help defining the limits both of what constitutes a separate work and how specific work types should be. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
Some while ago I started compiling a list of work types, predominantly for classical music use. But even there (where one could argue that the work type is an important concept) it's often hard to arrive at an objective definition. Most work types in classical music are explicit in the title (Symphony, Sonata, Fugue, Nocturne, Polonaise etc etc - Operas are an exception of course). whereas others aren't (how would you objectively define 'Music for 18 Musicians' by Steve Reich or '4.33' by Cage or even 'Pierrot Lunaire' by Schoenberg?) When it gets to popular music, it would seem that 'song' or 'instrumental' are almost meaningless as definitions. And here too it would seem that a Work Level definition is at too high a level and doesn't allow for instrumental versions of songs or vice versa. I think these definitions are best left to the likes of Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me that this can work as useful structured data. P -Original Message- From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria Sent: 11 August 2011 09:57 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Add work types 2011/8/11, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 08/09/2011 09:39 PM, Ryan Torchia wrote: Well songs, by definition, have singing. -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Song -- Works or pieces refer to a broader category, but that includes vocal and instrumental works. Hmm, Mendelssohn and Holst both have works entitled Song without words so it seems that in at least some cases there is a broader definition at play. In fact, that's given as an example in definition 2. True, but I did say that songs had *singing*, not that they necessarily had words. (And arguably, not that they'd have human beings singing.) But even those tend to be somewhat unusual cases. Pretty much any category we come up with is going to have some exception, given how many cultures we're trying to cover and how frequently artists try to blur boundaries. What is the purpose to all this, anyway? I'm not asking to be snarky -- if we have a clear idea how the data is going to be used functionally, we can design this to fit that purpose better. Right now it doesn't seem clear whether we're trying to use this field to define ensemble, structural form, function, or some other musical property. Yes, Rupert asked more or less the same question earlier in this thread and I believe it should be answered first. These informations are quite interesting and relevant to a music database and it would be nice being able to enter them somewhere, but is this the right place? And what about covers? If we are too specific here, there will probably be covers which we would have otherwise set under the same Work which we will have to separate because the Work Types differ. Actually, this could help defining the limits both of what constitutes a separate work and how specific work types should be. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Include double-album rereleases in “compilations”
On 08/11/2011 03:16 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: I don't consider the release (box set) to be an album, but I consider each the MB Release from that box set as a re-release. This means that I must currently enter such box sets as releases. Hmm, but I am not concerned here with box set releases. I am concerned with the case where two previously-released albums are re-released together *on one disc*. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk writes: When it gets to popular music, it would seem that 'song' or instrumental' are almost meaningless as definitions. And here too it would seem that a Work Level definition is at too high a level and doesn't allow for instrumental versions of songs or vice versa. I think these definitions are best left to the likes of Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me that this can work as useful structured data. Well, my suggestion would be to implement this as a tagging-based thing. So a work might be baroque, sonata, chamber or pop, acid jazz or ... (Obviously the intersection of baroque and acid jazz is going to be somewhat small) I don't know whether this requires a significant amount of work on the server side though. If going for a tagging based route, I suppose there are two good options in the meantime. (1) Scrap the work type for now. (2) Keep it as it is and then add any given type as a single tag when the tagging system goes live. I guess the second is better, since some people have put effort into giving works types already. Comments? Rupert pgpY4JCkbsswd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
I don't think we're contemplating putting genres in the work type, are we? Aren't we merely trying to classify work types with more precision than we have presently? If this does in fact turn into genre-ification of works, then tagging does make sense to me, as it would be a highly subjective exercise in classification. Paul On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 18:18 +0100, Rupert Swarbrick wrote: Pete Marsh pete.ma...@bbc.co.uk writes: When it gets to popular music, it would seem that 'song' or instrumental' are almost meaningless as definitions. And here too it would seem that a Work Level definition is at too high a level and doesn't allow for instrumental versions of songs or vice versa. I think these definitions are best left to the likes of Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me that this can work as useful structured data. Well, my suggestion would be to implement this as a tagging-based thing. So a work might be baroque, sonata, chamber or pop, acid jazz or ... (Obviously the intersection of baroque and acid jazz is going to be somewhat small) I don't know whether this requires a significant amount of work on the server side though. If going for a tagging based route, I suppose there are two good options in the meantime. (1) Scrap the work type for now. (2) Keep it as it is and then add any given type as a single tag when the tagging system goes live. I guess the second is better, since some people have put effort into giving works types already. Comments? Rupert ___ 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
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
Paul C. Bryan pbr...@anode.ca writes: I don't think we're contemplating putting genres in the work type, are we? Aren't we merely trying to classify work types with more precision than we have presently? If this does in fact turn into genre-ification of works, then tagging does make sense to me, as it would be a highly subjective exercise in classification. Paul Ok, maybe I was wrong with the genres, but are you claiming that it's possible to come up with a single tree or list for work types? Are you sure there is indeed an *objective* true 'work type' to aim for for any given work? It seems to me that such a tree or list would have to satisfy two different criteria: (1) It should be possible for a motivated editor to work out the correct work type for a given work. Well, a sufficiently precise style guide might make this possible, but: (2) For this information to be any *use*, it must also be possible for a user to guess the correct work type for works they're interested in. Otherwise, I don't really see how the data provide any more information than this work fits into our arbitrary classification in the following place. The second criterion seems very hard to achieve, which is why I really advocate going for a tagging-based approach with for either types (which I don't believe really make sense without genres) or both. Rupert pgpoGJEORdTZo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 21:32 +0100, Rupert Swarbrick wrote: Paul C. Bryan pbr...@anode.ca writes: I don't think we're contemplating putting genres in the work type, are we? Aren't we merely trying to classify work types with more precision than we have presently? If this does in fact turn into genre-ification of works, then tagging does make sense to me, as it would be a highly subjective exercise in classification. Paul Ok, maybe I was wrong with the genres, but are you claiming that it's possible to come up with a single tree or list for work types? Are you sure there is indeed an *objective* true 'work type' to aim for for any given work? It seems to me that such a tree or list would have to satisfy two different criteria: (1) It should be possible for a motivated editor to work out the correct work type for a given work. Well, a sufficiently precise style guide might make this possible, but: Right. I think a concerto is a concerto, a symphony is a symphony, etc. I think things such as movement, cantata, chorus, recitative, aria, duet, trio, chorale, gigue, scherzo, minuet, fugue, prelude, toccata etc —yes, I'm thinking mostly classical and opera music—should all be capturable in a structured work type rather than being handled through the subjectivity of folksonomy-style genre tags if possible. (2) For this information to be any *use*, it must also be possible for a user to guess the correct work type for works they're interested in. Otherwise, I don't really see how the data provide any more information than this work fits into our arbitrary classification in the following place. I don't think our classification system should necessarily be so arbitrary, but I'm prepared to accept that I'm possibly being naïve here and this is a slippery slope toward genres. If so, again, I may be willing to support tagging as the possible answer. I was focusing on classical/opera style. What about jazz, popular music, alternative, trance? Yeah, I concede these are not particularly conducive to a strict, objective work type hierarchy. The second criterion seems very hard to achieve, which is why I really advocate going for a tagging-based approach with for either types (which I don't believe really make sense without genres) or both. Rupert ___ 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
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:40, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote: So, my question: Has anyone articulated a vision for what this field should become? What are the views of the people in this thread? And, finally, have I missed an important explanation which makes my whole email a waste of time? :-) I'm not real sure what the original purpose to work type was, but I believe there was a discussion to use work type to provide some minimum grouping/organization/filtering to the work lists of classical composers. As it stands now, the work list of a prolific composer like Bach is a total cluster. And will continue to be even after making all the appropriate merges. Supposing such features were implemented, what sorts of groups would folks expect to see for popular music? -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
On Aug 11, 2011, at 8:50 PM, David Gasaway wrote: Supposing such features were implemented, what sorts of groups would folks expect to see for popular music? I can think of two groups for popular music: Concept Album for groups of songs that get released together as a single larger work. Song Series for groups of songs that go together but aren't necessarily written, recorded, performed or released at the same time. I think any differentiation beyond song for popular music works at the base level is pointless and will lead inevitably to the genre- fication of work types. -Stephen ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Add work types
In my opinion it will be very difficult to implement work types without going into genres (Jazz, Rock, etc...) for popular music... I personally would like that as I have a lot of my music classified this way using allmusic.com (Genre + Style), but I agree that it will be very difficult to get consensus and to prevent crap from getting added like with the last.fmtags... Sebastien On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:50 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:40, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote: So, my question: Has anyone articulated a vision for what this field should become? What are the views of the people in this thread? And, finally, have I missed an important explanation which makes my whole email a waste of time? :-) I'm not real sure what the original purpose to work type was, but I believe there was a discussion to use work type to provide some minimum grouping/organization/filtering to the work lists of classical composers. As it stands now, the work list of a prolific composer like Bach is a total cluster. And will continue to be even after making all the appropriate merges. Supposing such features were implemented, what sorts of groups would folks expect to see for popular music? -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org ___ 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
[mb-style] Pre-RFC - CSG - Artist Credit
I've brought this up on a few occasions in other threads but I think this merits it's own specific discussion and I hope to bring this to RFC/RFV status. First regarding the Artist Credit for Classical music This discussion is to do with the current WIP CSG: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Classical_Style_Guide First of all, I'd like to bring up these two points in the CSG (The proposed one): The *Artist http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artist* should contain just the composer not the performer. and In cases where a release features a single performer or group and contains works from multiple composers, that performer or group may be designated the ReleaseArtist http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Artist This is highly inconsistent. I think we should agree and standardize on one or the other. Personally I prefer attributing the release to the Composer if there is a single composer, and if there are more than one then use the VA style as this makes more sense (In my collection I use Various Composers as Album Artist as it's more relevant but this may not be possible to implement easily here in MB) In alternate would be to add all the different composers as individual ACs but that may be impractical on many releases who have long lists of composers. (Perhaps for releases of 4 Composes we credit all of them and 4 we credit VA?) Another option is to always attribute the AC to the Performer, but in that case, what will we do when there are no Featured performer on the release or if there are too many? Personally I don't like this option since The AC normally gets converted to Artist when tagging and I prefer sorting/cataloging by Composer. Please discuss and I hope we can come to a consensus and formally propose through RFC/RFV Sebastien ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Pre-RFC CSG Release title Featured Artists
Second point is regarding the Featured Artist for classical releases. According to the proposed CSG Style: The *ReleaseTitle http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Title* should include the title of the release followed by the major performer (i.e. the name of orchestra or quartet) inside parenthesis. For details, see below and ClassicalReleaseTitleStylehttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Classical_Release_Title_Style Personally, as is the case for Featured Artists on Popular Recordings/Tracks, we should not be storing the featured information in the title. It's ugly, can't be parsed properly and doesn't credit them properly even though their name might be predominantly shown on the cover (sometimes in prominence over the composer(s)). I have two proposals (both cases would result in the removal of the featured artist from the release title): a.) Add the featured performers to ACs with the feat link word as was recently passed for Popular Recordings. b.) Add an attribute to the AR Artist - Release called Classical Featured ie: To credit Herbert von Karajan as a Featured Artist on a release, create an AR between Karajan and the release, select the Type Conducted and check the Classical Featured attribute. Alternatively: Instead of using an Attribute we could add a Type called Featuring (Classical), however I prefer using an attribute since we would also preserve the role he is featured for (In Karajan's example, Conducter) Please discuss and I hope we can come to a consensus and formally propose through RFC/RFV. Sebastien ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
