Re: [mb-style] CSG - Track recording standardization, linking recordings, removing duplicate works ARs
Sebastien: You have some great ideas here. I've been thinking about a lot of the same things. And I think many of these points are actually very long-standing topics for debate, or in some cases a new light from NGS on an old style guideline. Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: *Normalized recording title based on normalized work title:* - First, with popular recordings there was an RFC to standardize the tracklists with the recordings. I believe that we should do something quite different with classical recordings. I think that we should actually standardize the recordings in accordance with the standardized work title rather than the track list. The essential policy of the Classical Style Guide, from before the Next Generation Schema (NGS), is that we would rather impose standard track titles (based on an elaborately specified form of composition titles used in the classical music tradition) than accept whatever track titles the CD publishers put on their covers. NGS gives us a work structure (call them MBWorks). This is an obvious place to put the standard composition titles specified by the Classical Style Guide. I strongly believe we should use MBWorks in whatever way makes entering good classical track titles easy. But these claims aren't yet consensus, and aren't reflected in style guidelines for MBWorks yet. I think the discussion about keeping Recording titles the same as Track titles still applies. But combine it with the CSG principle that standardised composition titles overrule CD publishers, and with putting standardised composition titles in MBWorks, and you get exactly your proposal: Standardised composition titles - MBworks titles - Tecording titles - Track titles. Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: - To keep a certain link with the original album I don't think we should normalize track lists but the recordings themselves can appear on various releases (where each release can have different naming conventions and language) I think you are seeking to re-argue RFC-333, Unify track/recording guidelines. See mb-style thread at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.style/11724 and http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.style/11943 . I support RFC-333, so I think classical album track titles should still follow recording titles, which follow standard titles stored in MBWorks. Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: - Special tempo information or movement information that differs from our works standard should be kept in the recording title (they should technically remain the same across releases). That said, I wouldn't be opposed to this being standardized based on the works as well since it is already specified in the track titles. I don't know of cases where a recording should have non-standard tempo information in a Recording title. The standard tempo information in a Recording title should be based on the composer's score, right? The performers may ignore that tempo, but that doesn't change the standard title. By Special movement information, do you mean cases where different recordings slice a long performance into tracks at different places? This frequently happens with opera recordings; e.g. one recording starts track 3 at measure 40 of Act I Scene II, but another recording has measure 40 landing partway through track 5. I think we ought to have lots of MBWorks, all with an AR pointing to the MBWork for the complete composition, and each child MBWork has the title specified by the CSG. It will be a lot of entries, but I think with a sequence field and some better data entry wizards on the server, it will be manageable. I should write a separate post about that. Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: *Grouping Classical recordings like we do currently for works:. * - At the moment, I think most will agree, linking performance credits to recordings is a major pain and extremely time consuming. (not just for classical). - Every recording needs it's own performance ARs and, especially in classical, often repeated over several recordings resulting in the addition of extra ARs. I absolutely agree, linking Artist performances to Recording entries is a major pain. Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: - Therefore, what if we created the same system as for the works where we could link (say the 4 movements of a same performance of a symphony) to a supra-recording? To this supra-recording we could give all the proper performance ARs with proper dates. I do not think this is the best way to solve the problem. Instead, let's improve the editing tools on the MB server to make it easy to add performance credits of many Artists to many Recordings at once. The NGS server has a way of Relating to... Recordings from a Release page, and this lets you add one Artist performance relationship to every Recording in one edit action. Or, you can select check boxes for only
Re: [mb-style] CSG - Track recording standardization, linking recordings, removing duplicate works ARs
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Jim DeLaHunt from.nab...@jdlh.com wrote: Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote: - To keep a certain link with the original album I don't think we should normalize track lists but the recordings themselves can appear on various releases (where each release can have different naming conventions and language) I think you are seeking to re-argue RFC-333, Unify track/recording guidelines. See mb-style thread at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.style/11724 and http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.style/11943 . I support RFC-333, so I think classical album track titles should still follow recording titles, which follow standard titles stored in MBWorks. Just two notes: - I explicitly mentioned that RFC-333 does not apply to classical tracks, which always had different style guidelines in MB. - RFC-333 is not about recording title = track title = work title. It's about applying the same title normalization to them. As a result, that still means that tracks are as on cover, except with some stylistic changes. If some release decides to use a completely different title for a track, the recording title will be different from this track title. Lukas ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Reduce the requisites for Live Performance Relationship Type
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Jim DeLaHunt from.nab...@jdlh.com wrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: The requisites for using http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Live_Performance_Relationship_Type were quite harsh before (which probably has something to do with it only being used 24 times)... I don't understand this relationship, probably because the sort of music I work on doesn't tend to have live version of releases. Why is this relationship valueable to have in MusicBrainz? If this relationship is present, what sort of use becomes possible, or better? Could you give some examples of Release (Group) pairs which could use this relationship, if the requirements were loosened? http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/fbb17f59-ffdb-32bc-8778-27c9201c82d8 vs. http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/63c76c1b-05a6-4f41-b326-f11e721e0846 (and some other reggaeton albums) were what I was personally thinking about. http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/f7939d39-f12e-33e0-95b7-1e41491c650d/relationships and http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/4987eb7f-43d1-3ae4-84eb-e6dcf74461d8/relationships are two cases where it has been used now. Whether this is interesting to keep or not, I am not sure. What is clear is that in its current state, it is not. Would a fixed one be worth it or are we better off removing it? No idea. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-Reduce-the-requisites-for-Live-Performance-Relationship-Type-tp6917416p6921423.html Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV-228: Style/Language/Japanese
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Jim DeLaHunt from.nab...@jdlh.com wrote: Calvin: Thanks for putting this proposal forward. Just to be clear, the number of this RFC/RFV is 288, right? (Subject: line says RFV-228 instead.) And just to be clear, what do you want the URL of this page to be? A new page, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization Standard Japanese ? I would expect it to be at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Language/Japanese and linked from the Style box at least. Where will the page be linked to from? From http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Language/Transliterations perhaps, as Chinese, Hebrew, and Yiddish are? (Those pages are at URLs like http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization Standard Chinese etc.) -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-228-Style-Language-Japanese-tp6917929p6921437.html Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-337: Add 'solo' performer relationship attribute
Maybe make it clear that solo has to be explicitly printed in the track/whatever credits, so we don´t get solos in chamber music or when an editor just feels like it. /symphonick 2011/10/18, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: This is RFC-337[1]. It will expire on 2011-10-25. This proposal adds a 'solo' attribute to the performer relationship type. I have encountered several credits which, where there are several performers of one instrument, will specify which of them performed a solo on a given recording. I would like to add this attribute in order to make it possible to store this information. Previous discussion was on IRC[2]. 1. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Hawke/Proposal/Performer_solo 2. http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2011/2011-10/2011-10-17.html#T21-46-46-952896 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Reduce the requisites for Live Performance Relationship Type
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: The requisites for using http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Live_Performance_Relationship_Type were quite harsh before (which probably has something to do with it only being used 24 times) but they are mostly impossible to apply right now, with the relationship having moved to Release Group - Release Group. I'd just change all of that to The live release group needs to be promoted or considered as being derived from the studio release group it is linked to (or some wording to that effect) and trust the editors and voters to be sensible about it. -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style * Radio, TV, and internet-streamed performances are considered to be 'live'. * This relationship type should not be used to link from compilations of live performances, nor should it be linked to box sets. * The song order of the live release does not have to match the song order of the studio release. * At least 80% of the tracks from the studio release must be present on the live release. * At least 80% of tracks on the live release must be present on the studio release. * For either of the above two guidelines, the 80% requirement may be lowered if sufficient reason exists, subject to agreement by voters. I think it may be worth keeping the above guidelines, though the 80% rules are a bit superflous. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Reduce-the-requisites-for-Live-Performance-Relationship-Type-tp3926041p3930156.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Reduce the requisites for Live Performance Relationship Type
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:09 PM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: The requisites for using http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Live_Performance_Relationship_Type were quite harsh before (which probably has something to do with it only being used 24 times) but they are mostly impossible to apply right now, with the relationship having moved to Release Group - Release Group. I'd just change all of that to The live release group needs to be promoted or considered as being derived from the studio release group it is linked to (or some wording to that effect) and trust the editors and voters to be sensible about it. -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style * Radio, TV, and internet-streamed performances are considered to be 'live'. * This relationship type should not be used to link from compilations of live performances, nor should it be linked to box sets. * The song order of the live release does not have to match the song order of the studio release. * At least 80% of the tracks from the studio release must be present on the live release. * At least 80% of tracks on the live release must be present on the studio release. * For either of the above two guidelines, the 80% requirement may be lowered if sufficient reason exists, subject to agreement by voters. I think it may be worth keeping the above guidelines, though the 80% rules are a bit superflous. I would rather say non-measurable. If a RG contains a release that fits this, but other with bonus tracks that makes the 80% not apply, what happens there? :) We have editors and voters to decide about this kind of stuff, we don't need strict percentages. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Reduce-the-requisites-for-Live-Performance-Relationship-Type-tp3926041p3930156.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV-228: Style/Language/Japanese
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 11:44 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Jim DeLaHunt from.nab...@jdlh.com wrote: Calvin: Thanks for putting this proposal forward. Just to be clear, the number of this RFC/RFV is 288, right? (Subject: line says RFV-228 instead.) Whoops. Just a simple typo, 288 is correct :) And just to be clear, what do you want the URL of this page to be? A new page, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization Standard Japanese ? I would expect it to be at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Language/Japanese and linked from the Style box at least. Yes, this is correct. Where will the page be linked to from? From http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Language/Transliterations perhaps, as Chinese, Hebrew, and Yiddish are? (Those pages are at URLs like http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization Standard Chinese etc.) I also plan to link to this page from the transliterations page, yes. (You'll note that links like http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese are actually redirects to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Language/Chinese now. -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV-228: Style/Language/Japanese
It's been more than 48 hours without any objections, so this has passed. Nikki Calvin Walton wrote: On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 14:15 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote: The current (barely modified) version is at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Kepstin/Capitalization_Standard_Japanese Given that I've barely made any changes to this, and the original RFC /did/ get a +1 within its running time, I've decided to take this straight into RFV. Please make sure to read my previous email regarding some of my reasoning behind the things (not) changed. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] CSG - Track recording standardization, linking recordings, removing duplicate works ARs
On 10/22/2011 08:39 AM, Lemire, Sebastien wrote: Hi guys, I'd like to bring up a topic regarding CSG recordings which I don't believe has been discussed. *Normalized recording title based on normalized work title:* * [snip] ... I think that we should actually standardize the recordings in accordance with the standardized work title rather than the track list. * To keep a certain link with the original album I don't think we should normalize track lists but the recordings themselves can appear on various releases (where each release can have different naming conventions and language) * Special tempo information or movement information that differs from our works standard should be kept in the recording title (they should technically remain the same across releases). That said, I wouldn't be opposed to this being standardized based on the works as well since it is already specified in the track titles. If I understand you correctly, +1 to this. Recordings should be (IMO) CSG-ified to closely resemble Works. Differences between CSG Works and Recordings would include (again, IMO) * Instrumentation. An easy example would be as Work that indicates for klavier vs. a Recording performed on piano. * Language. A Work's canonical MB name may use the Ur-language (this is TBD), but a Recording should follow the release language. I think I'd like to see Tracks normalized in the usual MB sense (rather than CSG-ified), using most or all of /Style/Titles. Is that what you meant? Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
