Re: [mb-style] Type of a Work? Re: RFC-339: Partial Works Relationship Inheritance
2011/11/1 Jim DeLaHunt from.nab...@jdlh.com But I believe that MusicBrainz editors face a huge problem in contributing data on classical and opera music: the MusicBrainz structure doesn't do enough of the work of representing the complexity of naming classical and operatic music. I want the Works table to be part of the solution (NGS 'Works' should help cut CSG Gordian Knot, http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2010-December/010713.html ). When the rest of the system is ready enough, I will be proposing either a change to this rule for Parts Relationship Type. I'd also like us to try and finish a basic CSG works guideline first. But I don't really understand (maybe I missed something in the big thread): it's easier (and also more work) to always create a 1:1 recording - work, but what would you want this for? How do you want to display these works in the UI? /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-339: Work/Relationship Inheritance in Works Trees
Do you mean that Mozart can't be the composer for the parent work Requiem because it would mean that AR would end up on childs that M. didn't compose? The same thing for Holst Planets, added Pluto version? /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Adding a conductor-orchestra relationship?
2011/11/2 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: Can you use the proposals we started working with a year ago? http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Conductor_Position_Relationship_Type_Proposal there are more proposals, including concertmaster section leader (which I'm not sure we can pull off; IME it's hard to get reliable data + there's confusion translation problems regarding the titles) Oh, I hadn't seen this before. I'll take a look at it :) Hmm, while I can see why someone might want all the detail, I wonder whether it isn't a little bit too much and maybe keeping it to just conductor or at most to assistant, principal and maybe guest is enough? As I said though, I am not an expert on the matter, it's mostly that I feel there's a space to fill here but that this is a bit of overkill. /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Adding a conductor-orchestra relationship?
2011/11/2 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: Can you use the proposals we started working with a year ago? http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Conductor_Position_Relationship_Type_Proposal Hmm, while I can see why someone might want all the detail, I wonder whether it isn't a little bit too much and maybe keeping it to just conductor or at most to assistant, principal and maybe guest is enough? As I said though, I am not an expert on the matter, it's mostly that I feel there's a space to fill here but that this is a bit of overkill. Yeah. I haven't seen a tuba conductor position (instrument) maybe it's better use assistant for both associate assistant to avoid confusion. /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Adding a conductor-orchestra relationship?
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/2 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: Can you use the proposals we started working with a year ago? http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Conductor_Position_Relationship_Type_Proposal Hmm, while I can see why someone might want all the detail, I wonder whether it isn't a little bit too much and maybe keeping it to just conductor or at most to assistant, principal and maybe guest is enough? As I said though, I am not an expert on the matter, it's mostly that I feel there's a space to fill here but that this is a bit of overkill. Yeah. I haven't seen a tuba conductor position (instrument) maybe it's better use assistant for both associate assistant to avoid confusion. I guess that's there more for cases like conducted strings and the like... Although while I've certainly seen conducted strings, I don't know if strings conductor is usually considered a position on its own... (I also haven't seen emeritus but I guess I just didn't look long enough?) /symphonick ___ 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
[mb-style] Recording-level orchestration/instrumentation
Hello Right now we have arranger on both works and recordings, but the sub-types for orchestration and instrumentation only exist on works. Should those relationships be added to recordings too? Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording-level orchestration/instrumentation
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Right now we have arranger on both works and recordings, but the sub-types for orchestration and instrumentation only exist on works. Should those relationships be added to recordings too? I would say yes. If in the future the decision is taken of allowing them only at work level, they could be easily migrated by work-splitting. Nikki ___ 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] Adding a conductor-orchestra relationship?
2011/11/2 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/2 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: Can you use the proposals we started working with a year ago? http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Conductor_Position_Relationship_Type_Proposal Hmm, while I can see why someone might want all the detail, I wonder whether it isn't a little bit too much and maybe keeping it to just conductor or at most to assistant, principal and maybe guest is enough? As I said though, I am not an expert on the matter, it's mostly that I feel there's a space to fill here but that this is a bit of overkill. Yeah. I haven't seen a tuba conductor position (instrument) maybe it's better use assistant for both associate assistant to avoid confusion. I guess that's there more for cases like conducted strings and the like... Although while I've certainly seen conducted strings, I don't know if strings conductor is usually considered a position on its own... (I also haven't seen emeritus but I guess I just didn't look long enough?) Sounds like a recording - artist AR to me. But conductor emeritus actually exists, I had an example on my research page. Or if it was in the discussion thread? But I have no problem with not implementing it. /symphonick ___ 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
On 11/01/2011 06:16 PM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote: How about focussing on the credits. Something like: 'Solo': This indicates that the credits single out this artists' performance on this recording as a 'solo', in whatever wording is conventional for that kind of Release. Does that help? It does, but I’d rather not exclude the situation where the credits themselves don’t specify but other research does determine the correct artist who performed a solo. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ 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
2011/11/2, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: On 11/01/2011 06:16 PM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote: How about focussing on the credits. Something like: 'Solo': This indicates that the credits single out this artists' performance on this recording as a 'solo', in whatever wording is conventional for that kind of Release. Does that help? It does, but I’d rather not exclude the situation where the credits themselves don’t specify but other research does determine the correct artist who performed a solo. Not excluding this would allow users to enter the wrong solos which symphonick showed, wouldn't it? -- 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] Type of a Work? Re: RFC-339: Partial Works Relationship Inheritance
On 11/01/2011 09:45 AM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote: Well, that's easy. We just go to the documentation page for Work (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Work) and follow the instructions there. *Attributes*... *Type*... The type of work. Hmm, I wonder what they mean by that. It's probably explained elsewhere on the page. *Types of works*... Aha! Here we go. [snip] Seems fairly straightforward. The Type menu on the Work entity is said to have two choices: Discrete, and Aggregated. So let's look at the actual menu. Oh no! It says Aria, Ballet, Cantata, ..., Song. But not Discrete and not Aggregated. And none of the entries actually in the Type menu are described in the Type attribute section of the documentation! Perhaps a good next step would be for someone who remembers the creation of the Type menu in the Works editor to propose new text for the Work documentation which describes the Type choices actually in the menu. Paul's Work Draft [1] is slightly more up-to-date than wiki/Work. I /believe/ the types list as it exists now was created more for the purpose of testing than for anything else. As luks has said elsewhere [2], NGS was meant to mainly improve on the release/recording model, the minimalistic work model was added to experiment with the data and see how to make it useful. Based on discussion in the Work Guidelines Draft 1 thread [3] , I added the idea of a form attribute, and re-purposed type to describe /only/ the work's place in a Work Tree. Alex / caller#6 [1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:PBryan/Work/Draft_1 [2] http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Concept-of-works-group-tp3535348p3535462.html [3] http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Work-Style-Guideline-Draft-1-tp3794061p3799204.html ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-339: Work/Relationship Inheritance in Works Trees
Hi, symphonick: symphonick wrote: Do you mean that Mozart can't be the composer for the parent work Requiem because it would mean that AR would end up on childs that M. didn't compose? It depends what meaning you want to convey. If what you want to say is, there is a musical composition Requiem, and nobody gets credit for being composer of the whole thing, but Mozart gets credit as composer of some parts and somebody else gets credit as composer of the other parts Then yes, Mozart can't be composer of the parent Work entity. However, take a look at the work entity 'Requiem in D minor, K. 626 (Süßmayr completion): I. Introitus: Requiem aeternam' (http://musicbrainz.org/work/e27bda6e-531e-36d3-9cd7-b8ebc18e8c53). It lists Mozart as Composer, and Süßmayr as Additional Composer. If you want to say that Mozart is the Composer of the composition overall, and Süßmayr is the Additional Composer of some movements... Then link Mozart as Composer to the parent Work entity, and link Süßmayr to child Work entities as Additional Composer. This may be one case where we have a conflict between a simpler popular understanding (Mozart wrote the Mozart Requiem) and a more historically accurate understanding (Mozart wrote most of some movements, only bits of others, and never finished it). symphonick wrote: The same thing for Holst Planets, added Pluto version? Again, what really matters is what meaning the editor wants to convey. RFC-339 doesn't try to extend the expressive power of MusicBrainz ARs, or to find a way to express complicated realities in simple terms. It just tries to make clearer what ARs in Work Trees actually mean. By the way, the ARs on the Süßmayr completion of Mozart's Requiem are a bit messy. See all the redundancy, and the different combinations of writers in the various Work entities: http://musicbrainz.org/search?query=Requiem+in+D+minor%2C+K.+626+%28S%C3%BC%C3%9Fmayr+completion%29type=worklimit=100 Thanks to your nudging, I've added another rule to RFC-339 (Inheritance status matters) and another Discussion point. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-339-Work-Relationship-Inheritance-in-Works-Trees-tp6952822p6956147.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
Re: [mb-style] Recording-level orchestration/instrumentation
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Nikki lt;aeizyx@gt; wrote: Hello Right now we have arranger on both works and recordings, but the sub-types for orchestration and instrumentation only exist on works. Should those relationships be added to recordings too? I would say yes. If in the future the decision is taken of allowing them only at work level, they could be easily migrated by work-splitting. +1 -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/Recording-level-orchestration-instrumentation-tp6955025p6956161.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
Re: [mb-style] RFC-337: Add 'solo' performer relationship attribute
Hawke: Alex Mauer wrote: ... I’d rather not exclude the situation where the credits themselves don’t specify but other research does determine the correct artist who performed a solo. When and how would you expect this sort of situation to come up? One scenario I can imagine is: a 1950 LP release of a smokin' hot 1949 Duke Ellington Live concert. Exquisitely edited, detailed cover notes say Saxophone - Jim DeLaHunt (solo). Fast forward to 2011: budget label issues a digital remaster of this LP, but with cheap and shabby CD label that just says, Saxophone - DeLaHunt. In that case, someone who entered a Relationship based on the cheap and shabby CD label wouldn't include solo, but someone who later found the 1950 LP release would have grounds to add the attribute solo. I think this is a great opportunity for the editor to appeal to the Style Principles (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Principle). Artist Intent and Most Common Version override Style Guidelines. If no Release ever give a performance a solo credit, then how can you be sure that the solo attribute is Artist Intent and not editor trying to rewrite history? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-337-Add-solo-performer-relationship-attribute-tp6905622p6956207.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
Re: [mb-style] Type of a Work? Re: RFC-339: Partial Works Relationship Inheritance
symphonick wrote: 2011/11/1 Jim DeLaHunt lt;from.nabble@gt; But I believe that MusicBrainz editors face a huge problem in contributing data on classical and opera music: the MusicBrainz structure doesn't do enough of the work of representing the complexity of naming classical and operatic music. I want the Works table to be part of the solution (NGS 'Works' should help cut CSG Gordian Knot, http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2010-December/010713.html ). When the rest of the system is ready enough, I will be proposing either a change to this rule for Parts Relationship Type ... But I don't really understand (maybe I missed something in the big thread): it's easier (and also more work) to always create a 1:1 recording - work, but what would you want this for? How do you want to display these works in the UI? By this I take it you mean: what would I want the Works table to do as part of cutting the CSG Gordian Knot? I would like to see expert CSG editors build up finely-crafted Work Trees for classical and opera works, with the Work titles that can be re-used as Recording or Track titles. Of course, the Work entities would have to correspond to track boundaries which recordings usually use. Then I'd like a Works-first Add Release wizard. This would let an editor, even one who doesn't know the CSG well, find the Work Tree that their Release presents, and move Work Titles into Recording Titles. From there, the titles become Track Titles. What would the UI be? A great question. We need to design it. Getting good Classical support for novice editors is a long road, we won't get there in one step. symphonick wrote: ...I'd also like us to try and finish a basic CSG works guideline first Agreed. When the rest of the system is ready enough. Including the relevant Style guidelines. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-339-Partial-Works-Relationship-Inheritance-tp6939661p6956257.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
[mb-style] Override the same ARs? Difficult
Hi, folks: One comment that's appeared repeatedly in the discussion of Relationship Inheritance is that whether a directly attached Relationship could override the same Relationship inherited from elsewhere. I have a problem defining the terms override and same in the context of Relationships. MusicBrainz allows an editor to attach a second Relationship to an entity as long as it differs in some detail from the first. There can be two Composer Relationships from two Artists to the same Work entity. If both relationships are Composer Relationships, are they the same? Should one override the other? The basic relationships editor doesn't seem to think so. There can can be two Composer Relationships from the same artist to same Work entity, if one has a date and the other doesn't. Are these Relationships the same? Should one override the other? The basic relationships editor doesn't seem to think so. Maybe an example will help. This is a single Work entity, so there is no issue of inheritance. Requiem in D minor, K. 626 (Süßmayr completion): I. Introitus: Requiem aeternam http://musicbrainz.org/work/e27bda6e-531e-36d3-9cd7-b8ebc18e8c53 This Work has a Composer Relationship to Mozart, and a Additional Composer Relationship to Süßmayr. Are those the same? Should one have overridden the other? I think not. There are actually two Composer Relationships to Mozart. One has no dates, one has a date of 1791. Are those the same? Should one have overridden the other? In this case, I think yes. When the editor came to enter the second relationship, the software should have guided them to modify the first relationship instead. But suppose you want to express the meaning, Artist Composed this Work from 1788-1789, and also for a period in 1791? Should there be two Composer Relationships to the same Work entity, differing only in dates? The current Advanced Relationship scheme in MusicBrainz has limitations. There are things it would be nice to express that it can't right now. It might be nice to add a way to override an inherited copy of the same Relationship. I think it's possible to invent improvements to the current system. But it won't be easy to define the improvement, and say precisely what the details should be. No Reply Necessary (NRN), I just want to put that thought into our consciousness. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/Override-the-same-ARs-Difficult-tp6956331p6956331.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
Re: [mb-style] Recording-level orchestration/instrumentation
+1 for orchestration and instrumentation on recordings - jesus2099 × Ti = Tristan + patate12 ÷ saucisson7 mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099 mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Recording-level-orchestration-instrumentation-tp3972809p3982739.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] Sidebar links
Why on Earth don’t we add ALL the bloody URLs in the sidebar ? - jesus2099 × Ti = Tristan + patate12 ÷ saucisson7 mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099 mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Sidebar-links-tp3766549p3982787.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
