Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-101: Update theatre style
Alex Mauer wrote * Removed the following text: “For non-musical theatre releases, artist credit should be to the author of the work. The [[Special Purpose Artist]] of [[Artist:a0ef7e1d-44ff-4039-9435-7d5fefdeecc9|musical theater]] should be used for those cases where the composer is unknown.” The first half, I’m not sure why a guideline about “non-musical theatre releases” is on a page about “musical theatre releases”, and the second half is in response to SwissChris’ objections to the use of Special Purpose Artists. It's the Theatre guideline, so it's not only about musical theater releases. The first line says so: Typically these works are of a musical nature, but they may also be dramatic or comedic. I'd say the line about artist credits for nonmusical releases should go back in. In the Compilation section, it says Cast information should be appended to each track title. Do you mean append by adding a disambiguation comment? If so, I wonder whether the wording ought to be made clearer, something like Cast information should be noted by adding a disambiguation comment to the recording. Otherwise editors may read this as an instruction to add the info directly to the track title. The note at the end of the Compilation section has a redundant word; one differently should come out. The Shakespeare example has a couple of small issues: First, it seems less than ideal that the only example for nonmusical theater releases is one that overlaps with audiobook style -- though I do think it's helpful to address the fact that this overlap exists. Another example that does have a dramatic performing cast is http://musicbrainz.org/release/516d5046-b921-49a1-a5d6-ba9b1407e7fd Second, for clarity I'd say the note about audiobook style should be run in with the line above it, since every other bulleted item in the example list is an example. As it stands now, it looks like this note is somehow related to the Little Mermaid example below it. Third, the part about no cast information included in the title is unnecessary now since the guideline stipulates that, normally, cast info should never be included in the title. But these are all little tweaks. In general, the new guideline seems like a big improvement and is much easier to read. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-101-Update-theatre-style-tp4493548p4506587.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 STYLE-97: Move medley to an attribute of performance of
Alex Mauer wrote: On 03/09/2012 02:00 PM, Nikki wrote: There already is a work-work medley relationship, so that page needs to be updated too and the text you're referring to won't go away just by getting rid of the recording-work relationship. I don’t see a need to change that, as we don’t have a “performance of” work-work relationship and I can’t see a way that would work very well. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Medley_Relationship_Type will still need updating though, because part of your proposal is remove one of the relationship types. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-97: Move medley to an attribute of performance of
Alex Mauer wrote: On 03/09/2012 01:25 PM, practik wrote: Alex Mauer wrote These all agree with my understanding of the attributes as they’d be used with medley. Would specifying the join phrases not be part of the change proposal? I was assuming it would be. Sorry if I went off-topic there. I expect it would be, but I'm not sure that join phrases can be as dynamic as it looks like you were suggesting. Perhaps one of the developers can comment on that? Could you clarify which join phrases you're asking about? Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-97: Move medley to an attribute of performance of
We were talking about some suggestions I made in a post further up the
thread, on March 5:
practik wrote
EDIT: is a {*partial*} {live} {instrumental} {cover}
{performance|*medley*} of
RESULTS: (on release and recording pages) medley including parts of:, (on
work pages) partially included in medleys:
E: is a {partial} {*live*} {instrumental} {cover} {performance|*medley*}
of
R: live medley of:, included in live medleys:
E: is a {partial} {live} {*instrumental*} {cover} {performance|*medley*}
of
R: instrumental medley of:, included in instrumental medleys
E: is a {partial} {live} {instrumental} {*cover*} {performance|*medley*}
of
R: medley covering:, covered in medleys:
E: is a {*partial*} {*live*} {*instrumental*} {*cover*}
{performance|*medley*} of
R: live instrumental medley covering parts of:, partially covered in live
instrumental medleys
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-97-Move-medley-to-an-attribute-of-performance-of-tp4408610p4506753.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 STYLE-97: Move medley to an attribute of performance of
On 12-03-22 01:07 PM, caller#6 wrote: On 03/05/2012 09:38 AM, Alex Mauer wrote: On 02/22/2012 07:39 PM, Andii Hughes wrote: Looks good to me. Can I get an official +1 on that? —Alex Mauer “hawke” My only reservation is the medley definition[1]. It seems too broad. Not every multiple-titled track is a medley, is it? I always thought of medleys as something like: Two or more *otherwise unrelated* works - played together in succession or interpolated - for the purpose of adding context or meaning I've agree - the current definition is not at all what I think of as a medley. Here's the guideline, from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Medley_Relationship_Type. This indicates that a track is a compilation of several other tracks. This applies to one long recording that contains multiple songs, one after the other, in which the audio material of the original tracks has not been altered. whereas my concept of a medley, like yours, is one track where the performers have assembled several works into a single performance. That is, I see it as one recording of several works, whereas the guideline sees it as multiple recordings of works pasted together into a new recording after the fact. I did an advanced query search, track:/ AND type:live which turns up many recordings that I think fit this description. They do tend to be live, but no doubt there are many studio examples as well. For a live performance in particular, I can't imagine that these recordings were assembled in the editing stage from distinct live tracks; they would have been recorded that way. Shouldn't our 'medley' definition cover this other type of recording, where the different works are brought together when the recording is laid down and not later as an editing process? I know; it's a bit off-topic here. I'd consider putting together a proposal to reword this if others agree, though presumably some people must believe that the current definition is correct. Alex / caller#6 [1] This indicates that a recording includes multiple works performed as a single continuous piece. ___ 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] RFC STYLE-97: Move medley to an attribute of performance of
On 03/26/2012 01:50 PM, Sheamus Patt wrote: I've agree - the current definition is not at all what I think of as a medley. Here's the guideline, from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Medley_Relationship_Type. This indicates that a track is a compilation of several other tracks. This applies to one long recording that contains multiple songs, one after the other, in which the audio material of the original tracks has not been altered. Shouldn't our 'medley' definition cover this other type of recording, where the different works are brought together when the recording is laid down and not later as an editing process? You may want to look at the proposal this thread is about, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Hawke/Proposal/Performance-medley It proposes updating (replacing) that relationship type entirely. Here is the text: “medley: This indicates that a recording includes multiple works performed as a single continuous piece.” ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-101: Update theatre style
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 03/21/2012 02:57 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: I wrote an update to the theatre style guide, and have prepared this RFC. It will expire on 2012-03-28. I'm not sure this update is an improvement In response to comments, I’ve updated the RFC. Changes: * Changed track artist credits to use whatever’s on the release, in line with warp’s comments on RFC-348. Well, that's just warp, who dislikes the AC concept altogether and insists on whatever´s on the release at track level even for music genres (Classical, theatre) where there's usually no track level credits at all. * Allowed a fallback to composer where the performer is unsuitable for a Musicbrainz Artist (in response to SwissChris’ comments about such performers) I would insist on at least two precautions: - if there's no credit at track level ''on the cover'', use the composer - composer credits on tracks of releases already in MB should not be changed before there is a proper (composer-, lyricist-, author-)AR link to works * Removed the following text: “For non-musical theatre releases, artist credit should be to the author of the work. The [[Special Purpose Artist]] of [[Artist:a0ef7e1d-44ff-4039-9435-7d5fefdeecc9|musical theater]] should be used for those cases where the composer is unknown.” The first half, I’m not sure why a guideline about “non-musical theatre releases” is on a page about “musical theatre releases”, You should re-add this. As Practik said the guideline is clearly about theatre, not only ''musical'' theatre and the second half is in response to SwissChris’ objections to the use of Special Purpose Artists. I never objected the use of Special Purpose Artist [musical theatre] or [soundtrack] for the rare cases where the ''composer'' is unknown. What I dislike is to re-introduce these SPAs in the much more frequent cases of fuzzy/fake performers like Full cast, Ensemble, Nun's chorus or Sydney Miss Saigon Cast, most of which have been successfully removed by dedicated editors over the last couple of years, based on the current guideline. And I think the wording of your proposal, especially when asking for whatever's on the release, will not prevent the creation of new fuzzy artists. Some more small details: I think it would make sense, under Applicability, to add Audiobook Style (particularly if we find a better a example for non-musical theatre) ''Depending on the release, it may be more appropriate to instead apply classical style http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Classical_Style_Guide or Audiobook Stylehttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Audiobook_Style .'' Under Artist credits: Is there any reason why you are highlighting (and linking) recording and track in the first two paragraphs and not Release group and release (but artist credit) in the third? If we do decide to use performer at recording level (which I still dislike), then a fallback to composer is messy and doesn't make sense. For consistency we should then use SPA [unknown] or [musical theatre] instead. But then of course we'll get dozens of ouvertures and finales by [musical theatre] or we'll have to re-introduce the just removed cast artist(s) :( In Compilations the last example The Very Best of Andrew Lloyd Webberhttp://musicbrainz.org/release-group/e19ae645-7d9b-31ac-8be2-8745a7a11b17.html (Compilation, but of soloist performers, not entire casts. Use performance ARs rather than adding the soloists into the track titles) contradicts the guidelines above, which ask for AC to the soloists (as credited on release) And then, as already stated by practik, the examples are pretty confusing: maybe it would be better to have: Theatre Style applies: Studio recording of a musical theatre work: - Oklahoma! (1998 London cast)http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/00522915-b664-315f-baaf-be865c9d3a40.html - The Rocky Horror Show (1973 original London cast)http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/932b6296-9697-32f9-9a7e-bd41a40787de.html Soundtracks to films based upon musical theatre shows. Theatre Style overrides the generic Soundtrack Style: - Godspell (1973 film cast)http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/15a2ef94-f8c5-31e9-b9d1-9ff32fa8833f.html - My Fair Lady (1964 film cast)http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/e7349e26-3fd0-3c42-94cd-f69077e2460c.html - The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975 film cast)http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/3bcbb670-3d84-31a1-9838-42633504b075.html … … and then of course the first and the last examples should be in one and the same section ;-) ___ 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
