Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-102: Change Performance Relationship Type to Recording Relationship Type
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 00:22, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Note that we're not allowed to rename relationships, so the actual name of the relationship type will need to remain as performance. The link phrases can be updated of course. Do you mean that the names in the XML Web service mustn't change, or even what the dropdown box in our UI says? If only a part of what is visible to users is changed I think that the inconsistency is worse than the problem it fixes. I really don't see the point in changing the class, but since I think we should get rid of the whole class concept (whatever it even is) anyway, I don't care enough to argue against it. Can you elaborate on this? Is it recordings we shouldn't have, or a separation between different kinds of recordings? -- Philip Jägenstedt ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-102: Change Performance Relationship Type to Recording Relationship Type
Philip Jägenstedt wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 00:22, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Note that we're not allowed to rename relationships, so the actual name of the relationship type will need to remain as performance. The link phrases can be updated of course. Do you mean that the names in the XML Web service mustn't change, or even what the dropdown box in our UI says? If only a part of what is visible to users is changed I think that the inconsistency is worse than the problem it fixes. The former (the dropdowns use the link phrases, hence all the curly brackets). The name is shown on http://musicbrainz.org/admin/linktype/recording-work however. I really don't see the point in changing the class, but since I think we should get rid of the whole class concept (whatever it even is) anyway, I don't care enough to argue against it. Can you elaborate on this? Is it recordings we shouldn't have, or a separation between different kinds of recordings? Hmm? The class is just a category in the wiki with a special name. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-102: Change Performance Relationship Type to Recording Relationship Type
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:47, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Philip Jägenstedt wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 00:22, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Note that we're not allowed to rename relationships, so the actual name of the relationship type will need to remain as performance. The link phrases can be updated of course. Do you mean that the names in the XML Web service mustn't change, or even what the dropdown box in our UI says? If only a part of what is visible to users is changed I think that the inconsistency is worse than the problem it fixes. The former (the dropdowns use the link phrases, hence all the curly brackets). The name is shown on http://musicbrainz.org/admin/linktype/recording-work however. OK. I'm not sure I think changing the name partially is worth it, but I also don't care enough to argue about it. I really don't see the point in changing the class, but since I think we should get rid of the whole class concept (whatever it even is) anyway, I don't care enough to argue against it. Can you elaborate on this? Is it recordings we shouldn't have, or a separation between different kinds of recordings? Hmm? The class is just a category in the wiki with a special name. Oh, I thought you were talking about something about the schema. -- Philip Jägenstedt ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-102: Change Performance Relationship Type to Recording Relationship Type
Nikki-3 wrote Note that we're not allowed to rename relationships, so the actual name of the relationship type will need to remain as performance. The link phrases can be updated of course. Thanks for this, Nikki. Can you explain why we're not allowed to rename relationships? I ask in part because I'm confused (who or what is not allowing it?), but mainly because I want to make sure I understand what I'm doing before I go edit the Jira ticket. Philip Jägenstedt wrote I'm not sure I think changing the name partially is worth it, but I also don't care enough to argue about it. I wanted to change the name of the Recording Type for consistency, but my main priority is to improve the link phrases used in the UI (drop-down box, work pages, recording pages, release pages). I assume most users will only ever come into contact with the link phrases, so I still think it's worth it. Patrick -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-102-Change-Performance-Relationship-Type-to-Recording-Relationship-Type-tp4496712p4512668.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-102: Change Performance Relationship Type to Recording Relationship Type
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 08:52 -0700, practik wrote: Nikki-3 wrote Note that we're not allowed to rename relationships, so the actual name of the relationship type will need to remain as performance. The link phrases can be updated of course. Thanks for this, Nikki. Can you explain why we're not allowed to rename relationships? I ask in part because I'm confused (who or what is not allowing it?), but mainly because I want to make sure I understand what I'm doing before I go edit the Jira ticket. This is because the names of relationships is how they're identified on the webservice. External applications are relying on these names to identify particular relationships - changing the name would break any applications using the webservice - including Picard, for example. There is no problem with changing the link phrases, which would affect how the relationships are displayed on the website. The actual relationship name is mostly a technical detail, and is only exposed in a couple of spots on the website. -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Orchestra performed vs. performed and What's an orchestra?
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Performer_Relationship_Type says # While choirs and choruses will use the vocal version of this relationship type, orchestras # should be instead credited using the Orchestra Relationship Type. I'm not sure what the reason for that distinction is, but I guess it has to do with that when a chorus performs all participants sing, but when an orchestra performs all particants normally don't play the same instrument. But what if they do? I just entered credits for a recording http://musicbrainz.org/recording/893d02ce-2d72-48cc-a404-499e47b936cf where among several individuals playing various instruments also a balalaika orchestra is credited. (Credits say translated ... Stefan Ringbom mandolin, Anders Forsslund contrabass, balalaika orchestra Proletarij.) For me it seems much more useful to enter that they played balalaika than that they orchestra performed without saying what instruments they played. Both when looking at the page about them and for possible database queries like what recordings are there with balalaika? So that's how I entered it, in edit #17055846, but I think it might be against guidelines and want to check what people think. I'm not sure what an orchestra really is in this context. Is this balalaika orchestra an orchestra? It seems like maybe not all orchestras are orchestras since they are divided into Chamber/Symphony/Other and a jazz orchestra just might qualify for Other. So orchestra is not a synonym for an artist that is a Group here, but something more particular? If it isn't already allowed to have a Performer relationship for a Group artist with an instrument I wonder what people would think about allowing that when there is an instrument that applies for everyone in the group. Probably not everyone is actually playing the very same instrument since there are many instruments in the balalika family (there is only one balalaika in the MBz instrument tree but I think that eventually there will be more), but the credit is at exactly the same level as this item in the instrument tree. (The same could happen at a higher level, I guess, like strings.) ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Orchestra performed vs. performed and What's an orchestra?
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote: Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com writes: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Performer_Relationship_Type says # While choirs and choruses will use the vocal version of this relationship type, orchestras # should be instead credited using the Orchestra Relationship Type. I'm not sure what the reason for that distinction is, but I guess it has to do with that when a chorus performs all participants sing, but when an orchestra performs all particants normally don't play the same instrument. But what if they do? I just entered credits for a recording http://musicbrainz.org/recording/893d02ce-2d72-48cc-a404-499e47b936cf where among several individuals playing various instruments also a balalaika orchestra is credited. (Credits say translated ... Stefan Ringbom mandolin, Anders Forsslund contrabass, balalaika orchestra Proletarij.) For me it seems much more useful to enter that they played balalaika than that they orchestra performed without saying what instruments they played. Both when looking at the page about them and for possible database queries like what recordings are there with balalaika? So that's how I entered it, in edit #17055846, but I think it might be against guidelines and want to check what people think. I'm not sure what an orchestra really is in this context. Is this balalaika orchestra an orchestra? It seems like maybe not all orchestras are orchestras since they are divided into Chamber/Symphony/Other and a jazz orchestra just might qualify for Other. So orchestra is not a synonym for an artist that is a Group here, but something more particular? Hmm. I'm not sure I like entering this sort of thing with a performed instrument relationship, since that usually means something like Joe Bloggs performed the piano rather than This group of people all played accordions. That said, it would be *possible* to declare that the performed instrument relationship means what you're describing when the artist is a group rather than a person. I wonder whether anyone has a better suggestion? Well, I have used performed strings for string trios and quartets, I'd say it makes perfect sense. I have used orchestra for string orchestras, though. I am not too sure myself of why we have a separate orchestra performed relationship - if anything, I'd see more use in adding an artist type Orchestra or something - but I'm quite on the fence on this. Rupert ___ 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] Orchestra performed vs. performed and What's an orchestra?
Well, there's guidelines and there's common sense. And guidelines are just that, not rules that override common sense. If you had to deal with a group called The Accordion Tribe or The Baltimore Banjo Band or Balalaika Babuschkas you probably wouldn't even realize there's a problem. So yes I think it makes sense to credit performed balalaika even to a group, if this is what's actually going on, and even more so I wouldn't hesitate to call this group balalaika orchestra Proletarij (and not just Proletarij) On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.comwrote: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Performer_Relationship_Type says # While choirs and choruses will use the vocal version of this relationship type, orchestras # should be instead credited using the Orchestra Relationship Type. I'm not sure what the reason for that distinction is, but I guess it has to do with that when a chorus performs all participants sing, but when an orchestra performs all particants normally don't play the same instrument. But what if they do? I just entered credits for a recording http://musicbrainz.org/recording/893d02ce-2d72-48cc-a404-499e47b936cf where among several individuals playing various instruments also a balalaika orchestra is credited. (Credits say translated ... Stefan Ringbom mandolin, Anders Forsslund contrabass, balalaika orchestra Proletarij.) For me it seems much more useful to enter that they played balalaika than that they orchestra performed without saying what instruments they played. Both when looking at the page about them and for possible database queries like what recordings are there with balalaika? So that's how I entered it, in edit #17055846, but I think it might be against guidelines and want to check what people think. I'm not sure what an orchestra really is in this context. Is this balalaika orchestra an orchestra? It seems like maybe not all orchestras are orchestras since they are divided into Chamber/Symphony/Other and a jazz orchestra just might qualify for Other. So orchestra is not a synonym for an artist that is a Group here, but something more particular? If it isn't already allowed to have a Performer relationship for a Group artist with an instrument I wonder what people would think about allowing that when there is an instrument that applies for everyone in the group. Probably not everyone is actually playing the very same instrument since there are many instruments in the balalika family (there is only one balalaika in the MBz instrument tree but I think that eventually there will be more), but the credit is at exactly the same level as this item in the instrument tree. (The same could happen at a higher level, I guess, like strings.) ___ 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] Orchestra performed vs. performed and What's an orchestra?
Per Starbäck wrote Is this balalaika orchestra an orchestra? It seems like maybe not all orchestras are orchestras since they are divided into Chamber/Symphony/Other and a jazz orchestra just might qualify for Other. So orchestra is not a synonym for an artist that is a Group here, but something more particular? No, to my mind Proletarij is not an orchestra. My understanding of the term is something more like: a group of instrumentalists usually combining various sections (string, wind, brass, percussion) playing classical music. Although I guess I might change that last part to classical or jazz, now that you mention jazz orchestras. Patrick -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Orchestra-performed-vs-performed-and-What-s-an-orchestra-tp4513211p4513576.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] Orchestra performed vs. performed and What's an orchestra?
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:27 PM, practik kronp...@yahoo.com wrote: Per Starbäck wrote Is this balalaika orchestra an orchestra? It seems like maybe not all orchestras are orchestras since they are divided into Chamber/Symphony/Other and a jazz orchestra just might qualify for Other. So orchestra is not a synonym for an artist that is a Group here, but something more particular? No, to my mind Proletarij is not an orchestra. My understanding of the term is something more like: a group of instrumentalists usually combining various sections (string, wind, brass, percussion) playing classical music. Although I guess I might change that last part to classical or jazz, now that you mention jazz orchestras. Patrick Merriam-Webster has a group of musicians including especially string players organized to perform ensemble music - which funnily makes a balalaika orchestra more of an orchestra than many others. On the other hand, Cambridge has a large group of musicians who play many different instruments together and are led by a conductor, which makes it not an orchestra since their instruments are not different. FWIW, the official Spanish dictionary also goes with different instruments, and the French one takes a very neutral stance saying that it's a musical formation whose importance and composition has changed according to the times and the nature of the interpreted pieces (so, basically, saying nothing). So, what's an orchestra? Whatever one thinks is an orchestra, it seems. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Orchestra-performed-vs-performed-and-What-s-an-orchestra-tp4513211p4513576.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] RFC STYLE-102: Change Performance Relationship Type to Recording Relationship Type
This has a +1 and can now advance to RFV. On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca wrote: On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 08:52 -0700, practik wrote: Nikki-3 wrote Note that we're not allowed to rename relationships, so the actual name of the relationship type will need to remain as performance. The link phrases can be updated of course. Thanks for this, Nikki. Can you explain why we're not allowed to rename relationships? I ask in part because I'm confused (who or what is not allowing it?), but mainly because I want to make sure I understand what I'm doing before I go edit the Jira ticket. This is because the names of relationships is how they're identified on the webservice. External applications are relying on these names to identify particular relationships - changing the name would break any applications using the webservice - including Picard, for example. There is no problem with changing the link phrases, which would affect how the relationships are displayed on the website. The actual relationship name is mostly a technical detail, and is only exposed in a couple of spots on the website. -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca ___ 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
