Re: [mb-style] Founder of a group
Nikki aei...@gmail.com writes: Hello, Prompted by http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17114614, I'm wondering what other people think the definition of a founder is - is it simply any of the original members of the group, or specifically the person/people who decided to create the group? If you think it's the latter definition, does anything change (for cases like that edit) when the person who decided to create the group was never actually a member themselves? (The members were chosen by auditions) Well, people talk of founding members for organisations / societies and just mean members that were there from the start. This is the meaning I always attached to the relation. I'm not sure of the best way to model the situation you describe with the current options in MB. Rupert pgpVbENM3JCWm.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Founder of a group
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote: Nikki aei...@gmail.com writes: Hello, Prompted by http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17114614, I'm wondering what other people think the definition of a founder is - is it simply any of the original members of the group, or specifically the person/people who decided to create the group? If you think it's the latter definition, does anything change (for cases like that edit) when the person who decided to create the group was never actually a member themselves? (The members were chosen by auditions) Well, people talk of founding members for organisations / societies and just mean members that were there from the start. This is the meaning I always attached to the relation. I'm not sure of the best way to model the situation you describe with the current options in MB. The same problem appears in art music ensembles, though - conductors found orchestras or choirs, but they aren't really members of them. I've always wondered how to credit that. 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] Founder of a group
Nikki-3 wrote Prompted by http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17114614, I'm wondering what other people think the definition of a founder is - is it simply any of the original members of the group, or specifically the person/people who decided to create the group? If you think it's the latter definition, does anything change (for cases like that edit) when the person who decided to create the group was never actually a member themselves? (The members were chosen by auditions) I've been going on the assumption that founder means original member in the MusicBrainz context. I agree with you, Nikki, that it's semantically wrong, but since it's an attribute of the member relationship, I decided (pretty much unconsciously) that it must be intended to indicate a founding member in the way Rupert describes. And actually, now that I look at the drop-down for creating that relationship, that's exactly what it says: This attribute indicates that an artist was a founding member of a group artist. By my current way of thinking, at the moment there's no way to capture the relationship of a person who created a group but wasn't a member. Maybe a step toward a solution would be to change the current founder attribute to original member and add a separate founder relationship for non-member founders? Patrick -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Founder-of-a-group-tp4525193p4526520.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
[mb-style] RFV STYLE-102: Change Performance Relationship Type to Recording Relationship Type
To recap: The Performance Relationship Type identifies separate recordings of the same work as separate performances of it, though in reality they may not be. Also, it's listed as part of the Performance Relationship Class, but it doesn't fit the class description and has nothing in common with the other relationships in that class. I propose changing the Performance Relationship Type to a Recording Relationship Type and placing it in a more appropriate class. Following Nicolás and Calvin's suggestions at the end of the RFC thread (linked below), I've prioritized and reshuffled the steps to accomplish this. Details in Jira: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-102 Previous discussion: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=17589 http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/quot-recording-quot-quot-performance-quot-td4435768.html http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-102-Change-Performance-Relationship-Type-to-Recording-Relationship-Type-td4496712.html Expiration date: 2012-04-05 -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-102-Change-Performance-Relationship-Type-to-Recording-Relationship-Type-tp4526697p4526697.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
Thanks, Nicolás and Calvin, for the explanations and suggestions and (extra) +1! Here's the RFV: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-102-Change-Performance-Relationship-Type-to-Recording-Relationship-Type-td4526697.html -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-102-Change-Performance-Relationship-Type-to-Recording-Relationship-Type-tp4496712p4526703.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
[mb-style] Should radio edit and similar go in recording title or annotation?
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16971109 reminded me of this issue, which I haven't understood since the introduction of NGS. One the one hand, disambiguation comments aren't used for tagging (right?) so moving information there would produce some broken tags for people who use normalized tagging in Picard. On the other hand, disambiguation comments are shown in parenthesis after the titles everywhere on the website, which really invites moving some things in (parenthesis) to the disambiguation comments to make things look nice and tidy. http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Recording doesn't really provide any explicit guidance, only a broken link to Into the Blue (Beatmasters mix) ... -- Philip Jägenstedt ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Should radio edit and similar go in recording title or annotation?
Am 02.04.2012, 22:36 Uhr, schrieb Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org: http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16971109 reminded me of this issue, which I haven't understood since the introduction of NGS. One the one hand, disambiguation comments aren't used for tagging (right?) so moving information there would produce some broken tags for people who use normalized tagging in Picard. On the other hand, disambiguation comments are shown in parenthesis after the titles everywhere on the website, which really invites moving some things in (parenthesis) to the disambiguation comments to make things look nice and tidy. afair: recording - disamig. comment only tracklist - if its on the tracklist then it should be included in the trackname best, lorenz. -- ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Should radio edit and similar go in recording title or annotation?
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 22:58, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote: Am 02.04.2012, 22:36 Uhr, schrieb Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org: http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16971109 reminded me of this issue, which I haven't understood since the introduction of NGS. One the one hand, disambiguation comments aren't used for tagging (right?) so moving information there would produce some broken tags for people who use normalized tagging in Picard. On the other hand, disambiguation comments are shown in parenthesis after the titles everywhere on the website, which really invites moving some things in (parenthesis) to the disambiguation comments to make things look nice and tidy. afair: recording - disamig. comment only tracklist - if its on the tracklist then it should be included in the trackname Is this documented anywhere, and is it how everyone is actually editing? Is no one using the recording-level data for tagging, or are you including disambiguation comments in all files to, well, disambiguate? -- Philip Jägenstedt ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Should radio edit and similar go in recording title or annotation?
Am 02.04.2012, 23:17 Uhr, schrieb Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org: afair: recording - disamig. comment only tracklist - if its on the tracklist then it should be included in the trackname Is this documented anywhere, and is it how everyone is actually editing? Is no one using the recording-level data for tagging, or are you including disambiguation comments in all files to, well, disambiguate? afair that was the consensus the last time there was a discussion about this, i don't know if this is explicitly stated somewhere in the guidelines (i guess not since you ask here). if you tag from recording titles thats a drawback you have to cope with imo. including this information would be MUCH worse; in worst case that would give you a tracklist for an normal album release where every track has a (album version, remaster) added. also i think there are much fewer releases where the tracks need disambiguation than the other way round. if you need to tag lots of such releases (e.g. singles, anthologies) i guess it would be better to stick with the original tracklist tagging than recording titles (or append disambig. comments to the tracktitle if your tagger supports this). regards, lorenz. -- ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-102: Change Performance Relationship Type to Recording Relationship Type
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 10:40 -0700, practik wrote: To recap: The Performance Relationship Type identifies separate recordings of the same work as separate performances of it, though in reality they may not be. Also, it's listed as part of the Performance Relationship Class, but it doesn't fit the class description and has nothing in common with the other relationships in that class. I propose changing the Performance Relationship Type to a Recording Relationship Type and placing it in a more appropriate class. Following Nicolás and Calvin's suggestions at the end of the RFC thread (linked below), I've prioritized and reshuffled the steps to accomplish this. Details in Jira: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-102 I like it, thanks for putting in the work to figure out how best to make this change. -- 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] Should radio edit and similar go in recording title or annotation?
Am 03.04.2012, 00:29 Uhr, schrieb Andii Hughes gnu_and...@member.fsf.org: There is ETI that should remain in the title; remix and edit titles. i agree ofc! -- ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Founder of a group
On 04/02/2012 11:31 AM, practik wrote: I've been going on the assumption that founder means original member in the MusicBrainz context. I agree with you, Nikki, that it's semantically wrong, but since it's an attribute of the member relationship, I decided (pretty much unconsciously) that it must be intended to indicate a founding member in the way Rupert describes. And actually, now that I look at the drop-down for creating that relationship, that's exactly what it says: This attribute indicates that an artist was a founding member of a group artist. +1, this is how I see it as well. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Should radio edit and similar go in recording title or annotation?
On 2 April 2012 22:17, Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org wrote: On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 22:58, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote: Am 02.04.2012, 22:36 Uhr, schrieb Philip Jägenstedt phi...@foolip.org: http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16971109 reminded me of this issue, which I haven't understood since the introduction of NGS. One the one hand, disambiguation comments aren't used for tagging (right?) so moving information there would produce some broken tags for people who use normalized tagging in Picard. On the other hand, disambiguation comments are shown in parenthesis after the titles everywhere on the website, which really invites moving some things in (parenthesis) to the disambiguation comments to make things look nice and tidy. afair: recording - disamig. comment only tracklist - if its on the tracklist then it should be included in the trackname Is this documented anywhere, and is it how everyone is actually editing? Is no one using the recording-level data for tagging, or are you including disambiguation comments in all files to, well, disambiguate? The recording titles, not track titles, are what the NGS web service returns, so I'm using those for tagging. The disambiguation is for disambiguating recordings with the same title in the database. It is NOT for extra track information (ETI). Some examples of how I see things (and hopefully others) should clarify things, and maybe we can write this up if we all agree. If a track title is of the form: X (Y remix) that should be the recording title and the Y remix part should not be moved to disambiguation. I would similarly add things like (radio edit), (clean edit), etc. to this list i.e. noticeable changes (in length and/or lyric content) after the original version. Where I think things get fuzzy is if you have a title X on an album, but a compilation lists X (album version) (i.e. there is not cross-release agreement). Here I think (album version) is superfluous as its the 'standard' version. Thus I would expect the title to be X with no disambiguation. Cases which I think warrant disambiguation but not in-title ETI are remasters and appearances in DJ mixes. For example, a compilation may list a track as X (2006 remaster). This is fairly rare though; most don't include this information and instead it can usually be derived from the album it appears on and/or the ISRC. To me this warrants disambiguation inclusion only, as you don't want the original album to produce every track with (2006 remaster) appended to the end (or worse, one or two of them because they happen to appear on a compilation). I realise this may be a little controversial, but it does make sense in practice. Disambiguation is needed to stop tracks being merged in the DB but serve no use outside. For example, a recording with the same title on a release but which actually segues into another track at either end needs marking in the DB so it isn't merged with the original version (there are a mass of these for DJ mixes). There is also the odd case where a track title is reused by an artist -- Madonna's Forbidden Love springs to mind -- where you don't want to add anything to the track title but you don't want people merging two completely different songs. Thoughts? -- Philip Jägenstedt ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Andii :-) ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Founder of a group
Rupert Swarbrick wrote: Nikki aei...@gmail.com writes: Hello, Prompted by http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17114614, I'm wondering what other people think the definition of a founder is - is it simply any of the original members of the group, or specifically the person/people who decided to create the group? If you think it's the latter definition, does anything change (for cases like that edit) when the person who decided to create the group was never actually a member themselves? (The members were chosen by auditions) Well, people talk of founding members for organisations / societies and just mean members that were there from the start. This is the meaning I always attached to the relation. How does that apply to this case? By start, does that mean when the creator decided to create a group, gave it a name and started organising auditions for members (i.e. there were no members at the start and therefore no founding members) or when the auditions were over and the members had been selected (i.e. there were members at the start and therefore the first set of members selected from the audition become the founding members)? I could understand your answer both ways... Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
