[mb-style] RFC: Officially deprecate the cover art relationship
Now that we've officially released the Cover Art Archive, I'd like to propose that we also officially deprecate the cover art relationship. The existing relationships can stay of course until covers have been added to the Cover Art Archive, it would just mean that no new relationships could be added. It would also not affect the Amazon relationship. There aren't many new cover art relationships being added these days (if there ever were) - just 18 open/applied in the last 8 weeks and all except one is for CD Baby. Most CD Baby releases are also available (with bigger images) on Amazon anyway. The cover art relationship is also problematic because we have no control over external sites - http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19322606 is a perfect recent example of that. Deprecating the relationship would reduce the number of ways cover art can be added, making it less confusing for users, easier for us (both users and developers) to maintain and easier to work with for other developers wanting access our cover art. Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-158 Expected expiration date: 2012-11-05 Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Officially deprecate the cover art relationship
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Now that we've officially released the Cover Art Archive, I'd like to propose that we also officially deprecate the cover art relationship. The existing relationships can stay of course until covers have been added to the Cover Art Archive, it would just mean that no new relationships could be added. It would also not affect the Amazon relationship. There aren't many new cover art relationships being added these days (if there ever were) - just 18 open/applied in the last 8 weeks and all except one is for CD Baby. Most CD Baby releases are also available (with bigger images) on Amazon anyway. The cover art relationship is also problematic because we have no control over external sites - http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19322606 is a perfect recent example of that. Deprecating the relationship would reduce the number of ways cover art can be added, making it less confusing for users, easier for us (both users and developers) to maintain and easier to work with for other developers wanting access our cover art. Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-158 Expected expiration date: 2012-11-05 +1 -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Works structure super-works
2012/10/26 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net On 10/25/2012 05:31 AM, symphonick wrote: I'd like to get a works-structure guideline in place, and one thing we've been talking about before is so-called super-works. (quite recently in a mb-users thread: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2012-October/021666.html ) The general idea is that every original piece of music gets a (MB) super-work, but arrangements and different versions of the same music would share a super-work. It would also be a catch-all work for situations when you don't know anything about arranger or instrumentation etc. I like the concept, but I think we should have better support in MB’s works lists first, or at least a definite plan /timeframe that such a thing will happen. The one thing that I think is needed is a kind of “tree view” for works, showing the main work at the top level, and then “version of”-related works below that. Not necessarily at firrst, this is a hen and egg situation :-) +1 Revisiting the Wachet auf example: -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ~ Work composer: Philipp Nicolai (1599) derivative works (?): Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Chorale: Gloria sei dir gesungen -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings:[snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (s/b lots of arrangements here) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1748) recordings: [snip] part of:Sechs Choräle von Verschiedener Art (Schübler-Choräle) version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski) (lots of arrangements here too) -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski orchestration) ~ Work orchestrator: Leopold Stokowski recordings: [snip] version of:Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 -- Comments? And how should a catch-all work look like? I think the catch-all work should display prominently the fact it is only a catch-all. We could for example use the disambiguation comment to say that this Work should only be used for recordings when the exact version is not known. -- 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] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
2012/10/29 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com Either it's obvious and redundant Foo Symphony Orchestra symphony orchestra performed or it's fuzzy and (thus) inconsistent. Let's get rid of them ;-) +1 On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Grant Swanjord grant.swanj...@gmail.comwrote: I'll vote for this one too because it seems to be so inconsistently applied. -- Grant gswanjord On Oct 28, 2012 6:26 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/28 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com So, quick question. What's the point? I have absolutely no idea, since for me those have always looked like an attribute of the *artist*, not the performance. From what I've seen, most people apply them only when they remember to, which means everything ends up being inconsistent, and a pain in the arse when merging (more than twice I've had to remove a duplicate orchestra because a recording it was merged with had chamber orchestra or whatever) - so I'm trying to find out if there's actually some useful information to be gained from it, and more specifically, any that is really recording-specific. Personally, I would expect this stuff to be stored as some kind of artist subtype, which could also include stuff like string trio, string quartet, piano trio, male choir, or whatever. But I might be missing its recording-specific uses :) +1 +1, definitely -- 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] RFC: Officially deprecate the cover art relationship
Den 29-10-2012 12:56, Nikki skrev: Now that we've officially released the Cover Art Archive, I'd like to propose that we also officially deprecate the cover art relationship. +1 -- Namasté, Frederik Freso S. Olesen http://freso.dk/ MB: https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Officially deprecate the cover art relationship
Nikki skrev: Now that we've officially released the Cover Art Archive, I'd like to propose that we also officially deprecate the cover art relationship. The Cover Art Archive is still very limited. It can't handle PNG or GIF images, only JPEG. -- http://www.interface1.net ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Officially deprecate the cover art relationship
Seconded. But keep Amazon linking, since CAA uploads are still very unstable. ~Profpatsch -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Now that we've officially released the Cover Art Archive, I'd like to propose that we also officially deprecate the cover art relationship. The existing relationships can stay of course until covers have been added to the Cover Art Archive, it would just mean that no new relationships could be added. It would also not affect the Amazon relationship. There aren't many new cover art relationships being added these days (if there ever were) - just 18 open/applied in the last 8 weeks and all except one is for CD Baby. Most CD Baby releases are also available (with bigger images) on Amazon anyway. The cover art relationship is also problematic because we have no control over external sites - http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19322606 is a perfect recent example of that. Deprecating the relationship would reduce the number of ways cover art can be added, making it less confusing for users, easier for us (both users and developers) to maintain and easier to work with for other developers wanting access our cover art. Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-158 Expected expiration date: 2012-11-05 Nikki ___ 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: Officially deprecate the cover art relationship
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Staffan Vilcans lift...@interface1.netwrote: Nikki skrev: Now that we've officially released the Cover Art Archive, I'd like to propose that we also officially deprecate the cover art relationship. The Cover Art Archive is still very limited. It can't handle PNG or GIF images, only JPEG And yet since we launched it, only 3 PNGs and no GIFs were added with the cover art relationship. So it doesn't seem people are feeling a huge need to link those (more often they just convert them to JPG and upload them, from what I've seen). -- http://www.interface1.net ___ 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] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
Am 29.10.2012, 02:32 Uhr, schrieb SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com: Let's get rid of them ;-) +1 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Officially deprecate the cover art relationship
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Profpatsch m...@profpatsch.de wrote: I guess that it won't support png in the future, since most png covers are much bigger than jpegs (because of pngs color palette not being used correctly or the average cover simply having too many distinct colors), while both formats practically have the same quality. What could be implemented though is the possibility to upload pngs and them being converted by the server. That would increase traffic and server workload, though and the servers are already at limit and unstable as is. Actually, supporting png is on the plans - the Internet Archive isn't running out of space anytime soon, so they don't really care about size too much. Not sure what is needed for that to happen though. ~Profpatsch -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Staffan Vilcans lift...@interface1.net wrote: Nikki skrev: Now that we've officially released the Cover Art Archive, I'd like to propose that we also officially deprecate the cover art relationship. The Cover Art Archive is still very limited. It can't handle PNG or GIF images, only JPEG. ___ 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] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
I agree that these attributes should be removed. However, what do you guys think of adding Ensemble instead? To me, a quartet or quintet doesn't really qualify as an Orchestra... I was therefor adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason. While Quarter, Quintet are often credited, Ensemble is as well and would be more generic. Sebastien On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote: Am 29.10.2012, 02:32 Uhr, schrieb SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com: Let's get rid of them ;-) +1 ___ 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] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.ca wrote: I agree that these attributes should be removed. However, what do you guys think of adding Ensemble instead? To me, a quartet or quintet doesn't really qualify as an Orchestra... I was therefor adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason. Huh? That makes zero sense to me. If it doesn't qualify as an orchestra (obviously true) why would you select chamber orchestra, instead of a simple performed? While Quarter, Quintet are often credited, Ensemble is as well and would be more generic. Sebastien On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM, lorenz pressler l...@gmx.at wrote: Am 29.10.2012, 02:32 Uhr, schrieb SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com: Let's get rid of them ;-) +1 ___ 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 -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Works structure super-works
2012/10/29 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/26 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net On 10/25/2012 05:31 AM, symphonick wrote: I'd like to get a works-structure guideline in place, and one thing we've been talking about before is so-called super-works. (quite recently in a mb-users thread: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2012-October/021666.html ) The general idea is that every original piece of music gets a (MB) super-work, but arrangements and different versions of the same music would share a super-work. It would also be a catch-all work for situations when you don't know anything about arranger or instrumentation etc. I like the concept, but I think we should have better support in MB’s works lists first, or at least a definite plan /timeframe that such a thing will happen. The one thing that I think is needed is a kind of “tree view” for works, showing the main work at the top level, and then “version of”-related works below that. Not necessarily at firrst, this is a hen and egg situation :-) +1 Revisiting the Wachet auf example: -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ~ Work composer: Philipp Nicolai (1599) derivative works (?): Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Chorale: Gloria sei dir gesungen -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings:[snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (s/b lots of arrangements here) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1748) recordings: [snip] part of:Sechs Choräle von Verschiedener Art (Schübler-Choräle) version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski) (lots of arrangements here too) -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski orchestration) ~ Work orchestrator: Leopold Stokowski recordings: [snip] version of:Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 -- Comments? And how should a catch-all work look like? I think the catch-all work should display prominently the fact it is only a catch-all. We could for example use the disambiguation comment to say that this Work should only be used for recordings when the exact version is not known. OK. If we don't add any new relationships, it could look like this (let's say a catch-all work is related to Bach's first version): -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer:Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: [snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) (+ lots of arrangements) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: Sleepers awake (arrangement for string quartet) Wachet auf (violin + piano) Wachet auf (Loussier) [more unknown/other arrangements] version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen -- What's your thoughts? Do we have to use instrumental recordings here, since Zion hört is a vocal work? /symphonick ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add J-Lyric.net to the lyrics whitelist
On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Calvin Walton wrote: On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 01:18 -0500, Rachel Dwight wrote: Server ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5505 Style ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-156 Basically, J-lyric.net (http://j-lyric.net/) is a Japanese lyric site akin to Kasi-Time.com. It goes back further in time than any other related lyric site that I've seen. Its legality is verified on the About page (http://j-lyric.net/info/e373.html which is only in Japanese unfortunately) verifies that the site is licensed by JASRAC (Japan's premier royalty collection agency akin to ASCAP). If you want to double check the JASRAC licensing, I've found that the people running the JASRAC international contact email would be happy to do so, just send a message (English OK) to intl-cont...@pop02.jasrac.or.jp (In a previous message I sent them, they confirmed that kasi-time.com and uta-net.com are properly licensed by JASRAC.) One requirement for the special procedures for lyrics sites http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Proposals#Special_Procedures is that you will need to ensure you have permission to link directly to the lyric pages for individual songs. If you can find a place stating so on the page that's probably OK, otherwise it would be a good idea to contact the site. As far as the site itself goes, +1 from me. -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca Update: I just got confirmation back from JASRAC that J-Lyric.net is licensed. Should I post a copy of the e-mail here? ___ 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] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.cawrote: I agree that these attributes should be removed. However, what do you guys think of adding Ensemble instead? To me, a quartet or quintet doesn't really qualify as an Orchestra... I was therefor adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason. Huh? That makes zero sense to me. If it doesn't qualify as an orchestra (obviously true) why would you select chamber orchestra, instead of a simple performed? I don't understand your answer, Nicolás. What do you suggest to use for trios, quartet or quintet ensembles? -- 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] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.cawrote: I agree that these attributes should be removed. However, what do you guys think of adding Ensemble instead? To me, a quartet or quintet doesn't really qualify as an Orchestra... I was therefor adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason. Huh? That makes zero sense to me. If it doesn't qualify as an orchestra (obviously true) why would you select chamber orchestra, instead of a simple performed? I don't understand your answer, Nicolás. What do you suggest to use for trios, quartet or quintet ensembles? From the current options, performed, or maybe performed strings for a string trio / quartet. Obviously not orchestra, since they're not one... -- 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 -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Works structure super-works
2012/10/29 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/26 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net On 10/25/2012 05:31 AM, symphonick wrote: I'd like to get a works-structure guideline in place, and one thing we've been talking about before is so-called super-works. (quite recently in a mb-users thread: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2012-October/021666.html ) The general idea is that every original piece of music gets a (MB) super-work, but arrangements and different versions of the same music would share a super-work. It would also be a catch-all work for situations when you don't know anything about arranger or instrumentation etc. I like the concept, but I think we should have better support in MB’s works lists first, or at least a definite plan /timeframe that such a thing will happen. The one thing that I think is needed is a kind of “tree view” for works, showing the main work at the top level, and then “version of”-related works below that. Not necessarily at firrst, this is a hen and egg situation :-) +1 Revisiting the Wachet auf example: -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ~ Work composer: Philipp Nicolai (1599) derivative works (?): Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Chorale: Gloria sei dir gesungen -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings:[snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (s/b lots of arrangements here) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1748) recordings: [snip] part of:Sechs Choräle von Verschiedener Art (Schübler-Choräle) version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski) (lots of arrangements here too) -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski orchestration) ~ Work orchestrator: Leopold Stokowski recordings: [snip] version of:Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 -- Comments? And how should a catch-all work look like? I think the catch-all work should display prominently the fact it is only a catch-all. We could for example use the disambiguation comment to say that this Work should only be used for recordings when the exact version is not known. OK. If we don't add any new relationships, it could look like this (let's say a catch-all work is related to Bach's first version): -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer:Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: [snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) (+ lots of arrangements) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: Sleepers awake (arrangement for string quartet) Wachet auf (violin + piano) Wachet auf (Loussier) [more unknown/other arrangements] version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen -- What's your thoughts? Do we have to use instrumental recordings here, since Zion hört is a vocal work? I wonder about setting the catch-all as a version of anything. I originally thought something like your example, then I thought we could deduce most relevant information from Recording ARs (and ask the editor to enter all other information in the Recording comment). So in your example, I thought we could use a global Wachet auf catch-all Work, and ask the editor to enter Bach in a Recording Composer AR. The fact this is an instrumental work or not is of course very important to help us later find out which version this recording was. I don't understand your question, could you rephrase it? -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Works structure super-works
2012/10/29 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/26 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net On 10/25/2012 05:31 AM, symphonick wrote: I'd like to get a works-structure guideline in place, and one thing we've been talking about before is so-called super-works. (quite recently in a mb-users thread: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2012-October/021666.html ) The general idea is that every original piece of music gets a (MB) super-work, but arrangements and different versions of the same music would share a super-work. It would also be a catch-all work for situations when you don't know anything about arranger or instrumentation etc. I like the concept, but I think we should have better support in MB’s works lists first, or at least a definite plan /timeframe that such a thing will happen. The one thing that I think is needed is a kind of “tree view” for works, showing the main work at the top level, and then “version of”-related works below that. Not necessarily at firrst, this is a hen and egg situation :-) +1 Revisiting the Wachet auf example: -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ~ Work composer: Philipp Nicolai (1599) derivative works (?): Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Chorale: Gloria sei dir gesungen -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings:[snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (s/b lots of arrangements here) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1748) recordings: [snip] part of:Sechs Choräle von Verschiedener Art (Schübler-Choräle) version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski) (lots of arrangements here too) -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski orchestration) ~ Work orchestrator: Leopold Stokowski recordings: [snip] version of:Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 -- Comments? And how should a catch-all work look like? I think the catch-all work should display prominently the fact it is only a catch-all. We could for example use the disambiguation comment to say that this Work should only be used for recordings when the exact version is not known. OK. If we don't add any new relationships, it could look like this (let's say a catch-all work is related to Bach's first version): -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer:Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: [snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) (+ lots of arrangements) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: Sleepers awake (arrangement for string quartet) Wachet auf (violin + piano) Wachet auf (Loussier) [more unknown/other arrangements] version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen -- What's your thoughts? Do we have to use instrumental recordings here, since Zion hört is a vocal work? I wonder about setting the catch-all as a version of anything. I originally thought something like your example, then I thought we could deduce most relevant information from Recording ARs (and ask the editor to enter all other information in the Recording comment). So in your example, I thought we could use a global Wachet auf catch-all Work, and ask the editor to enter Bach in a Recording Composer AR. The fact this is an instrumental work or not is of course very important to help us later find out which version this recording was. I don't understand your question, could you rephrase it? In that case you need another AR, like super-work or something to connect to the Bach works.
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Works structure super-works
2012/10/29 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/26 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net On 10/25/2012 05:31 AM, symphonick wrote: I'd like to get a works-structure guideline in place, and one thing we've been talking about before is so-called super-works. (quite recently in a mb-users thread: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2012-October/021666.html ) The general idea is that every original piece of music gets a (MB) super-work, but arrangements and different versions of the same music would share a super-work. It would also be a catch-all work for situations when you don't know anything about arranger or instrumentation etc. I like the concept, but I think we should have better support in MB’s works lists first, or at least a definite plan /timeframe that such a thing will happen. The one thing that I think is needed is a kind of “tree view” for works, showing the main work at the top level, and then “version of”-related works below that. Not necessarily at firrst, this is a hen and egg situation :-) +1 Revisiting the Wachet auf example: -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ~ Work composer: Philipp Nicolai (1599) derivative works (?): Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Chorale: Gloria sei dir gesungen -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings:[snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (s/b lots of arrangements here) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1748) recordings: [snip] part of:Sechs Choräle von Verschiedener Art (Schübler-Choräle) version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski) (lots of arrangements here too) -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski orchestration) ~ Work orchestrator: Leopold Stokowski recordings: [snip] version of:Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 -- Comments? And how should a catch-all work look like? I think the catch-all work should display prominently the fact it is only a catch-all. We could for example use the disambiguation comment to say that this Work should only be used for recordings when the exact version is not known. OK. If we don't add any new relationships, it could look like this (let's say a catch-all work is related to Bach's first version): -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer:Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: [snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) (+ lots of arrangements) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: Sleepers awake (arrangement for string quartet) Wachet auf (violin + piano) Wachet auf (Loussier) [more unknown/other arrangements] version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen -- What's your thoughts? Do we have to use instrumental recordings here, since Zion hört is a vocal work? I wonder about setting the catch-all as a version of anything. I originally thought something like your example, then I thought we could deduce most relevant information from Recording ARs (and ask the editor to enter all other information in the Recording comment). So in your example, I thought we could use a global Wachet auf catch-all Work, and ask the editor to enter Bach in a Recording Composer AR. The fact this is an instrumental work or not is of course very important to help us later find out which version this recording was. I don't understand your question, could you rephrase it? In that case you need another AR, like
Re: [mb-style] [CSG] Works structure super-works
2012/10/29 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/29 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/26 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2012/10/25 Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net On 10/25/2012 05:31 AM, symphonick wrote: I'd like to get a works-structure guideline in place, and one thing we've been talking about before is so-called super-works. (quite recently in a mb-users thread: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2012-October/021666.html ) The general idea is that every original piece of music gets a (MB) super-work, but arrangements and different versions of the same music would share a super-work. It would also be a catch-all work for situations when you don't know anything about arranger or instrumentation etc. I like the concept, but I think we should have better support in MB’s works lists first, or at least a definite plan /timeframe that such a thing will happen. The one thing that I think is needed is a kind of “tree view” for works, showing the main work at the top level, and then “version of”-related works below that. Not necessarily at firrst, this is a hen and egg situation :-) +1 Revisiting the Wachet auf example: -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme ~ Work composer: Philipp Nicolai (1599) derivative works (?): Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Chorale: Gloria sei dir gesungen -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings:[snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (s/b lots of arrangements here) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1748) recordings: [snip] part of:Sechs Choräle von Verschiedener Art (Schübler-Choräle) version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski) (lots of arrangements here too) -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 (Stokowski orchestration) ~ Work orchestrator: Leopold Stokowski recordings: [snip] version of:Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 -- Comments? And how should a catch-all work look like? I think the catch-all work should display prominently the fact it is only a catch-all. We could for example use the disambiguation comment to say that this Work should only be used for recordings when the exact version is not known. OK. If we don't add any new relationships, it could look like this (let's say a catch-all work is related to Bach's first version): -- Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen ~ Work composer:Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: [snip] part of: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140 based on: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Philipp Nicolai) later versions: Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645 Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) (+ lots of arrangements) later translated versions: Zion Hears the Watchmen's Voices -- Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (catch-all work) ~ Work composer: Johann Sebastian Bach (1731) recordings: Sleepers awake (arrangement for string quartet) Wachet auf (violin + piano) Wachet auf (Loussier) [more unknown/other arrangements] version of: Choral (Tenore): Zion hört die Wächter singen -- What's your thoughts? Do we have to use instrumental recordings here, since Zion hört is a vocal work? I wonder about setting the catch-all as a version of anything. I originally thought something like your example, then I thought we could deduce most relevant information from Recording ARs (and ask the editor to enter all other information in the Recording comment). So in your example, I thought we could use a global Wachet auf catch-all Work, and ask the editor to enter Bach in a Recording Composer AR. The fact this is an instrumental work or not is of course very important to help us later find out which version this recording was. I don't understand your question, could you rephrase it? In that case you need another AR, like
Re: [mb-style] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.cawrote: I agree that these attributes should be removed. However, what do you guys think of adding Ensemble instead? To me, a quartet or quintet doesn't really qualify as an Orchestra... I was therefor adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason. Huh? That makes zero sense to me. If it doesn't qualify as an orchestra (obviously true) why would you select chamber orchestra, instead of a simple performed? I don't understand your answer, Nicolás. What do you suggest to use for trios, quartet or quintet ensembles? From the current options, performed, or maybe performed strings for a string trio / quartet. Obviously not orchestra, since they're not one... since they're not one: I guess this precisely why Sebastien suggested to replace Orchestra with Ensemble. Or did I misunderstand his suggestion? -- 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] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.cawrote: I agree that these attributes should be removed. However, what do you guys think of adding Ensemble instead? To me, a quartet or quintet doesn't really qualify as an Orchestra... I was therefor adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason. Huh? That makes zero sense to me. If it doesn't qualify as an orchestra (obviously true) why would you select chamber orchestra, instead of a simple performed? I don't understand your answer, Nicolás. What do you suggest to use for trios, quartet or quintet ensembles? From the current options, performed, or maybe performed strings for a string trio / quartet. Obviously not orchestra, since they're not one... since they're not one: I guess this precisely why Sebastien suggested to replace Orchestra with Ensemble. Or did I misunderstand his suggestion? I was replying to the I was therefore adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason bit, which makes it sound like he's been doing that, which is like wtf why would you do that. I could agree with adding ensemble, although tbh I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense as an attribute either - string quartet or whatever is an attribute of the artist. As orchestra is, to be fair - I know at least hawke would much rather just merge orchestra into performed. -- 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 -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.cawrote: I agree that these attributes should be removed. However, what do you guys think of adding Ensemble instead? To me, a quartet or quintet doesn't really qualify as an Orchestra... I was therefor adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason. Huh? That makes zero sense to me. If it doesn't qualify as an orchestra (obviously true) why would you select chamber orchestra, instead of a simple performed? I don't understand your answer, Nicolás. What do you suggest to use for trios, quartet or quintet ensembles? From the current options, performed, or maybe performed strings for a string trio / quartet. Obviously not orchestra, since they're not one... since they're not one: I guess this precisely why Sebastien suggested to replace Orchestra with Ensemble. Or did I misunderstand his suggestion? I was replying to the I was therefore adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason bit, which makes it sound like he's been doing that, which is like wtf why would you do that. I could agree with adding ensemble, although tbh I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense as an attribute either - string quartet or whatever is an attribute of the artist. As orchestra is, to be fair - I know at least hawke would much rather just merge orchestra into performed. Maybe you are right, maybe this is not what Sebastien meant. But still, the idea makes sense IMO: why not rename this AR to Ensemble instead of orchestra? Ensemble would apply to orchestras as well as trios or quartets and so on, while using an Orchestra AR for a quartet does not feel natural to me. But this would be a separate RFC. -- 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] New allmusic.com URLs
Hello again, some time has passed, and at least to me it is clear now that we want to convert all remaining URLs to the new format. All newly added links are in the new format, it does not make sense to have one half in one format, and one half in another. If someone really needs the old AMG IDs (e.g. for iTunes lookup), it is easy to obtain them via the freely usable rovi API. So, if someone really is against this step, please veto now. If you agree, no need to respond :-). Greetings, Johannes On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:28:50AM +0200, Johannes Weißl wrote: Hello, it seems allmusic.com changed their URLs and their preferred ID system (thanks to Nicolás for telling me). Is anybody against using the new IDs? It seems over the top to have both in the database... URL cleanup patch: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-4834 Changes to style: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Style%2FRelationships%2FURLsdiff=53978oldid=52528 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Allmusic_Relationship_Typediff=53977oldid=46945 (can be easily reverted) Example edit: http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17879855 The new URLs always redirect to the www subdomain, so it seems sensible to include them by default from now on. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
Why would we need ensemble? Why would Kronos Quartet ''performed'' not be enough? I'd maintain orchestra performed though. It comes in handy for big stuff like opera with many different relationships. On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/29 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Lemire, Sebastien m...@benji99.cawrote: I agree that these attributes should be removed. However, what do you guys think of adding Ensemble instead? To me, a quartet or quintet doesn't really qualify as an Orchestra... I was therefor adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason. Huh? That makes zero sense to me. If it doesn't qualify as an orchestra (obviously true) why would you select chamber orchestra, instead of a simple performed? I don't understand your answer, Nicolás. What do you suggest to use for trios, quartet or quintet ensembles? From the current options, performed, or maybe performed strings for a string trio / quartet. Obviously not orchestra, since they're not one... since they're not one: I guess this precisely why Sebastien suggested to replace Orchestra with Ensemble. Or did I misunderstand his suggestion? I was replying to the I was therefore adding the attribute Chamber Orchestra for this reason bit, which makes it sound like he's been doing that, which is like wtf why would you do that. I could agree with adding ensemble, although tbh I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense as an attribute either - string quartet or whatever is an attribute of the artist. As orchestra is, to be fair - I know at least hawke would much rather just merge orchestra into performed. Maybe you are right, maybe this is not what Sebastien meant. But still, the idea makes sense IMO: why not rename this AR to Ensemble instead of orchestra? Ensemble would apply to orchestras as well as trios or quartets and so on, while using an Orchestra AR for a quartet does not feel natural to me. But this would be a separate RFC. -- 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 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Discussion: on the attributes for the orchestra relationship
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote: So, quick question. What's the point? I have absolutely no idea, since for me those have always looked like an attribute of the *artist*, not the performance. Personally, I would expect this stuff to be stored as some kind of artist subtype, which could also include stuff like string trio, string quartet, piano trio, male choir, or whatever. But I might be missing its recording-specific uses :) I will say that I've encountered quite a few examples where what constitutes a chamber orchestra performance is (an unspecified number of) members of a larger orchestra. In those cases, it does help to be able to specify. However, I do question the overall value of having such minute data (especially when it's easy to generalize, as others have mentioned, and thus hard to rely on) but given how much discussion was recently held in support of different types of works/arrangements/transcriptions, I feel like I may be in the minority to prefer more general data. :) ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
