[mb-style] pre-RFC: Fixing the Label-Release Publisher Relationship Type
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Publisher_Relationship_Type This is a terrible mess (has the documentation ever been changed since 2005?) and I think it's overdue to be fixed. The publisherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_publisher_%28popular_music%29is the person or organization that manufactures (or contracts out manufacturing), distributes (or contracts out distribution), and promotes (or contracts out promotion). In my experience, this is flat out wrong. Publishers are rarely the same as manufacturers. Publishers are also rarely the same as distributers and promoters (who themselves are also rarely the same as the manufacturer). These same concerns about the incorrect definition were posted by ArtySmokes http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Special:Contributions/ArtySmokes long ago - http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:Publisher_Relationship_Type Currently, you can interpret the relationship as meaning that Publishers, Distributors, Manufacturers, and Promoters should all be linked with the same relationship. These should be split, imo. To make an analogy - we have distinct Compose-Music and Write-Lyrics relationships rather than a single choice of Writer. Is there a good reason not to split this massive Publisher relationship for Label-Release, which is defined to encompass many companies which normally would not be considered publishers? Contrary to what http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Label#Otherssays, I've frequently found Manufacturer (and Publisher and Distributor) on the sleeves of my releases. The documentation is also strictly for Label-Release. As stated on the wiki, this relationship is also for Artist-Release, Artist-Recording, Artist-Work, Label-Recording, and Label-Work. It's entirely possible that those relationships are fine as-is (despite their absence from the documentation), but the Label-Release relationship really ought to be fixed. PROPOSAL: I would perhaps rename the Label-Release Publisher relationship as follows: (Label) is a record company associated with (Release) (Release) has associated record company (Label) Then I would propose that each distinct aspect of that relationship be implemented as new child relationships: 1. (Label) distributed (Release) (Release) was distributed by (Label) 2. (Label) manufactured (Release) (Release) was manufactured by (Label) 3. (Label) published (Release) (Release) was published by (Label) Number 3, I'm sure is needed for Japanese music, which is what I deal with the most in Musicbrainz. There are distinct Publisher (発売元) and Distributor (販売元) entities printed on most sleeves (and many online stores). In many cases with independent music, manufacturer is also readily available. On American music, I commonly see Distributer and Manufacturer credits, but am unsure if I have seen an equivalent to the Japanese 発売元. I would be interested in hearing other thoughts on Number 3. 4. promotes (or contracts out promotion). Number 4, I don't think I've ever seen on a sleeve. Does anyone have experience with this they can share? I haven't been following the Copyright proposals, but while we're discussing this, perhaps that could also go in here: 5. (Label) holds the phonographic copyright for (Release) I can't think of a way to phrase the reverse link (Release is phonographic-copyrighted by Label?). The ability to attach Year to this relationship would require a schema change - http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-1159 - so that's not going to be part of any immediate proposal. Phonographic copyright of course has always been readily available on release sleeves. It's also readily available on most major online stores. It's also usually not even close to the Label (Imprint) we should be using for most Musicbrainz releases. (/end proposal) At the very least, I'd like to see 1, 2, and 3 become new relationships, because I know this information is readily available. I often find myself telling new editors that what they chose as the Release Label is information that Musicbrainz doesn't store. With new (1), (2), and (3) relationships, that would no longer be true - though they would need to be entered outside the release editor. Anyone else have thoughts? Agree with my ideas to fix the definition of Release Publisher (by splitting it)? If not, then why not? ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Correcting errors vs. listing them as an artist credit?
Hi all, Continuing the thread below from the mb-users list; thanks for the replies so far there. I'm coming to this list to ask whether some of the MB documentation could be clarified with respect to this distinction? My sense is that prior to NGS, many variant spellings of artist names would have been treated simply as errors to be corrected, but now editors can choose to list the variant spelling as an artist credit. But based on the current documentation, I'm finding it difficult to know exactly how to choose. On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Mike Morrison m...@mikemorr.com wrote: Hi all, When should a misspelled artist name on a release be listed as an artist credit (noting the variant spelling in the MB database for that release), and when should it be corrected (omitting the variant spelling from the database, except perhaps as an artist alias for search only)? For example, I'm wondering how the distinction is drawn between these two examples given in the docs: Frontline Assembly (Front Line Assembly), treated as an error to be corrected, at http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Error_correction_and_artist_intent versus SPY (S.P.Y), treated as a name variation, at http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Artist_Credit from: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2013-September/021883.html ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-233: New cover art types
I somehow missed this. I don't object to having a type for it, but I think liner is the wrong word for it, or at best a very bad word to use. To me (and also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liner so apparently I'm not the only one), it means the booklet. Go ahead and add it with the current name if you like, but I will be really surprised if people don't start misusing it for things like the folded pieces of paper often found in the front of CD cases that aren't really booklets. Nikki Am 03.09.13 15:08, schrieb Ben Ockmore: This has now passed - these cover art types need to be added to MB and the docs. On 29 Aug 2013 05:15, Rachel Dwight hibiscuskazen...@gmail.com wrote: Hey y'all, I allowed an extra week in the RFC because I thought the mailing list had slowed to a crawl. Turns out I was wrong. Plus school just started up for me and I got addicted to Tales of Xillia, so now it's RFV time! Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-233 Expected expiration date: 2013-9-1 (I'm allotting for time zone differences) ___ 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 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-233: New cover art types
I guess it's more of a paper sheath really, unless I misunderstood the type. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-233: New cover art types
I don't actually see where I can find the example for Liner http://musicbrainz.org/release/8eaad0e2-0905-469c-8b81-2f207e9137a0/cover-art Which picture is it? I only saw someone specifically quote Liner and +1 that... On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it's more of a paper sheath really, unless I misunderstood the type. ___ 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] RFV STYLE-233: New cover art types
On Sep 4, 2013 11:37 PM, Duke Yin yind...@gmail.com wrote: I don't actually see where I can find the example for Liner http://musicbrainz.org/release/8eaad0e2-0905-469c-8b81-2f207e9137a0/cover-art Which picture is it? I only saw someone specifically quote Liner and +1 that... I guess it's the pouches (78) On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it's more of a paper sheath really, unless I misunderstood the type. Would inner sleeve be less likely to be misunderstood without sounding like an outer sleeve and without specifying a material (but yes they are predominantly paper). ___ 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 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-233: New cover art types
On Sep 4, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 4, 2013 11:37 PM, Duke Yin yind...@gmail.com wrote: I don't actually see where I can find the example for Liner http://musicbrainz.org/release/8eaad0e2-0905-469c-8b81-2f207e9137a0/cover-art Which picture is it? I only saw someone specifically quote Liner and +1 that... I guess it's the pouches (78) It is. I have a few old LPs with printed liners as well (that I have yet to scan). On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Ben Ockmore ben.s...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it's more of a paper sheath really, unless I misunderstood the type. Would inner sleeve be less likely to be misunderstood without sounding like an outer sleeve and without specifying a material (but yes they are predominantly paper). ___ 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 ___ 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
