Re: [mb-style] RFC (was RFV): STYLE-228 updates to Live ENTITIES guide (was: Live Bootlegs guide)
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 04:02:10AM -0700, lixobix wrote: Title should be included if the release group contains either: A single titled release An official titled release All releases with the same title. Otherwise, if there are multiple titles for the same concert, this field should be omitted. If there is an alternative dividing punctuation mark at the end of the title, such as the question mark (?) or exclamation point (!), use that mark instead of the colon. Updated to reflect this, and added the Oceania Live in NYC release group to the examples (although the actual RG title has not yet been updated, as that still depends on this passing- the RG will eventually also contain an audience bootleg recording of the same show (again, pending approval)) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Th1rtyf0ur/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Live_bootlegs Any other objections? ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFV STYLE-255: Merge microblog into social network
Microblog is a word that almost nobody who actually has a Twitter account uses (and that's pretty much the only microblogging network we have links to anyway) - every artist I've seen calls it a social network and we get confused artists quite often because they want to select social network and microblog is forced on them (last example, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/23940587 ) So, I'd like to merge this into social network (like with Facebook) and get rid of the microblog relationship. Ticket is at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-255 Expected passing date is Oct 11. -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-255: Merge microblog into social network
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: So, I'd like to merge this into social network (like with Facebook) and get rid of the microblog relationship. But it is a microblog and not a social network. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogging Also notice that Twitter isn't the only microblog network available even if they are the most popular. -- http://www.interface1.net ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-255: Merge microblog into social network
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Staffan Vilcans lift...@interface1.netwrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: So, I'd like to merge this into social network (like with Facebook) and get rid of the microblog relationship. But it is a microblog and not a social network. Yes, in theory it's a microblog. The use artists make of it is as a social network, and nobody I've seen ever calls it a blog, a microblog or anything like that. As mentioned, most artists that notice the microblog term get annoyed and try to edit it to social network anyway. And yeah, there are a couple other microblogs there, I guess one or two people have an identi.capage, and some people call tumblr a microblog (which is stretching the term a bit too far I'd say anyway). I still don't see any use of having it as its own relationship instead of as what most people see it as, a social network. Even Wikipedia has given up and says *Twitter* is an online social networking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_service and microblogging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogging service :) -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Proposal: 'artist has interview at url' relationship
Hello, I don't post here much, so it's entirely possible I'm proposing this in the wrong way; bear with me. I would like to propose a new relationship type between artists and URLs - the 'has interview at' relationship. My motivation comes from: http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1nzjqm/im_daniel_lopatin_pka_oneohtrix_point_never_ama/ I stumbled across this by chance, and I'm sure a lot of other artists I follow have done Reddit AMA's. Being able to link these all together in one database is a big win. This is factual information, and I believe is a good addition to our database. Thoughts? - ocharles signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Proposal: 'artist has interview at url' relationship
Den 08-10-2013 17:29, Oliver Charles skrev: [...] I would like to propose a new relationship type between artists and URLs - the 'has interview at' relationship. [...] Thoughts? +1 from me. You need to do some -style RFC formalia though. I'll guide you through on IRC. :) -- Frederik Freso S. Olesen http://freso.dk/ ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Proposal: 'artist has interview at url' relationship
Sounds good to me, it would be at least as useful as the likes of twitter/facebook. One idea that popped into my head: could we make this a more general link to encompass recordings/releases with interviews (I don't even know if it's possible to have the same relationship type span internal and external resources)? If we're building a list of interviews (presumably with dates) it would make sense to also be able to link to existing interview recordings we have in the db. e.g. http://musicbrainz.org/recording/eaafc8bf-d286-4140-bd65-a14058230166 On 8 October 2013 16:40, Frederik Freso S. Olesen freso...@gmail.comwrote: Den 08-10-2013 17:29, Oliver Charles skrev: [...] I would like to propose a new relationship type between artists and URLs - the 'has interview at' relationship. [...] Thoughts? +1 from me. You need to do some -style RFC formalia though. I'll guide you through on IRC. :) -- Frederik Freso S. Olesen http://freso.dk/ ___ 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] Proposal: 'artist has interview at url' relationship
That or Web versions of magazine, TV or radio interviews. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds good to me, it would be at least as useful as the likes of twitter/facebook. One idea that popped into my head: could we make this a more general link to encompass recordings/releases with interviews (I don't even know if it's possible to have the same relationship type span internal and external resources)? If we're building a list of interviews (presumably with dates) it would make sense to also be able to link to existing interview recordings we have in the db. e.g. http://musicbrainz.org/recording/eaafc8bf-d286-4140-bd65-a14058230166 On 8 October 2013 16:40, Frederik Freso S. Olesen freso...@gmail.com wrote: Den 08-10-2013 17:29, Oliver Charles skrev: [...] I would like to propose a new relationship type between artists and URLs - the 'has interview at' relationship. [...] Thoughts? +1 from me. You need to do some -style RFC formalia though. I'll guide you through on IRC. :) -- Frederik Freso S. Olesen http://freso.dk/ ___ 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] RFC (was RFV): STYLE-228 updates to Live ENTITIES guide (was: Live Bootlegs guide)
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:24 AM, th1rtyf0ur ea...@spfc.org wrote: Updated to reflect this, and added the Oceania Live in NYC release group to the examples (although the actual RG title has not yet been updated, as that still depends on this passing- the RG will eventually also contain an audience bootleg recording of the same show (again, pending approval)) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Th1rtyf0ur/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Live_bootlegs So you are still proposing that RGs with official titled releases be in the -MM-DD: [Title: ][Event, ][Venue, ]City, [State, ]Country format? I would prefer to see them put in different RGs. -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC (was RFV): STYLE-228 updates to Live ENTITIES guide (was: Live Bootlegs guide)
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:52 AM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:24 AM, th1rtyf0ur ea...@spfc.org wrote: Updated to reflect this, and added the Oceania Live in NYC release group to the examples (although the actual RG title has not yet been updated, as that still depends on this passing- the RG will eventually also contain an audience bootleg recording of the same show (again, pending approval)) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Th1rtyf0ur/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Live_bootlegs So you are still proposing that RGs with official titled releases be in the -MM-DD: [Title: ][Event, ][Venue, ]City, [State, ]Country format? I would prefer to see them put in different RGs. I just had another thought: It's not unusual for an official live release to contain material from multiple shows on a tour (and not always clearly indicated with the release). In which case, they'll have to be different RGs anyway, so it's just easier to have them in different RGs all the time, IMO. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
This is RFC STYLE-257. It expires on 2013-10-15. This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack style guideline, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack Currently the Soundtrack style for tracks says: If the cover lists specific artists for each track, the listed artist should be placed in the Artist Credit field. Otherwise, use the release artist. For releases with no per-track credits, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is unknown, use [unknown]. This is confusing, because it gives two things to do if there are no per-track artists. So, I propose the following correction: If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is unknown, use [unknown]. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-255: Merge microblog into social network
To be honest, after reading that Wikipedia page, with it's citations from 5 years ago, dead links and now-shuttered services, I'd be inclined to agree with Nicolas. Going by Google Trends, it's less popular than Vanilla Ice: http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=microblog%2C%20vanilla%20ice%2C%20social%20networkcmpt=q - Si On 08/10/2013 10:10, Staffan Vilcans wrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: So, I'd like to merge this into social network (like with Facebook) and get rid of the microblog relationship. But it is a microblog and not a social network. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogging Also notice that Twitter isn't the only microblog network available even if they are the most popular. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV STYLE-255: Merge microblog into social network
On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 21:16 +0100, Simon Austin wrote: To be honest, after reading that Wikipedia page, with it's citations from 5 years ago, dead links and now-shuttered services, I'd be inclined to agree with Nicolas. Going by Google Trends, it's less popular than Vanilla Ice: http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=microblog%2C%20vanilla%20ice%2C%20social%20networkcmpt=q - Si Hey, Vanilla Ice has been making a comeback in recent years; he's going into TV and has done some home renovation shows and is just starting a new reality show this season. -- 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] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: This is RFC STYLE-257. It expires on 2013-10-15. This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack style guideline, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack [snip] If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is unknown, use [unknown]. +1 Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:13 PM, caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote: On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: This is RFC STYLE-257. It expires on 2013-10-15. This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack style guideline, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack [snip] If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is unknown, use [unknown]. +1 +1 as well. I'm sick of being forced to use the composer on artist credits even though there are vocalists (as in the case of musical theatre and film soundtracks). Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
On 10/08/2013 02:14 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote: On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:13 PM, caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote: On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: This is RFC STYLE-257. It expires on 2013-10-15. This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack style guideline, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack [snip] If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is unknown, use [unknown]. +1 +1 as well. I'm sick of being forced to use the composer on artist credits even though there are vocalists (as in the case of musical theatre and film soundtracks). As I read it, this only addresses a typo: For releases with no *per-track* credits -- If there is no *release* artist Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:37 PM, caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote: On 10/08/2013 02:14 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote: On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:13 PM, caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote: On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: This is RFC STYLE-257. It expires on 2013-10-15. This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack style guideline, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack [snip] If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is unknown, use [unknown]. +1 +1 as well. I'm sick of being forced to use the composer on artist credits even though there are vocalists (as in the case of musical theatre and film soundtracks). As I read it, this only addresses a typo: For releases with no *per-track* credits -- If there is no *release* artist A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits. That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on the tracks themselves. Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
On 10/08/2013 04:43 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote: A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits. That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on the tracks themselves. Te next sentence says “If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead.” So composer will still usually be the track artist when we don’t have per-track credits. Soundtrack Style actually already recommends using the performer for the recording artists: “The Recording Artist field should list the most important performers who appear on that specific recording” — that’s recordings, not tracks. This proposal isn’t changing anything substantial, just fixing some bad wording. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC (was RFV): STYLE-228 updates to Live ENTITIES guide (was: Live Bootlegs guide)
On Oct 8, 2013 6:55 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote: I just had another thought: It's not unusual for an official live release to contain material from multiple shows on a tour (and not always clearly indicated with the release). In which case, they'll have to be different RGs anyway, so it's just easier to have them in different RGs all the time, IMO. As I read the current and proposed rules, that makes it a live compilation so the rules don't apply. It wouldn't even sit in the same RG category. Even if it hadn't been spotted that it wasn't a single gig it would be unlikely someone would have stuck a bootleg in with it because there wouldn't be a matching date - so I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. That use of compilation is a bit problematic given the current definition of compilation (previously released tracks), but looking at a range of artists people seem happy to use compilation attribute in a way that results in better grouping rather than follow the guidance. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:52 AM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:24 AM, th1rtyf0ur ea...@spfc.org wrote: Updated to reflect this, and added the Oceania Live in NYC release group to the examples (although the actual RG title has not yet been updated, as that still depends on this passing- the RG will eventually also contain an audience bootleg recording of the same show (again, pending approval)) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Th1rtyf0ur/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Live_bootlegs So you are still proposing that RGs with official titled releases be in the -MM-DD: [Title: ][Event, ][Venue, ]City, [State, ]Country format? I would prefer to see them put in different RGs. I just had another thought: It's not unusual for an official live release to contain material from multiple shows on a tour (and not always clearly indicated with the release). In which case, they'll have to be different RGs anyway, so it's just easier to have them in different RGs all the time, IMO. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/08/2013 04:43 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote: A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits. That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on the tracks themselves. Te next sentence says “If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead.” So composer will still usually be the track artist when we don’t have per-track credits. Then I'm switching my vote to -1. Soundtrack Style actually already recommends using the performer for the recording artists: “The Recording Artist field should list the most important performers who appear on that specific recording” — that’s recordings, not tracks. This proposal isn’t changing anything substantial, just fixing some bad wording. ___ 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
[mb-style] RFC STYLE-93-2: Copyright, Phonographic Copyright, and Licensed relationships
This RFC will add 1 new relationship type and 2 new subtypes of that relationship: Copyright (Label-Release and Artist-Release) - Phonographic Copyright (Label-Release and Artist-Release) - Licensed (Label-Release) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Yindesu/DanBLOO_Copyright_Relationship_Type http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Yindesu/Licensor_Relationship_Type I removed the definition of copyright from http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-93 because I do not think it is necessary. I am limiting this RFC to Label-Release only because of concerns expressed in http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2013-January/016869.html. It is likely that Recordings can be copyrighted by different entities in different countries - which should not be a problem for the vast majority of MusicBrainz Releases due to 1-barcode-per-release. Additionally, we do not have 3-way relationships so I have removed the Country attribute. A common example of the need for country attribute is music from Warner Music Group, which is copyrighted in the U.S. by one of the Warner Music Group companies but copyrighted everywhere else by WEA International Inc. This RFC expires October 15 @ 23:00 UTC. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
I mean, that doesn't *change* that bit, so surely this doesn't make it any worse? On 9 Oct 2013 01:26, Rachel Dwight hibiscuskazen...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/08/2013 04:43 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote: A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits. That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on the tracks themselves. Te next sentence says “If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead.” So composer will still usually be the track artist when we don’t have per-track credits. Then I'm switching my vote to -1. Soundtrack Style actually already recommends using the performer for the recording artists: “The Recording Artist field should list the most important performers who appear on that specific recording” — that’s recordings, not tracks. This proposal isn’t changing anything substantial, just fixing some bad wording. ___ 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] RFC STYLE-93-2: Copyright, Phonographic Copyright, and Licensed relationships
+1 There's an MBS ticket in the works to add locales to relationships (spurred by my failed attempt at adding a sub-publisher attribute). Sent from my iPhone On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Duke Yin yind...@gmail.com wrote: This RFC will add 1 new relationship type and 2 new subtypes of that relationship: Copyright (Label-Release and Artist-Release) - Phonographic Copyright (Label-Release and Artist-Release) - Licensed (Label-Release) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Yindesu/DanBLOO_Copyright_Relationship_Type http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Yindesu/Licensor_Relationship_Type I removed the definition of copyright from http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-93 because I do not think it is necessary. I am limiting this RFC to Label-Release only because of concerns expressed in http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2013-January/016869.html . It is likely that Recordings can be copyrighted by different entities in different countries - which should not be a problem for the vast majority of MusicBrainz Releases due to 1-barcode-per-release. Additionally, we do not have 3-way relationships so I have removed the Country attribute. A common example of the need for country attribute is music from Warner Music Group, which is copyrighted in the U.S. by one of the Warner Music Group companies but copyrighted everywhere else by WEA International Inc. This RFC expires October 15 @ 23:00 UTC. ___ 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] Proposal: 'artist has interview at url' relationship
*+12000!* I had so many interviews linked in funky ways. - PATATE12, jesus2099, GOLD MASTER KING sorry you can’t write to m...@jetable.org ← this is FAKE EMAIL ADDRESS ! -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-artist-has-interview-at-url-relationship-tp4658346p4658363.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 (was RFV): STYLE-228 updates to Live ENTITIES guide (was: Live Bootlegs guide)
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote: On Oct 8, 2013 6:55 PM, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote: I just had another thought: It's not unusual for an official live release to contain material from multiple shows on a tour (and not always clearly indicated with the release). In which case, they'll have to be different RGs anyway, so it's just easier to have them in different RGs all the time, IMO. As I read the current and proposed rules, that makes it a live compilation so the rules don't apply. It wouldn't even sit in the same RG category. Even if it hadn't been spotted that it wasn't a single gig it would be unlikely someone would have stuck a bootleg in with it because there wouldn't be a matching date - so I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. Um, that's pretty much what I was saying. The important bit was at the end: so it's just easier to have [official live releases] in different RGs all the time, IMO. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style
On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, that doesn't *change* that bit, so surely this doesn't make it any worse? It doesn't make it any better either. The current system creates s much inaccuracy. However it does help a tad in the case of hidden or semi-hidden per-track credits, as one soundtrack I know of (the Avenue Q Broadway cast recording) has a list of vocal credits on the track names inside the booklet. Under the previous guideline we were restricted to what was printed on the front cover; would credits inside the booklet or in another inconspicuous place count as per-track now? On 9 Oct 2013 01:26, Rachel Dwight hibiscuskazen...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/08/2013 04:43 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote: A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits. That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on the tracks themselves. Te next sentence says “If there is no release artist, use the composer for each track instead.” So composer will still usually be the track artist when we don’t have per-track credits. Then I'm switching my vote to -1. Soundtrack Style actually already recommends using the performer for the recording artists: “The Recording Artist field should list the most important performers who appear on that specific recording” — that’s recordings, not tracks. This proposal isn’t changing anything substantial, just fixing some bad wording. ___ 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
Re: [mb-style] RFC (was RFV): STYLE-228 updates to Live ENTITIES guide (was: Live Bootlegs guide)
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:52:37AM -0700, David Gasaway wrote: So you are still proposing that RGs with official titled releases be in the -MM-DD: [Title: ][Event, ][Venue, ]City, [State, ]Country format? I would prefer to see them put in different RGs. Why? Bootlegs of non-live albums go in the same release group as the actual album, so why not put bootlegs of the same concert in the same release group as official live releases? On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:17AM -0700, David Gasaway wrote: I just had another thought: It's not unusual for an official live release to contain material from multiple shows on a tour (and not always clearly indicated with the release). In which case, they'll have to be different RGs anyway, so it's just easier to have them in different RGs all the time, IMO. Even for multi-date live releases there can be both official and bootleg versions of the same release, e.g. Earphoria: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/503d32cd-a1eb-387d-9a39-f91f4541ee5e (no bootleg entries currently entered in MB, although they're mentioned in the wiki excerpt at the top). And while it's not unusual for live albums to consist of multiple dates, it certainly doesn't mean all are that way (as with the Oceania Live in NYC example, Nirvana's MTV Unplugged, etc.). As for the last statement about it being easier, I don't think that's necessarily true, or a good reason, either. For single-concert live releases, that would require a special exception, and would defeat the whole point of grouping releases from the same concert together. My guess is that bands with many single-concert, official live releases are also going to have a lot of bootlegs (inc. of the same concerts)- I know this is true of the Smashing Pumpkins, and I'd guess the same applies to many jam other taper-friendly bands. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
