Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-93-2: Copyright, Phonographic Copyright, and Licensed relationships
+1 I've always been surprised we don't record this. My only question is whether you should remove 'by' from the licensor join phrase. I know a lot of covers will say 'licensed by ...' but I think that while 'from' indicates licensor only, 'by' could be licensee too. ___ 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 7:20 PM, th1rtyf0ur ea...@spfc.org wrote: 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? The bigger concern with the proposal to put them together, as I see it, is the title of the RG. That's why your booleg album analogy isn't the perfect fit: the RG would still be given the title of the album, not a title based on the above formula that hides the official release title. If the live RG was given the name of the official live release, there might not be much of an issue. Keeping the RGs separate skirts this problem. Honestly, I'm not clear on the value in merging the RGs. Otherwise, maybe I could propose other solutions using ARs or some such. Remember, I may have missed pertinent discussion on this topic back when I thought the thread was strictly about bootlegs. 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.). The point was this: I don't like the idea of having a situation where some official live releases (multi-date, say) are in RGs titled the same as the release, and other official live releases are in RGs that follow different rules. 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. Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I'm not proposing any kind of special exception that would be required for single-concert live releases. Rather, I'm trying to remove special exceptions by proposing a very simple rule: Official live releases in one RG, bootlegs in another. That is what I describe as easier. Anyway, are you sure that you've actually addressed the concern that lead to the veto on the initial RFV? -- -:-:- 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 STYLE-93-2: Copyright, Phonographic Copyright, and Licensed relationships
Well, agreed that the wording is vague. How about this: Before: This relationship indicates the company licensed a release. After: This relationship indicates the company that was the licensor of a release. I changed the vague link phrase to Release is licensed from Label, removing the licensed by that made it unnecessarily vague. On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote: +1 I've always been surprised we don't record this. My only question is whether you should remove 'by' from the licensor join phrase. I know a lot of covers will say 'licensed by ...' but I think that while 'from' indicates licensor only, 'by' could be licensee too. ___ 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 08.10.2013 21:50, Alex Mauer wrote: This is RFC STYLE-257. +1 ___ 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
Rachel Dwight skrev: 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? I would hope not. Then we would end up with a lot of artist credits like John Smith, Jane Doe, Johnny Walker, Harry Davidsson, David Smythe, Olaf Whatever and ensemble. Better put those as performers. -- 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 STYLE-93-2: Copyright, Phonographic Copyright, and Licensed relationships
On 9 October 2013 07:31, Duke Yin yind...@gmail.com wrote: Well, agreed that the wording is vague. How about this: Before: This relationship indicates the company licensed a release. After: This relationship indicates the company that was the licensor of a release. I changed the vague link phrase to Release is licensed from Label, removing the licensed by that made it unnecessarily vague. +1 ___ 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
+1 ___ 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)
@David Gasaway Okay. I didn't understand why you thought it was easier. I still don't agree because of the way release groups are organised. The proposal would mean consistent naming of RGs in 'album+live' (and I guess e.p. if they exist). It also means consistent naming in 'album +live +compilation'. I wish official albums were separated out at RG level but they aren't. @34 I don't think you can say official and bootlegs are grouped in the same RG elsewhere. I don't think the example qualifies as a bootleg, just a copy / counterfeit - like we wouldn't enter torrents of an official album as separate releases. ___ 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 Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote: @David Gasaway Okay. I didn't understand why you thought it was easier. I still don't agree because of the way release groups are organised. The proposal would mean consistent naming of RGs in 'album+live' (and I guess e.p. if they exist). It also means consistent naming in 'album +live +compilation'. I wish official albums were separated out at RG level but they aren't. I literally just wrote a patch to show only RGs with at least one official release by default (I might need to rewrite some stuff because I was dumb and implemented official / all views when the community had actually asked for official / unofficial, but it will be coming at some point). @34 I don't think you can say official and bootlegs are grouped in the same RG elsewhere. I don't think the example qualifies as a bootleg, just a copy / counterfeit - like we wouldn't enter torrents of an official album as separate releases. (Mass-produced) pirate CDs are allowed in MB and set as bootleg too, so they are :) Whether both *should* be called bootleg and share a status is less clear, but that's how it is at the moment. -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC (was RFV): STYLE-228 updates to Live ENTITIES guide (was: Live Bootlegs guide)
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote: @David Gasaway Okay. I didn't understand why you thought it was easier. I still don't agree because of the way release groups are organised. The way release groups are organized? I don't understand. Could you please elaborate? -- -:-:- 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)
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote: @David Gasaway Okay. I didn't understand why you thought it was easier. I still don't agree because of the way release groups are organised. The proposal would mean consistent naming of RGs in 'album+live' (and I guess e.p. if they exist). It also means consistent naming in 'album +live +compilation'. I wish official albums were separated out at RG level but they aren't. I literally just wrote a patch to show only RGs with at least one official release by default (I might need to rewrite some stuff because I was dumb and implemented official / all views when the community had actually asked for official / unofficial, but it will be coming at some point). Fantastic! Good work @34 I don't think you can say official and bootlegs are grouped in the same RG elsewhere. I don't think the example qualifies as a bootleg, just a copy / counterfeit - like we wouldn't enter torrents of an official album as separate releases. (Mass-produced) pirate CDs are allowed in MB and set as bootleg too, so they are :) Whether both *should* be called bootleg and share a status is less clear, but that's how it is at the moment. Hmmm, does it depend if they've got different artwork/identifiers etc? Presumably a very popular torrent of an existing release would never be entered? On 9 October 2013 16:29, David Gasaway d...@gasaway.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote: @David Gasaway Okay. I didn't understand why you thought it was easier. I still don't agree because of the way release groups are organised. The way release groups are organized? I don't understand. Could you please elaborate? Of course. So maybe I use MusicBrainz in a limited way, but I only see release groups listed on an artist overview page, where they are grouped/organised by those primary and secondary release group attributes (album/e.p./single: live/compilation/broadcast/street etc.) - It sounds like they're also going to be split official (contains an official release) / unofficial by default in the not too distant future. To me that makes a big difference. When all the official and unofficial live releases are lumped together I think it's worse to have them named differently, particularly since it shoves them to the end if they don't have a release date set. However, if they're going to be separate by default I think that affects this proposal and only bootleg RGs should be named and grouped by the guide. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
