[mb-style] RFV STYLE-280: Personal label relationship type
OK, I got 1 +1, so this should be good enough for an RFV. Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-280 Wiki: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:HibiscusKazeneko/Personal_label_relationship_type Expires on 2014-1-22___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add a In homage to relationship to works
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:17 PM, monxton musicbra...@jordan-maynard.orgwrote: On 09/04/2013 13:37, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM, monxton wrote: We do already have the tribute to relationship for release groups. So I think this should use the same form of words. That'd restrict it quite a lot, though. Britten's Cello Symphony is dedicated to Rostropovich, but isn't a tribute to him... My point is that we already have an Artist-Release Group relationship which records a dedication to someone outside the creation of the RG. If we are going to create an Artist-Work relationship that belongs to the same class, then they have to be conceptually linked. Otherwise it makes it look like we have a schema that that just grows willy-nilly rather than being designed :-) Reviving this old RFC. My problem with this idea is that tribute on an RG doesn't really mean this RG is dedicated to X. If an artist made an album of new songs and said this album is dedicated to Black Sabbath because they're a huge inspiration, that wouldn't make it a Black Sabbath tribute album. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add a In homage to relationship to works
Also, I'd pick dedication as the name, but of course, I'm coming at this from a classical POV - dunno how well that fits for non-classical uses of this. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-279: Add Place of Worship as place type
There's no consensus for this and I have too many RFCs open already, so closing this for the time being. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
Digital Media is effectively Download - but having USB and slotMusic (microSD) under it makes it much less obvious. The current hierarchy never went through style. Discussion of STYLE-177http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-177 suggested flattening the structure and moving USB and slotMusic to be first-level formats would make more sense than adding a new Download format, so let's do that. Ticket is http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-287 Expected RFV date is Jan 27 -- 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 STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: Digital Media is effectively Download Usually yes, but it can also be sent via other methods like e-mail. Calling it file would perhaps be more universal. Technically speaking CDs are also digital media. -- 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-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Staffan Vilcans lift...@interface1.netwrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: Digital Media is effectively Download Usually yes, but it can also be sent via other methods like e-mail. Calling it file would perhaps be more universal. Technically speaking CDs are also digital media. I'm not suggesting renaming it, I'm fine with the existing name. I just want the other two formats out of it :) ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: Add a In homage to relationship to works
I'll be sending a new RFC thread for this in a few days, but feel free to discuss it a bit here first (let's treat it as a pre-RFC :) ) ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: Digital Media is effectively Download Usually yes, but it can also be sent via other methods like e-mail. Calling it file would perhaps be more universal. Technically speaking CDs are also digital media. I'm not suggesting renaming it, I'm fine with the existing name. I just want the other two formats out of it :) Why? I'd rather have it as File or just keep Digital Media and then have distribution methods (like USB drive) below it. -- 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-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Staffan Vilcans lift...@interface1.netwrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: Digital Media is effectively Download Usually yes, but it can also be sent via other methods like e-mail. Calling it file would perhaps be more universal. Technically speaking CDs are also digital media. I'm not suggesting renaming it, I'm fine with the existing name. I just want the other two formats out of it :) Why? I'd rather have it as File or just keep Digital Media and then have distribution methods (like USB drive) below it. Because people want to be able to mark things as downloads, download was pretty much the definition of digital media until this hierarchy was arbitrarily made up, and we're not going to move half a million releases to a new Download or File type. See the old discussion at http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/STYLE-177-add-quot-Digital-Download-quot-to-medium-formats-td4646463.html ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-281] Add haute-contre to the vocal tree
+1 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-281] Add haute-contre to the vocal tree
But give it a couple more days before going to RFV maybe so more people can see it :) ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
+1 Let's keep Digital Media for downloads, since the term is well established and accepted (maybe adding explicitly no physical support), and sort USB and slot music under the physical media as suggested. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Staffan Vilcans lift...@interface1.netwrote: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren skrev: Digital Media is effectively Download Usually yes, but it can also be sent via other methods like e-mail. Calling it file would perhaps be more universal. Technically speaking CDs are also digital media. I'm not suggesting renaming it, I'm fine with the existing name. I just want the other two formats out of it :) Why? I'd rather have it as File or just keep Digital Media and then have distribution methods (like USB drive) below it. Because people want to be able to mark things as downloads, download was pretty much the definition of digital media until this hierarchy was arbitrarily made up, and we're not going to move half a million releases to a new Download or File type. See the old discussion at http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/STYLE-177-add-quot-Digital-Download-quot-to-medium-formats-td4646463.html ___ 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-281] Add haute-contre to the vocal tree
- 1 quoting myself from the vocal tree discussion, brought up in 2010 by Brian Schweizer, and proposing a massive increase of the vocal types: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Advanced_Vocal_Tree So what I would do: Keep the 7 basic voice types on which all manuals agree and also used by the well-documented Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_type Female types: – “Soprano”: including all the sub-categories from your list (but sopranista) with the “choral types” Soprano I and Soprano II and including, as in Wikipedia, the “intermediate voice types” “Dugazon” and “Falcon”. – “Mezzo-soprano”. – “Contralto (Alt)”: including the “choral types” Alto I and Alto II; thus merging the existing “alto” type into this one (The strict distinction between “Contralto” and “Alto” is not to be found in any language I checked but English; German uses “Alt” for “Contralto”). Male types: – “Countertenor”: We should use this generic term, renaming the existing “Contratenor” (which is actually not a voice type, but a historic category of the male counter voices which could be either higher (“altus”) or lower (“bassus”) than the tenor – and is btw not even recognized by the correction program in Microsoft Word). This would include all male voice types higher than “Tenor”: Sopranista, Sopranist, Castrato, the falsetto types Male Soprano and Male Alto, Treble as well as the specific countertenor (“haute contre”). – “Tenor”: including the “choral types” Tenor I and Tenor II. – “Baritone” – “Bass”: including the “choral types” Bass I and Bass II (and the “Contratenor bassus”!). “Bass-Baritone” should be merged into this one as on the Wikipedia page (see also discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bass_(voice_type) ) On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com wrote: But give it a couple more days before going to RFV maybe so more people can see it :) ___ 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-281] Add haute-contre to the vocal tree
2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com - 1 quoting myself from the vocal tree discussion, brought up in 2010 by Brian Schweizer, and proposing a massive increase of the vocal types: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Advanced_Vocal_Tree So what I would do: Keep the 7 basic voice types on which all manuals agree and also used by the well-documented Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_type Female types: – “Soprano”: including all the sub-categories from your list (but sopranista) with the “choral types” Soprano I and Soprano II and including, as in Wikipedia, the “intermediate voice types” “Dugazon” and “Falcon”. – “Mezzo-soprano”. – “Contralto (Alt)”: including the “choral types” Alto I and Alto II; thus merging the existing “alto” type into this one (The strict distinction between “Contralto” and “Alto” is not to be found in any language I checked but English; German uses “Alt” for “Contralto”). Male types: – “Countertenor”: We should use this generic term, renaming the existing “Contratenor” (which is actually not a voice type, but a historic category of the male counter voices which could be either higher (“altus”) or lower (“bassus”) than the tenor – and is btw not even recognized by the correction program in Microsoft Word). This would include all male voice types higher than “Tenor”: Sopranista, Sopranist, Castrato, the falsetto types Male Soprano and Male Alto, Treble as well as the specific countertenor (“haute contre”). – “Tenor”: including the “choral types” Tenor I and Tenor II. – “Baritone” – “Bass”: including the “choral types” Bass I and Bass II (and the “Contratenor bassus”!). “Bass-Baritone” should be merged into this one as on the Wikipedia page (see also discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bass_(voice_type) ) OK, this is what you would do. Could you explain why? -- 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 [STYLE-281] Add haute-contre to the vocal tree
See complete discussion on this initial proposal (I somehow seem unable to produce a link to the Nabble pages: it's march/april 2010). Basically Vocal Types more specific than the seven basic types above are fuzzy, language-specific, contradicting, depending on sources and thus prone to misunderstanding and edit wars. Frederic himself in his initial proposal quotes a source that sees Haute contre as a sub-category/synonym of countertenor… On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com - 1 quoting myself from the vocal tree discussion, brought up in 2010 by Brian Schweizer, and proposing a massive increase of the vocal types: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Advanced_Vocal_Tree So what I would do: Keep the 7 basic voice types on which all manuals agree and also used by the well-documented Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_type Female types: – “Soprano”: including all the sub-categories from your list (but sopranista) with the “choral types” Soprano I and Soprano II and including, as in Wikipedia, the “intermediate voice types” “Dugazon” and “Falcon”. – “Mezzo-soprano”. – “Contralto (Alt)”: including the “choral types” Alto I and Alto II; thus merging the existing “alto” type into this one (The strict distinction between “Contralto” and “Alto” is not to be found in any language I checked but English; German uses “Alt” for “Contralto”). Male types: – “Countertenor”: We should use this generic term, renaming the existing “Contratenor” (which is actually not a voice type, but a historic category of the male counter voices which could be either higher (“altus”) or lower (“bassus”) than the tenor – and is btw not even recognized by the correction program in Microsoft Word). This would include all male voice types higher than “Tenor”: Sopranista, Sopranist, Castrato, the falsetto types Male Soprano and Male Alto, Treble as well as the specific countertenor (“haute contre”). – “Tenor”: including the “choral types” Tenor I and Tenor II. – “Baritone” – “Bass”: including the “choral types” Bass I and Bass II (and the “Contratenor bassus”!). “Bass-Baritone” should be merged into this one as on the Wikipedia page (see also discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bass_(voice_type) ) OK, this is what you would do. Could you explain why? -- 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] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
On 01/20/2014 04:04 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Digital Media is effectively Download - but having USB and slotMusic (microSD) under it makes it much less obvious. The current hierarchy never went through style. Discussion of STYLE-177 http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-177 suggested flattening the structure and moving USB and slotMusic to be first-level formats would make more sense than adding a new Download format, so let's do that. Not a fan. The ultimate formats are all the same among USB/SlotMusic/Digital File (“digital media”); the only difference is how they’re transported. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-281] Add haute-contre to the vocal tree
2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com See complete discussion on this initial proposal (I somehow seem unable to produce a link to the Nabble pages: it's march/april 2010). Basically Vocal Types more specific than the seven basic types above are fuzzy, language-specific, contradicting, depending on sources and thus prone to misunderstanding and edit wars. Frederic himself in his initial proposal quotes a source that sees Haute contre as a sub-category/synonym of countertenor… On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com - 1 quoting myself from the vocal tree discussion, brought up in 2010 by Brian Schweizer, and proposing a massive increase of the vocal types: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Advanced_Vocal_Tree So what I would do: Keep the 7 basic voice types on which all manuals agree and also used by the well-documented Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_type Female types: – “Soprano”: including all the sub-categories from your list (but sopranista) with the “choral types” Soprano I and Soprano II and including, as in Wikipedia, the “intermediate voice types” “Dugazon” and “Falcon”. – “Mezzo-soprano”. – “Contralto (Alt)”: including the “choral types” Alto I and Alto II; thus merging the existing “alto” type into this one (The strict distinction between “Contralto” and “Alto” is not to be found in any language I checked but English; German uses “Alt” for “Contralto”). Male types: – “Countertenor”: We should use this generic term, renaming the existing “Contratenor” (which is actually not a voice type, but a historic category of the male counter voices which could be either higher (“altus”) or lower (“bassus”) than the tenor – and is btw not even recognized by the correction program in Microsoft Word). This would include all male voice types higher than “Tenor”: Sopranista, Sopranist, Castrato, the falsetto types Male Soprano and Male Alto, Treble as well as the specific countertenor (“haute contre”). – “Tenor”: including the “choral types” Tenor I and Tenor II. – “Baritone” – “Bass”: including the “choral types” Bass I and Bass II (and the “Contratenor bassus”!). “Bass-Baritone” should be merged into this one as on the Wikipedia page (see also discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bass_(voice_type) ) OK, this is what you would do. Could you explain why? I don't *know* that this performer is here singing as a Haute-contre, or as a countertenor, or as anything (not quite true, of course, I know he is not a bass :-) ) I don't have the knowledge, and frankly, I doubt a user would take the trouble of listening to the whole release seeking for the highest and the lowest note, the voice type, the voice power and so on, to get the actual notes sung with some tool (for all those who don't have absolute pitch), and compare the results to a scale to enter the correct voice. Furthermore, if I follow your reasoning, after attentively reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countertenor , maybe we should remove countertenor too as it seems to say that countertenor means a few different things (among other things, countertenor seems to mean different voice ranges). Did whoever decided to print haute-contre really mean something different from contreténor, or did he only do it because he thought it would help sell the release? I don't know. But when I enter a release of Lieder, I don't know the real voice range used either, I just rely on what is printed. In other words, what are we storing when we characterize a performer's voice? - his actual voice range? - his printed voice type? - something else which I haven't thought of? My point of view here would be: enter it as printed as much as possible. Thus we avoid translation and approximation issues. I tend to prefer to enter data in such a way that is easily verified. So my position would be: let it be entered with the maximum precision available. And then let those who are not interested, or who consider that two entries actually mean the same thing (which could perfectly be true here, I am not discussing whether haute-contre are actually different or not from countertenors), downscale it to whatever they want. But maybe I am wrong here: maybe there are false friends in the vocal tree, maybe for example countertenor in English does not translate to contreténor in French. If this is true, then all the voice entries I made in MB must be checked. -- 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 STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 01/20/2014 04:04 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Digital Media is effectively Download - but having USB and slotMusic (microSD) under it makes it much less obvious. The current hierarchy never went through style. Discussion of STYLE-177 http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-177 suggested flattening the structure and moving USB and slotMusic to be first-level formats would make more sense than adding a new Download format, so let's do that. Not a fan. The ultimate formats are all the same among USB/SlotMusic/Digital File (“digital media”); the only difference is how they’re transported. Under that point of view, they are packagings, not formats, and should just disappear from the format tree. Which I'd also probably agree with, myself, but if they were put there I imagine it's because someone considered them formats. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
On 01/20/2014 11:22 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Under that point of view, they are packagings, not formats, and should just disappear from the format tree. Which I'd also probably agree with, myself, but if they were put there I imagine it's because someone considered them formats. Is it much different in that regard from the difference between reel-to-reel, cartridge, and cassette tape? All are analog magnetic tape, just in a different package. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 01/20/2014 11:22 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Under that point of view, they are packagings, not formats, and should just disappear from the format tree. Which I'd also probably agree with, myself, but if they were put there I imagine it's because someone considered them formats. Is it much different in that regard from the difference between reel-to-reel, cartridge, and cassette tape? All are analog magnetic tape, just in a different package. Under *that* point of view, they shouldn't necessarily be listed together just because of it anyway, since those three aren't. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
Hello Style Council! On 01/20/2014 06:20 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: On 01/20/2014 04:04 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Digital Media is effectively Download - but having USB and slotMusic (microSD) under it makes it much less obvious. The current hierarchy never went through style. Discussion of STYLE-177 http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-177 suggested flattening the structure and moving USB and slotMusic to be first-level formats would make more sense than adding a new Download format, so let's do that. Not a fan. The ultimate formats are all the same among USB/SlotMusic/Digital File (“digital media”); the only difference is how they’re transported. This is about the format of the medium on which you receive the music. A set of .mp3 files on a USB device is a very different product compared to a set of .mp3 files you purchased as a download. Obviously in both cases you probably will copy the files to a music folder on your computer, at which point they will be indistinguishable -- but so is an audio cd ripped to .mp3. I think the medium format of musicbrainz releases is about the product as it is sold or distributed to consumers, and making the distinction between digital downloads and various physical media with digital files is interesting and useful. I say +1 to this RFC as it slightly improves the situation. Although I would prefer to see a real Digital Download option in the formats list. -- kuno / warp. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
On 01/20/2014 11:29 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Under *that* point of view, they shouldn't necessarily be listed together just because of it anyway, since those three aren't. Heh, fair enough. Maybe they should both be placed under “other” given how rare they are? Especially so for slotMusic. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-287: Move USB and slotMusic formats out of Digital Media
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 01/20/2014 11:29 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Under *that* point of view, they shouldn't necessarily be listed together just because of it anyway, since those three aren't. Heh, fair enough. Maybe they should both be placed under “other” given how rare they are? Especially so for slotMusic. That does seem like a very reasonable place to put them indeed. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-281] Add haute-contre to the vocal tree
Quoting wiki:*Number of voice types* *There are many different voice types used by vocal pedagogues today in a variety of voice classification systems. Most of these types, however, are sub-types that fall under seven different major voice categories that are for the most part acknowledged across all of the major voice classification systems. Women are typically divided into three groups: soprano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soprano, mezzo-soprano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzo-soprano, and contralto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contralto. Men are usually divided into four groups: countertenor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countertenor, tenor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenor, baritone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baritone, and bass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_(vocal_range). When considering the pre-pubescent male voice an eighth term, treble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_soprano, can be applied. Within each of these major categories there are several sub-categories that identify specific vocal qualities like coloratura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloratura facility and vocal weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_weight to differentiate between voices.* So, there's a variety of voice classification systems, which differ in terminology, structure and language/culture, while the seven voice types above are for the most part acknowledged across all of the major voice classification systems. Every term which can be found printed on covers can easily be assigned to one of these types, being either a synonym, a generally accepted translation or a sub-category, *countertenor* (and it's sub-structures) being, I admit, the most controversial of all. But the example shown in the first place has a bilingual cover, and credits the singer in french and english as haute-contre/countertenor. So where's the problem? Why would you want to use the french term in this specific case, when the corresponding english translation can easily be used? While I definitely prefer the current vocal tree, I could go, eventually, for the same system we have for the instrument tree: adding a new vocal type when five appearances of a voice type, duly documented on covers, have been entered. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com See complete discussion on this initial proposal (I somehow seem unable to produce a link to the Nabble pages: it's march/april 2010). Basically Vocal Types more specific than the seven basic types above are fuzzy, language-specific, contradicting, depending on sources and thus prone to misunderstanding and edit wars. Frederic himself in his initial proposal quotes a source that sees Haute contre as a sub-category/synonym of countertenor… On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com - 1 quoting myself from the vocal tree discussion, brought up in 2010 by Brian Schweizer, and proposing a massive increase of the vocal types: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Advanced_Vocal_Tree So what I would do: Keep the 7 basic voice types on which all manuals agree and also used by the well-documented Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_type Female types: – “Soprano”: including all the sub-categories from your list (but sopranista) with the “choral types” Soprano I and Soprano II and including, as in Wikipedia, the “intermediate voice types” “Dugazon” and “Falcon”. – “Mezzo-soprano”. – “Contralto (Alt)”: including the “choral types” Alto I and Alto II; thus merging the existing “alto” type into this one (The strict distinction between “Contralto” and “Alto” is not to be found in any language I checked but English; German uses “Alt” for “Contralto”). Male types: – “Countertenor”: We should use this generic term, renaming the existing “Contratenor” (which is actually not a voice type, but a historic category of the male counter voices which could be either higher (“altus”) or lower (“bassus”) than the tenor – and is btw not even recognized by the correction program in Microsoft Word). This would include all male voice types higher than “Tenor”: Sopranista, Sopranist, Castrato, the falsetto types Male Soprano and Male Alto, Treble as well as the specific countertenor (“haute contre”). – “Tenor”: including the “choral types” Tenor I and Tenor II. – “Baritone” – “Bass”: including the “choral types” Bass I and Bass II (and the “Contratenor bassus”!). “Bass-Baritone” should be merged into this one as on the Wikipedia page (see also discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bass_(voice_type) ) OK, this is what you would do. Could you explain why? I don't *know* that this performer is here singing as a Haute-contre, or as a countertenor, or as anything (not quite true, of course, I know he is not a bass :-) ) I don't have the knowledge, and frankly, I doubt a user would
Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-281] Add haute-contre to the vocal tree
2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com Quoting wiki: *Number of voice types* *There are many different voice types used by vocal pedagogues today in a variety of voice classification systems. Most of these types, however, are sub-types that fall under seven different major voice categories that are for the most part acknowledged across all of the major voice classification systems. Women are typically divided into three groups: soprano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soprano, mezzo-soprano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzo-soprano, and contralto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contralto. Men are usually divided into four groups: countertenor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countertenor, tenor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenor, baritone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baritone, and bass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_(vocal_range). When considering the pre-pubescent male voice an eighth term, treble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_soprano, can be applied. Within each of these major categories there are several sub-categories that identify specific vocal qualities like coloratura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloratura facility and vocal weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_weight to differentiate between voices.* So, there's a variety of voice classification systems, which differ in terminology, structure and language/culture, while the seven voice types above are for the most part acknowledged across all of the major voice classification systems. Every term which can be found printed on covers can easily be assigned to one of these types, being either a synonym, a generally accepted translation or a sub-category, *countertenor* (and it's sub-structures) being, I admit, the most controversial of all. But the example shown in the first place has a bilingual cover, and credits the singer in french and english as haute-contre/countertenor. So where's the problem? Why would you want to use the french term in this specific case, when the corresponding english translation can easily be used? While I definitely prefer the current vocal tree, I could go, eventually, for the same system we have for the instrument tree: adding a new vocal type when five appearances of a voice type, duly documented on covers, have been entered. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: 2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com See complete discussion on this initial proposal (I somehow seem unable to produce a link to the Nabble pages: it's march/april 2010). Basically Vocal Types more specific than the seven basic types above are fuzzy, language-specific, contradicting, depending on sources and thus prone to misunderstanding and edit wars. Frederic himself in his initial proposal quotes a source that sees Haute contre as a sub-category/synonym of countertenor… On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/1/20 SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com - 1 quoting myself from the vocal tree discussion, brought up in 2010 by Brian Schweizer, and proposing a massive increase of the vocal types: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Advanced_Vocal_Tree So what I would do: Keep the 7 basic voice types on which all manuals agree and also used by the well-documented Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_type Female types: – “Soprano”: including all the sub-categories from your list (but sopranista) with the “choral types” Soprano I and Soprano II and including, as in Wikipedia, the “intermediate voice types” “Dugazon” and “Falcon”. – “Mezzo-soprano”. – “Contralto (Alt)”: including the “choral types” Alto I and Alto II; thus merging the existing “alto” type into this one (The strict distinction between “Contralto” and “Alto” is not to be found in any language I checked but English; German uses “Alt” for “Contralto”). Male types: – “Countertenor”: We should use this generic term, renaming the existing “Contratenor” (which is actually not a voice type, but a historic category of the male counter voices which could be either higher (“altus”) or lower (“bassus”) than the tenor – and is btw not even recognized by the correction program in Microsoft Word). This would include all male voice types higher than “Tenor”: Sopranista, Sopranist, Castrato, the falsetto types Male Soprano and Male Alto, Treble as well as the specific countertenor (“haute contre”). – “Tenor”: including the “choral types” Tenor I and Tenor II. – “Baritone” – “Bass”: including the “choral types” Bass I and Bass II (and the “Contratenor bassus”!). “Bass-Baritone” should be merged into this one as on the Wikipedia page (see also discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bass_(voice_type) ) OK, this is what you would do. Could you explain why? I don't *know* that this performer is here singing as a Haute-contre, or as a countertenor, or as anything (not quite true, of course, I know
