On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Mika Heiska kilualmig...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9.3.2010 14:58, Chad Wilson wrote:
I'm at the point where I feel like making random objections to things
without a proper argument just to slow things down. That's a ridiculous
situation...
Chad / voiceinsideyou
A couple quick questions:
1. Why TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3 5 and TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, 5?
To be consistent, shouldn't we do TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3, 5 and
TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, 5?
2. Why TrackTitle, Parts One, Three – Five instead of TrackTitle,
Parts One Three – Five?
-cooperaa
On Fri,
to
determine which to show; the same for data accessed through the
webservice.
Brian
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Aaron Cooper coope...@gmail.com
wrote:
That sounds correct. Of course you would expect the Beatles albums to
be filed under an English release group. I don't know Shakira
I think I agree with you.
This whole release grouping is easier for other sites (like
RateYourMusic and Discogs) because they only or primarily only link
one release event with one release.
If multiple discs were displayed on a single release's page, then we
would probably group all releases
I like the idea of grouping multiple versions of the same concert.
Let's you see what other versions are available - some contain bonus
tracks, some are abridged, others have multiple discs, etc.
-cooperaa
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Pavan Chander pchan...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the
) of a RG to share official status,
with an attached language and script. Use then, say, the user's site
language selection to determine which to show; the same for data
accessed through the webservice.
Brian
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Aaron Cooper coope...@gmail.com
mailto:coope
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Aaron Cooper coope...@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of grouping multiple versions of the same concert.
Let's you see what other versions are available - some contain bonus
tracks, some are abridged, others have multiple discs, etc.
-cooperaa
One quick comment.
Guideline says, If there are two versions of a release in different
languages; each language would be its own release group. What about
for Translations/Transliterations? It appears these were
automatically merged into the same release groups on test (I'm
thinking of the
title would you choose?
I'm actually tending towards merging this particular example too, now;
and giving a general direction to Choose the language and release title
for which the artist is most well known/popular.
What do you think?
Aaron Cooper wrote:
One quick comment.
Guideline says
I also don't think we should keep the example with the spaces. I have
never seen the guideline applied that way. Every instance has used
1-3 with no spaces. If the spaces are left in the example, they will
most definitely be used to change titles to include spaces. People
will say See the
I admit, it looks weird isn't necessarily a good reason not to use
SPACE-SPACE. It does prevent the 1-1-1-3 problem but I suspect
that it may be common for part numbers to be printed on booklets
without the spaces (perhaps this would explain why so many people seem
to dislike the spaces).
If it
I have yet to see any work with parts greater than 12 or so, so I am
not worried about the twenty-two-twenty-four problem. Also, I
rarely ever see part numbers written as words - much more common to
see 1 and 2 or I and II.
Whoever started using 1-1 to signify subparts should be thrown off
the
My vote is for a)... no extra spaces.
-cooperaa
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
I've now read the discussion page in the wiki, and understand the GC
issue a bit more clearly. I'm still of the opinion that we should follow
English convention in
disc is not part of the release title and will (hopefully) one day
be moved to a separate field. I don't think we need (or should) make
it conform to the release's language. That would make it harder to
manage the releases - I have no idea what disc is in every language
and I doubt most users
I'm not sure, but I think you should probably forward this to the
MB-dev mailing list.
-cooperaa
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Mike Morrison mikem...@umich.edu wrote:
I believe this RFV has now passed. Now we just need a RelationshipEditor
to implement the AR per the wiki page.
I picture the future with no such thing as discs as releases won't
necessarily be split up to fit on any specific media/format. If media
is obtained online as digital files, there is no limit to what can be
issued in a single release.
I really don't like all the duplication (eg. Death Magnetic
+1
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
I think that there's enough support for my earlier query that I should
propose this formally as an RFC.
Problem Summary:
According to SortNameStyle, a band name that contains the name of a
person should sort as a
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Leiv Hellebo leiv.hell...@gmail.com wrote:
SwissChris wrote:
Searching (and finding) releases isn't the problem here ;-) But where
should they appear in a sorted list (e.g. subscriptions, or albums I
own): half of them as Louis and half as Armstrong?
In my
LOL.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:43 PM, George De Bruin sndcha...@gmail.com wrote:
LinkedIn
MusicBrainz,
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.
- George
PS: Here is the link:
https://www.linkedin.com/e/isd/501887102/4QlVh-fK/
What
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Aaron Cooper coope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Leiv Hellebo leiv.hell...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess most people don't consider FAS as really applicable for
classical - and this makes sense, because we use
ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Gioele gio...@svario.it wrote:
Could add two attributes: From the beginning and To the end to the
member of AR? With these attributes we could easy express that a certain
artist has been a member of a group from its inception to the (eventual)
end. Also one
Why don't we just leave part 1 out of the track title unless it is
a) part of the chapter name or b) printed on the cover/booklet.
We don't really need to put part numbers in the track titles if they
aren't on the back cover/booklet. If the CD says Tracks 1-4: Chapter
1 why don't we just set the
, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Leiv Hellebo leiv.hell...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
It looks like we've decided to drop the book name from the track
titles though - I think we should keep this info there for reasons
that have been previously discussed.
But isn't this only a good idea when
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Leiv Hellebo leiv.hell...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
I think the book title is an important piece of information - much
like the work title in classical music.
Sure.
We always put the work and
then the movement in classical track titles even
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Fridtjof Busse fbu...@gmx.de wrote:
* Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net:
If there is only one track for the chapter, then it would be:
* Chapter 01: $name
* Chapter 02: $name
...
This was originally proposed by Keschte in AudioBookStyle, and was
My really quick attempt at a AudiobookStyle would be:
Track titles should be:
A Journey to the Center of the Earth, Chapter 1
If there are chapter titles:
A Journey to the Center of the Earth, Chapter 1: Title of Chapter 1
If a chapter is spanned across multiple tracks:
A Journey to the Center
Also, including the book/work name is used in the CSG.
On 7-Jan-09, at 9:59 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ah, but the book is not the release. There may be more than one
book in one release and a book is of course often spanned on more
that one release.
2009/1/7
2008/12/31 Michelle . deepseadivings...@hotmail.com
Hi all,
I've recently noticed that most of the classical releases have
poor style,
and it's very difficult to work out what the correct style is from
the
entered releases, especially since so much depends on the individual
On 22-Dec-08, at 9:54 PM, Mustaqil Ali wrote:
From a technical aspect, adding DVD-Audio to the list of media
types isn't all that needs doing.
The current DVD media that exists will need renaming; either to DVD-
Video or to the proposed DVD-Audio and then the DVD-Video media type
On 29-Oct-08, at 6:10 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:59:42AM +0100, Gioele wrote:
Back in the 60s, a guy released many singles. After few years his
label
issues his first album, an anthology of his best known singles.
How should this released be catalogued? Album or
Go for it. Maybe add the earliest release of AR and a note in the
release's annotation saying don't merge this according to BSNS.
-Aaron
On 18-Sep-08, at 9:33 AM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
Unearthed (disc 4: My Mother's Hymn Book) is available separately,
and was on MusicBrainz until it
Oh, and I guess another good idea would be to leave a note on the
merge edit saying you're recreating it so they know not to do that
again.
-Aaron
On 18-Sep-08, at 9:37 AM, Bram van Dijk wrote:
+1
Aaron Cooper schreef:
Go for it. Maybe add the earliest release of AR and a note
On 19-Aug-08, at 12:19 PM, Sami Sundell wrote:
Hi,
I got into a conversation about the additional information that's used
to differentiate between versions of a release - deluxe edition,
limited
edition, remastered, or in the case of
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=9200106, not
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:35:07AM +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote:
2008/6/26 Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would like to have an AR to group multiple discs of a single releases.
This would be intended as a temporary solution
On 16-Jul-08, at 3:17 PM, Simon Austin wrote:
What's the policy with BoxSets of previous releases? Is it still
they're
not a unique release? I ask because someone's added all 16 discs of
Pink
Floyd's Oh, By the Way[1] and I think they're pretty much just the
same releases as before,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Adam Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone point me to a classical release that is already particularly well
tagged, replete with ARs and such? I'd like to test my scripts on it.
Complete Beethoven Edition.
eg.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:56 AM, knakker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm wondering what the consensus is on the use of disc titles in classical
box set compilations (complete symphonies, complete concertos, complete
works etc.). In most cases no titles are used if the content does not
On 26-Apr-08, at 1:04 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Brant Gibbard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot seem
to find a guideline that indicates what to do for the TRACK artist
where a
classical work is the result of a collaboration. I am just
considering how
On 22-Apr-08, at 6:22 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
Currently, the ClassicalStyleGuide reads (excerpted):
Track TitleIf a track has a soloist then add it using
FeaturingArtistStyle: (feat. violin: Tamsin Little). If all tracks
on the release feature a performer/group/conductor, this
On 22-Apr-08, at 6:56 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How about we don't add any of this information to the track titles and
just use Advanced Relationships?
This seems to be what a lot of editors are suggesting
On 22-Apr-08, at 7:06 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
When we had the lengthy debate about keeping this type of info in
release titles, the two convincing arguments to those of us who
wanted to see it completely removed there as well were:
1) ARs don't show in toc-add view, and facing 150
On 13-Apr-08, at 2:21 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Dear MB-stylists:
I am consistently coming across works that are being performed
instrumentally, and where composers/lyricists are being credited
without
indicating which is composer, which is lyricist. In many cases, I know
(or can
On 13-Apr-08, at 3:14 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 14:24 -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote:
Quick response: This would be a lot nicer to solve if we had WORKs
where we could put the Composition and Lyrics ARs. Then when we
see a
TRACK of that WORK without a Vocal performance AR
On 13-Apr-08, at 6:57 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 16:28 -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote:
It doesn't make much sense to me to put a Lyrics AR on a track
without
lyrics/vocals.
Would you leave them off altogether, or credit them as composers? If
not
credit as composers
On 8-Apr-08, at 7:33 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 08:36:57AM +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
I prefer to distinguish 'it exists' and 'it exists and is useful'.
I agree with this.
But, assuming most of those mozart pages are reasonably well written,
they're probably useful to
On 8-Apr-08, at 1:41 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Hi all:
I'm beginning to see more redundant Wikipedia links in various
languages
in MB, and as I've seen voting in both directions when faced with such
AR adds, I'm seeking to clarify what may become a reasonable policy
for
Wikipedia ARs in
On 27-Mar-08, at 2:25 AM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 26-Mar-08, at 8:19 AM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Aaron's suggestion a month ago still makes quite some
sense to me.
This discussion has gotten so overblown that I
On 27-Mar-08, at 1:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 27-Mar-08, at 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I find very tiring to have to re-explain things, so I'll only ask
you to re-read some of my previous posts
On 26-Mar-08, at 8:19 AM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Aaron's suggestion a month ago still makes quite some
sense to me.
This discussion has gotten so overblown that I don't even remember
what this suggestion was! Any chance you could restate it for us? :)
-Aaron
On 25-Mar-08, at 8:09 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Lauri Watts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23-Mar-08, at 3:07 AM, David K. Gasaway wrote:
On 22 Mar 2008 at 23:23, David K. Gasaway wrote:
Let me be more be more clear: The links to the sample data I posted
were
a test for the ideas (suggested by Aaron) that the wiki pages could
be
used to address questions raised by me
On 20-Mar-08, at 7:17 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Hi list,
Easter time is Bach passion time for me - especially since the flu
prevents my family from going skiing :(
So, I just spent the last hours adding a new recording of the St.
Matthew Passion.
This has 101 tracks played in about 161
On 19-Mar-08, at 12:57 PM, Lauri Watts wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Bram van Dijk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, http://www.aelius.com/njh/tmp/musicbrainz_summit8_schema.pdf
seems to indicate that we will (eventually) get something like
Discogs'
ANV system.
But I agree that
On 11-Mar-08, at 8:00 AM, Mike Morrison wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
The only objection I recall is the wording of the AR for works lists
to tracks. Personally, it may sound overly academic, but I prefer
is
an instance of over contains a recording of, if only
On 11-Mar-08, at 11:54 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would have thought this:
Track is an instance of TrackMaster
TrackMaster
On 5-Mar-08, at 5:07 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 5-Mar-08, at 4:35 PM, David K. Gasaway wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Thus, actually, why I'd opposed the implementation of the parody AR
as
an attribute
On 4-Mar-08, at 4:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On the topic of languages, I think we should try to pick one
language per composer (as we've done with the wiki works lists)
One language per work in Works lists sounds good. If the composer e.g.
lived abroad and used
On 4-Mar-08, at 8:02 AM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 4-Mar-08, at 4:48 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On the topic
On 4-Mar-08, at 11:09 PM, David K. Gasaway wrote:
On 3 Mar 2008 at 9:25, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I suggest we could create each work in more than one language, as the
need arises.
The only concern I would have is organizing the lists to keep them
managable. If we can make your wiki
On 3-Mar-08, at 2:18 AM, David K. Gasaway wrote:
On 2 Mar 2008 at 22:59, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I guess we will have to create the appropriate work listing. So an
actual work (in the outside MB sense) may be represented by several
overlapping work listings.
Let's see if I understand
On 3-Mar-08, at 4:34 PM, symphonick wrote:
2008/3/2, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Summary:
Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG [snip]
Interesting!
I'm listing 3 movements as they appear on the cover (real examples).
Can you, for every mvt, list:
a) the
On 3-Mar-08, at 5:18 PM, symphonick wrote:
2008/3/3, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3-Mar-08, at 4:34 PM, symphonick wrote:
2008/3/2, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Summary:
Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG [snip]
Interesting!
I'm listing 3 movements
On 2-Mar-08, at 9:11 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Chad Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Will taggers be disabled from tagging against them somehow? How will
we
vote on their addition/removal?
snip
I don't see what is scary here. A few technical issues
On 1-Mar-08, at 5:56 PM, Mike Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
snip
While there's perhaps some few 20th century classical composers
someone might be able to point to, one thing classical composer
generally have in common is that they didn't actually release LPs or
On 1-Mar-08, at 2:16 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
big snip
So until that happy day of NGS support, how do we compromise? How can
we ensure that the data allows the BBC to identify the work from the
track, allows Aaron and me to tag and not find the data quite messy,
allows Leivhe and David
On 27-Feb-08, at 8:10 PM, Mike Morrison wrote:
OK, so once we have NGS everyone can have what they want, right?
We'll have work titles and track titles. The work title can be full
CSG(S), while the track title can be what's on the cover. So each
track will have these two titles
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Brian Schweitzer
And please, find me the consumer (I assume you mean taggers only,
Don't assume.
As much as I've tried to ignore some of your more asinine comments,
this one threw me
On 25-Feb-08, at 7:36 PM, Lauri Watts wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I can be forgiven replying to all three at the same, I think they
boil down to the same thing:
These all then seem to argue for eliminating CSG. CSG by it's very
On 26-Feb-08, at 3:20 AM, Lauri Watts wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The feeling I get from your post, Lauri, is that we may as well throw
away the ClassicalStyleGuide and replace it with 'Just copy your
liner
notes'. If we just wanted
On 26-Feb-08, at 11:23 AM, symphonick wrote:
2008/2/26, Andrew Conkling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with Aaron. I think he means you
can't,
practically speaking, just say Allegro con brio for track 1
without the
work title. He's saying the work title, e.g. Symphony
On 26-Feb-08, at 3:07 PM, symphonick wrote:
2008/2/26, Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 18:48 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
[snip] A track name should always
contain the normalized work name followed by the normalized movement
name. Exactly what MB does in other
On 26-Feb-08, at 7:58 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me have a short go at it then: If there is only one work on your
CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle, you don't have to
include the WorkName in the
On 26-Feb-08, at 8:26 PM, Olivier wrote:
Errr, since you said we agreed on all, did you actually read that
sentence?
in any case, there is no need to answer that mail at all.
:-]
2008/2/27, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
just dump it in a big pile called historical to rot. I fully
On 26-Feb-08, at 4:58 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 26-Feb-08, at 7:58 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Let me have a short go at it then: If there is only one work on
your
CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle
On 26-Feb-08, at 11:47 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
If we can agree on this first chunk, let's move on to the next.
What do you think about doing it this way, Brian?
-Aaron
Sure; only reason I'd avoid doing it that way was to avoid a flood
of RFCs. :)
I'd would *much* rather wade
On 27-Feb-08, at 1:00 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 26-Feb-08, at 4:58 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Let me have a short go at it then: If there is only one work on
your
CD, and the WorkName is part of the ReleaseTitle, you don't have
to
include the WorkName in the TrackTitles
On 22-Feb-08, at 8:00 AM, Age Bosma wrote:
Hi,
I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here but I wasn't able to
figure it out by going through the current wiki docs.
Some example titles:
The Nutcracker, Act I, Scene 1, No. 1: Scène: L'arbre de Noël
The Nutcracker, Act I, Scene 1, No. 2:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
Pardon my late response, but I believe that by definition concertos
feature an orchestra, however I wouldn't mind seeing Concerto for
Piano and Orchestra.
http://musicbrainz.org/release
On 20-Feb-08, at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
So I started poking around to see how all these CSGS edits would
impact my collection and found a lot that seem to be worse than they
were before.
Some examples (limited to Mozart's œuvre):
On 17-Feb-08, at 1:44 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
That's what we probably should be doing with the classical stuff as
well. Uppercase Op., remove unnecessary brackets around cat. nos.
and correcting (the fictive)
Mazurka No. 3 in E major, Op. 20 to
Mazurka in E major, Op. 20 No. 3
Sorry for
On 18-Feb-08, at 9:39 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
Hi Leiv,
Thanks for the reply and the re-welcome. I haven't left MBz, just
stopped participating in the discussion.
On Feb 18, 2008 5:23 PM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I should also mention that recently a few new twists have
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Philip Jägenstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having read http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/StylePrinciple I thought the
Reasoning section was pretty poorly phrased.
Current:
There are enough cases of record companies mucking up track listings
or even artist
On 13-Feb-08, at 7:36 AM, Chris B wrote:
back to the proposal: i would say that we should allow all box sets to
be added even if they are a subset of a larger box, UNLESS that box is
just a box containing other, existing, boxes (bear with me) - in which
case that's basically the same logic we
On 14-Feb-08, at 3:36 PM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
What really want to understand, and don't, is what steps a contributor
should take, who has a box set in their hand, and no clue about other
releases or box sets.
How will they know what existing MB entries to look for? What
should they
do with
On 14-Feb-08, at 3:56 PM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Trying to clean out the last of the issues...
Classical Release Titles:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle
Presents a structure of:
MainTitle [SubTitle(s)] [VolumeNumber [VolumeTitle]] [ [?BoxNumber
On 15-Feb-08, at 12:08 AM, David K. Gasaway wrote:
Just an idle observation on this issue. It will be very strange if
folks' last.fm profiles start to look something like this:
Herbert von Karajan - Symphony No. 1 in G minor
:)
It won't though, because we scrobble the track artist and title
On 15-Feb-08, at 12:30 AM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
When classical discs are reissued with new cover art or new
spellings of the works on the disc,
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle
provides a means of grouping them all together under one release
with a common release title
On 13-Feb-08, at 4:45 AM, Chris B wrote:
On 12/02/2008, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12-Feb-08, at 11:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Nothing to do? If he hadn't composed it in the first place, the
release would be full of silence. The inheritors of recent composers
(Stravinsky
On 12-Feb-08, at 11:47 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 10:18 PM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
We currently move classical
releases to the performer when they perform works by multiple
composers--I just want to extend this so we can move releases
On 12-Feb-08, at 11:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I was foll of work these last weeks, do I am late commenting here,
sorry.
Welcome to the discussion! :)
On Feb 4, 2008 4:53 AM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this this is an independent issue. I'm relatively new here
On 7-Feb-08, at 3:14 PM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
Aaron:
Lots of thoughtful work on this proposal. Thank you.
Aaron Cooper-3 wrote:
Please take a look at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistsStyleProposal
Please share your thoughts and concerns.
* I think How to determine step 5
On Feb 7, 2008 9:46 AM, Chris B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Setting the RA from performance ARs would be much more difficult
because we'd have to figure out a way to programatically determine
which one of the performance ARs to use
On 7-Feb-08, at 4:17 AM, symphonick wrote:
3. If there is a CONDUCTOR who performed on all tracks, the
conductor is the Release Artist.
Isn't this just the opposite of what we're doing in RelesaseTitles:
Foo Orchestra feat. conductor: Bar Fu (orchestra first?)
Yes. We could have
On 7-Feb-08, at 4:43 AM, Chris B wrote:
On 07/02/2008, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please take a look at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistsStyleProposal
Please share your thoughts and concerns.
i suppose i should say what i said in the other thread again
On 6-Feb-08, at 6:40 AM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
Based on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/StyleIssue, I've created
http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3557 Ticket #3557 (new enhancement)
Setting Classical Release Artists to Performers to track Aaron's
proposal
and the earlier variant below.
You can
On Feb 6, 2008 7:24 AM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
Here's the idea:
1. Leave the TrackArtist as the composer, and
2. Move the ReleaseArtist to the primary performer.
Sorry, there's too many posts here for me to find the best entry point,
so I'll just add
On 6-Feb-08, at 4:18 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 7:24 AM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
Here's the idea:
1. Leave the TrackArtist as the composer, and
2. Move the ReleaseArtist to the primary performer.
So, IMO we should rather wish for more
Please take a look at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistsStyleProposal
I have attempted to take the existing ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle and
extend it to apply to cases where all tracks are composed by one
artist (Currently we assign Release Artist to performers when there
On 5-Feb-08, at 12:42 PM, David K. Gasaway wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
But you forget, it's not your title. It's not my title. It's a work
identification in the database we all share. But that's the point -
work identification, not work sort-of identification.
Track title != absolute
On 5-Feb-08, at 1:00 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Given that we just spent such a long time debating the concept, I was
rather surprised this morning.
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8315416
An editor was adding 2 ARs to a release. Based on the long discussion
we just recently had, I
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
