On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
I remember a few years ago there were discussions between mb users about
following common sense rules or mechanical rules. Defenders of the latter
would say that mechanical rules would allow automatic interpretation
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/8 Andrew Conkling and...@andrewski.net
+1. There's no special reason classical music should be an exception to
these guidelines.
Sorry, you lost me there. Which guidelines?
Sorry, the originally quoted one
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the release artist of any (non-classical) release is whoever is
credited. So in using all the prominent cover credits, the classical
guideline is actually closer to the standard that it was before NGS
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
Right, but she's not just an artist on some tracks, she's right on the
front cover which makes her a release artist, as on any normal release.
Sorry, I'm not objecting to Argerich being the artist, but the other
composers
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 12/21/2012 8:38 AM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
There's no exception for artists on classical releases, other than
how
to order composers vs. performers when they both appear on the front
cover
?
From: *Andrew Conkling* and...@andrewski.net
Date: Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM
To: MusicBrainz List musicbrainz-us...@lists.musicbrainz.org
Perhaps it's not a very notable discussion, but I wasn't sure about the
artist for this release.
It had been changed as auto-editor
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:34 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/10/30 Andrew Conkling and...@andrewski.net
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
So, quick question. What's the point? I have absolutely no idea, since
for me
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that should be solved with a specific members of group performer
attribute. Those performances could then appear under a specific heading on
the appears on page.
I'd support that too. :)
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
So, quick question. What's the point? I have absolutely no idea, since for
me those have always looked like an attribute of the *artist*, not the
performance.
Personally, I would expect this stuff to be
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.orgwrote:
As it’s a cover art relationship, don’t you (Andrew and other readers)
think
that an ASIN without picture in its web service* should be deleted as they
don’t provide the thing that made this relationship was created
On Feb 19, 2011, at 16:09 , Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
IIRC, the options were removed because nobody used them. Maybe if you put
your request on User Voice and it gets a lot of votes it would be added.
If anyone does that, please let us know here; I, for one, would like to put in
my vote for
+1
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:35, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
Do we need two places for style discussions? If so, should someone be
cross-posting at least raise important issues from one to the other? Should
we consider using third-party services (e.g. Google Groups) that give us a
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:47, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
As there's been no comment on this one for a week, did it just get missed
amidst the rest of what's going on? :)
Yes. :) +1.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:27, Alex Mauer wrote:
I would hope that any useful definition would allow me to compare to
some thing and see if it matches or not.
e.g., define: cat
“feline mammal usually having thick soft fur and no ability to roar:
domestic cats; wildcats”
Is my water glass
On Sep 3, 2010, at 5:44, Pete Marsh wrote:
my feeling is that video is outside the scope of this AR and that if video
is included the AR becomes so generalised and vague as to be useless. there's
already a youtube channel AR, isn't there? if that's not seen as adequate
for outr YT needs
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 20:37, brian.brianschweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
First, last.fm has streaming music, unless I'm mis-remembering something.
Yet last.fm is on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/What_Not_To_Link_To#Last.fm -
would otherwise entirely valid AR links to stream
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 13:40, Dr Andrew John Hughes
gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
If RFCs do then live forever, it's probably evidence that the change
is not interesting either to others (who haven't given a +1) or the
proposer (who hasn't pushed it harder enough).
Agreed. In the
On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:35, Nikki wrote:
In NGS, tracklistings can be used for multiple releases, so both the
original and the boxset can use the same tracklisting while having
different release/disc names (which should solve this problem).
Thanks; I've canceled my edit and will edit it again
On Aug 5, 2010, at 12:56, Per Øyvind Øygard wrote:
Couple problems. Many boxsets have discs of new/unreleased content. These
discs necessarily need to have boxset naming, and need to be linked to.
Linking Johnny's Boxset Beats (disc 5: The Returnening) as the next disc
for Johnny Sings
I had an idea regarding BoxSetNameStyle, in the case where box sets' releases
are also available individually.
An example:
http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/40ed05d3-8239-3d1a-a90a-543773898117.html
has four releases, two of which have a composer that applies for the entire
release, thus
On Aug 5, 2010, at 12:08, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
+1. I recently encountered this situation with the Brilliant box set of
the complete works of Brahms. In some cases we have two releases
associated with the same disc ID, with exactly the same track content,
to accommodate different titles. This
On Jun 28, 2010, at 17:08, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2010/6/28 Andrew Conkling andrew.conkl...@gmail.com
On Jun 28, 2010, at 4:14, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
You were looking for more general formulations. I suggest:
- X is the author of the cadenza for track #
- track # contains
On Jun 28, 2010, at 4:14, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
You were looking for more general formulations. I suggest:
- X is the author of the cadenza for track #
- track # contains a cadenza whose author is X
... a little too verbose, maybe?
I'd say. I'd think composed would be good, perhaps
I feel like I asked this recently, but I can't find anything about it.
I previously started asking about a cadenza AR, but I'd like to see it
through this time:
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2007-January/004416.html
Brian and list, what do I have to do to make this
On Mar 18, 2010, at 16:30, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Lol... perhaps we ought to request that, if you've already seen a second,
there's no need for a third (and fourth, fifth, sixth...) :D
Haha, yeah, absolutely; beat me to it. ;)
Although perhaps everyone should have their chance just this
be clarified.
Cheers,
Andrew Conkling / andrewski___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On Mar 9, 2010, at 7:58, Chad Wilson wrote:
I don't know about everyone else (other than SwissChris), but I have a
full-time job, and I don't have hours a day to go through mb-style
content, think about it critically, and I can't read it every day.
I'm at the point where I feel like making
On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:59, Pavel Fedyakov wrote:
It turns out that Guess case is a very destructive function for
non-English releases. Regularly, newcomers use it for Russian titles
while keeping default English setting. It's hard to find and revert all
the mass edits especially when the
On Feb 12, 2010, at 5:13, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2010/2/12 Marco Curti mcu...@aliceposta.it
You have many releases of this work, but only two different recording: 1963
and 1995, I think is quite important to recognize the one form the other, so
i would like to put the Year in the
On Jan 16, 2010, at 13:21, lorenz pressler wrote:
Andrew Conkling-2 wrote:
That seems clear enough, though I think we should change the verbiage a
bit. This should definitely cover the So-and-so's Greatest Hits type
releases though, which would certainly be a good thing. I think the gray
On Jan 14, 2010, at 17:22, symphonick wrote:
The reasons for this are: everything doesn't come with sleeves nowadays + I
want to avoid any kind of indication of a biggest-font-wins-rule, the
examples are clear IMHO - we don't need to go there. Also who's most
prominently featured on the
On Jan 14, 2010, at 21:08, lorenz pressler wrote:
if you don't give some reference (=sleeve) argueing will come up what could
be understood as a clear indication for a main performer. sleeve can be a
valid indication. if there are different coverart versions then it's clearly
no clear
On Jan 15, 2010, at 1:14, Dion Kuryana wrote:
I'd also like to see some clarification (maybe as part of this
proposed RFC) as to whether this style guide applies to only one release
(as in one release entry/disc in the database), or to the entire release
(i.e. if there is more than one
On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:39, lorenz pressler wrote:
if we
can't find a common sense about what represents a main performer this
guideline is meaningless in its current state.
Agreed; that's certainly one endgame in my estimation.
next try:
an artist my be set to ReleaseArtist if he/she
On Jan 14, 2010, at 8:33, lorenz pressler wrote:
Rupert Welch wrote:
In this case, CRAS is quite clear and unambiguous - single artist or
performer. If people choose to add an interpretation that is not
written in the guideline, or go back through the edit history of each
guideline to
On Dec 11, 2009, at 10:03, Pavan Chander wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Bram van Dijk bram_van_d...@hotmail.com
wrote:
So, in addition to this proposal, I would ask for a possibility for
autoeditors to cancel their edits.
Auto-editors cannot cancel their edits because an
On Dec 9, 2009, at 19:56, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
There's really consensus that 0:0 on expiry fails on these? I didn't
think there was.
Andrew C., +1
Andrew C., Paul, Bogdan, Philipp, and anyone else, would Andrew H.'s
On Dec 1, 2009, at 11:54, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
This RFC is intended to solve one other problem this edit brought to my
attention, namely, that destructive edits pass on a 0:0 vote at expiration,
just like most other edit types. This RFC would change the following edit
types so that, if
On Oct 29, 2009, at 22:20, Chad Wilson wrote:
For anyone who wants to help me confirm, the notable samples are at
A) 0:00-0:12
B) 0:50-0:59 (and looping every 11-12 seconds or so)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu1eDW8iS8I
I believe sample A comes from 1:42 - 1:54 of Rex Tremendae
Hi Brian,
On Oct 22, 2009, at 9:44, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Just checking The Compleat Mozart (Zaslaw), K. 271k was written for
specifically for oboe, then K. 285d was an arrangement of 271k,
specifically for flute. So 271k is the oboe one, 285d is the flute
one - and in the line you've
I'm no expert, but from Wikipedia's page on Mozart's Oboe concerto it
would appear it was written for oboe and later reworked for flute:
The Flute Concerto No. 2 in D Major is an adaptation of the original
oboe concerto. Dutch flautist Ferdinand De Jean (1731-1797)
commissioned Mozart for
either) we would have documented cases that (to stick
with the example) Ma is featured on the recording, and would thus (want to)
have the same ARs/featuring information on each.
So, anyone up for an RFC on this?
--
Andrew Conkling
http://andrewski.net
players in displaying/using the
Advanced Relationships. While MBz doesn't necessarily cater to music players
or their finnicky formats, like Paul said, it's an important case and
sometimes the only disambiguating one.
That said, feel free to propose a new RFC for this specific issue and I'
--
Andrew
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Andrew Conkling and...@andrewski.netwrote:
Let alone the past discussion that took place (can't find ATM) that
discussed the limitations of some music players in displaying/using the
Advanced Relationships. While MBz doesn't necessarily cater to music players
think it's worthwhile.
Plus, we'd only be saving five characters. :)
--
Andrew Conkling
http://andrewski.net
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
that one edit), it would have been a
much more fruitful discussion IMO (I for one don't keep up with VA edits and
this was never on my radar).
--
Andrew Conkling
http://andrewski.net
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style
technical
problems in the absolute wrong way.)
--
Andrew Conkling
http://andrewski.net
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
--
Andrew Conkling
http://andrewski.net
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
either way.
Fair enough. In cases like this, which is the bigger one? The one derived
from the barcode?
And could someone add this info to the wiki?
--
Andrew Conkling
http://andrewski.net
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style
/BoxSetNameStyle doesn't seem to
be what people are following (this was even merged the opposite direction).
Anyone mind if I create a new release?
--
Andrew Conkling
http://andrewski.net
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http
.
Thanks for the good ideas.
--
Andrew Conkling
http://andrewski.net
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
How can Basset clarinet[1] be added to the list of available instruments for
ARs? I thought there was a process for this, but for the life of me, I can't
find it.
And before you ask, as I found out today, a Basset clarinet is not a Basset
horn. :)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basset_Clarinet
Oh, goodness, please forgive my mistake. I had meant to delete this, not
send it. I ended up finding Basset clarinet in the list (that search can be
subtly difficult sometimes).
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Andrew Conkling
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
How can Basset clarinet[1] be added
I just added a release that features a transcription of a Violin Sonata of
Mozart's of unknown authorship. Wasn't sure how to indicate that so I based
it off of the CSGStandard page for the original sonata and listed it
according to the liner notes.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dňa St, 2008-07-30 o 11:54 +0200, Aurélien.mino napísal:
BTW, I figured nearly one year ago that we should migrate to MediaWiki,
because it may better fits our needs (true categories support, advanced
templates (Moin
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 18:39, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope I'm not presenting a biased opinion, but
I think we seemed to be heading towards a if someone wants to add the
box set, let them sort of approach.
...as a pseudorelease, right? That was my impression last time it was
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 16:28, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 10, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Robert Kaye wrote:
On Jun 30, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Robert Kaye wrote:
FYI: http://blog.musicbrainz.org/?p=332
This
this
all in my head.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Andrew Conkling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Currently, the ClassicalStyleGuide reads (excerpted):
Track TitleIf a track has a soloist then add it using
FeaturingArtistStyle http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/FeaturingArtistStyle:
*(feat
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
to enter a release where one of the tracks is an aria
Currently, the ClassicalStyleGuide reads (excerpted):
Track TitleIf a track has a soloist then add it using
FeaturingArtistStylehttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/FeaturingArtistStyle:
*(feat. violin: Tamsin Little)*. If *all* tracks on the release feature a
performer/group/conductor, this information is
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, but that seems to be
suggesting to be
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Chris B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/4/23 Andrew Conkling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am I reading [Featuring ArtistStyle] too narrowly? Where's it mention
the original track title or
what's in the liner notes?
well, to even come under the FeaturingArtistStyle
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Gioele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we introduce a new AR to state that a certain person is the usual
chorusmaster or conductor of a certain choir/orchestra?
I think that ARs like member of do not include being a conductor of an
orchestra. Conductors are
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
n Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Paul C. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a quick followup note on this: This RFC was initiated because
just such destructive edits were
suggested/encouraged/done/fill-in-blank (Andrew, Leivhe, no offense,
can't figure how to say it without
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27-Mar-08, at 1:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I believe duplication is not so frequent in classical. So for
classical, the loss will be quite measurable IMO. In other kinds of
music, I agree it may not make a
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Lauri Watts wrote:
Clutter really failed to be an issue when the decision was made to
overload 'artist' to mean composer or performer, instead of having
both a possiblity. But hindsight is 20/20 and this is yet
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Adding it unboxed in the first place I have no issues with. It's the
several edits open even just at this particular time which are
actively converting box set releases into unboxed set
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Chris B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/03/2008, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree completely. I don't care if a CD was released as a 2 CD, 3
CD, 70
CD or 45 billions CD box set, as long as it was sold separately. These
kind
of box
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your logic would hold more true in the non-classical box sets, but
really, if followed, it would suggest that releases like Shine On
have no place within MusicBrainz. But why are you asking that editors
with a
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead, what's being done is, one by one as the discs are being
entered by a different editor, other editors are trying to ID what the
original release of that single disc was, and the adding editor then
is being
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you lauri; this is exactly what I was saying. I long ago
dropped the merge smaller to bigger concept. This RFC simply is
intended to prevent the reverse philosophy of merge all bigger into
smaller. I too
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Andrew Conkling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead, what's being done is, one by one as the discs
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Andrew Conkling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you lauri; this is exactly what I was saying. I long
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Andrew Conkling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Andrew Conkling
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If one artist can be considered the primary artist, file the
track/release
under the primary artist, add AdvancedRelationships of the
PerformanceRelationshipClass to link to the secondary artists, and
append
the
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Chris has replied to you on the history and the officialness of the CSG,
I'll answer more directly.
Brian Schweitzer wrote: Not to be totally sidetracked, though, the
point here you may think is
unimportant, but I
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I agree with Paul; and, for once, I disagree with Leiv. Although I
understand the redundancy is annoying, I feel that we must accept some
limitations of mp3 players...
I know exactly what you mean. I usually agree
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Brant Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, Andrew, why do *you* need all that in? How does seeing
BWV 244
in your track titles enhance your experience of the SMP?
By enabling me to find it. Catalogue numbers have the advantage of being
language
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Conkling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...and more importantly of the MB web site! If I
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Andrew Conkling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For context, this arose from a series of edits, namely:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8482467.
I think we've moved past
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- this is not really a CSG proposal, since as Brian wrote, the actual
track titles would be entered as they are printed. It would even restrict
the CSG to the work list, thus allowing users who don't know anything
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Read the proposed new doc. It's still got a few holes, but it's there
in the majority.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BrianFreud/sandbox
* What is missing?
* What don't people agree with
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'd propose this:
We try for not one, but two final documents. One would be the full
CSG, with all the cat-corners, etc, covered, as the full and
complete CSG - so when you have those obscure areas, you have
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:04 AM, symphonick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/2/26, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I disagree with luks. A work title not only identifies a larger work
but also the individual movements of those works. Classical songs
don't have titles, unless you consider
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone reread all the CSG documents in the wiki, forums, tickets,
edit decisions, mailing lists, etc., as I have done. Then reread the
sandbox CSG proposal I've been working on. Tell me how it's not the
same exact
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Ut, 2008-02-26 at 11:36 -0500, Andrew Conkling wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Show me one release where a track is identified as Allegro,
without
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Show me one release where a track is identified as Allegro, without
mentioning Symphony No. XY and the composer's name on the front cover.
http://musicbrainz.org/album/24bb6985-c65e-4e46-a0cb-6daacce5a28f.html
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I didn't say I have them, only that I have seen them.
Yes you did: I can go to my library and see dozens
like you describe
Local library, not Brian's own personal one. That tripped me up for a
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Aaron Cooper wrote:
In my opinion, this wouldn't work
You might be right, but you're not explaining why it won't. What do you
lose if the WorkName is not in the TrackTitle? Choose your own examples
and show why we would
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20-Feb-08, at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/album/a3523d3e-
b172-4164-8406-5dda5eea7a28.html (tracks 5-8)
Is this really a track-level detail? I know there are (more or less)
two camps
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Andrew Conkling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/album/3883f2fd-44b1-4174-82a0-c1fb8dc1c8db.html(tracks
1-2)
Tracks 1 and 2 are performed together, but the track list doesn't show
that. Does it turn out that they're from different works of Mozart's
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.
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 been
introduced in the edit at
On 2/15/07, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know you were talking about filenames - I said we shouldn't
structure our track titles to fit on someone's harddrive. We should
make our tagger so *IT* can make the filenames fit. You realize it's
probably only Windows that has this problem -
On 1/31/07, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/31/07, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found another special case: multiple disc releases. See
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6359121. How do we normalize
these? Should catalogue numbers be included? If so, should
On 1/30/07, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/27/07, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:38:54 +0100, David Gibson wrote:
Erm.. except I believe the thread was discussion classical Release
Titles, not Track Titles.
How embarrasing. :-) Funny that I did not
about the
actual tracks on the CD.
On 1/30/07, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/30/07, Andrew Conkling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yay!
Only one question arising from a recent edit: what to do when multiple
works are contained in a release, but unsequentially. Do we do Piano
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
