Hi,
I like this idea, but I have one question about it.
I didn't follow the previous discussion, so maybe my question has already been
answered.
But it seems to me that this should be implemented at the release group level,
als there can be multiple versions of the album (only linking to the
+1
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:51:19 +0200
From: davito...@gmail.com
To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc,
etc?
2010/4/28, Rob Keeney pianissim...@gmail.com:
My biggest complaint about the current 'release'
+1
snip
Moving to history achieves the same thing as deleting; you're removing it
from the official documentation; basically putting it on death row, unable to
be legitimately referenced.
snip
My alternative suggestion, as suggested by others and largely ignored is to
reword the
Brian,
Op 25-3-2010 1:30, Brian Schweitzer schreef:
But it does do harm.
I think you made your point that with siblings it is sometimes better to
make clusters, because of half-siblings and so on.
But this does not mean that the whole guideline has become useless...
Chad has argued that it
Relationship Types
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Bram van Dijk bram_van_d...@hotmail.com
wrote:
In the flood I haven't been following this discussion closely, so perhaps I am
missing something.
That said: I agree with much of what Chris said below.
Don't we have just two options:
-full siblings
Maybe this is country specific, but isn't it obvious that you shouldn't use a
sibling-AR for 'in-laws'?
So, yes, I support this.
Though I am wondering (just wondering) if there are actual examples of people
added to MBz for this reason.
Hmmm... they would be entered as artists, while
@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Modify edit conditions for destructive edits
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
+1
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:36:35 -0500
From: brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Modify edit conditions for destructive edits
Ok, how about this version?
Make these non-expiring, passing only if they eventually have a
+1
There just is not enough voting in many parts of the database to let edits fail
at 0:0.
Otherwise I would support it.
I think that a combination of a) and b) might be an improvement on the current
situation.
Maybe instead of sudden death, we should keep the edits open for
Disc 2 and 3 are explicitly labelled as bonus discs,
So we should add them as bonus discs.
This entails that I am against duplicating the first disc.
Kuno Woudt schreef:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:38:01PM +0100, Simon Austin wrote:
Kuno Woudt wrote:
It has, on the back/in the insert:
But the packaging does include the word bonus disc.
Kuno Woudt schreef:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:36:30AM -0700, jacobbrett wrote:
Potentially confusing, yes (if the discs didn't have their own titles), but
more correct as they *are* bonus discs and not part of the actual album per
say.
I agree with Chris in this one.
These are 2 bonus discs,
so they should be names as such.
Bram
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:22:25 +0100
From: ch...@whenironsattack.com
To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Two... two bonus discs... ha ha ha ha!
2009/6/22
+1
Atedos schreef:
If money is the issue, then why don't we just put targeted Amazon or
Google Ads all over the site rather than corrupting the dataset?
I'm being facetious, but it's a serious point - moving into something
that looks like selling ARs doesn't feel like the MB
Please correct me if I didn;t understand this right.
But I thought the release groups were supposed to make things cleaner.
So if we have an original release and a re-release, they can go into the
same release group.
Now you are proposing to not merge them (if the re-release has a bonus
disc),
+1
Kuno Woudt schreef:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:15:21AM -0700, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Okay. So, trying again, with new information, I'd propose:
1. Sort name: always use ampersand as an artist delimiter.
2. Artist name: prefer the use of ampersand over and where there is no
artist
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, I have been before on many issues.
The artist sort name is only needed to get a sort order for artists.
The artist name can already be found in the artist name itself.
So, preserving the actual name doesn't seem to be an issue.
Furthermore, we want a
There is one point that hasn't been made.
What if we don't know the beginning or end date of a band?
Either or one of them would remain empty.
So, if we know that some musician is a founding member, we still leave
his/her membership AR empty.
Now this means that we lose the information of
+1 To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org From: gio...@svario.it Date:
Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:48:56 +0100 Subject: [mb-style] from the beginning and
until the end attributes for member of AR Could add two attributes:
From the beginning and To the end to the member of AR? With these
+1 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:27:44 -0500 From: coope...@gmail.com To:
musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] Audiobook
styleguide 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
+1
Paul C. Bryan schreef:
Works for me. +1
-Original Message-
From: Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
Reply-to: MusicBrainz style discussion
musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject:
I own just a few classical cd's, and know far too little about it to be usefull
for these discussions.
But I'd just like to say that I love the fact that CSG is becomming official.
Especially the new frontpage is great.
Maybe now I'll dare adding my classical cd's.
So, basically, what I
+1
Aaron Cooper schreef:
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
I agree, why would we do that for audiobooks if we don't do that for
regular music?
Do people play audiobooks with different software that is not able to
read tags?
Just:
Chapter 1: foo
Chapter 2-4: bar
seems fine by me, and it is a lot less cluttered.
People can always use tagger scripts if
mailto: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 Bram van Dijk bram_van_d...@hotmail.com
mailto:bram_van_d...@hotmail.com
I agree, why would we
+1
Frederic Da Vitoria schreef:
2009/1/7 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
mailto:brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
It's been pointed out to me by an editor figuring out where to put
what AR that the consensus of the long threads last year never did
actually make
frequently enough (essentially more than one work on one release), I
guess including the work title in the track title makes sense.
2009/1/7 Bram van Dijk bram_van_d...@hotmail.com
mailto:bram_van_d...@hotmail.com
OK, I guess I should have though some more before replying.
I now agree
The two examples given in the edit note both say 'Harry McClintock Haywire
Mac ',
which can even be interpreted as an album by Harry McClintock, titled Haywire
Mac.
Unless evidence shows up that the a Firstname Nickname Lastname scheme is
actually used somewhere on a record, I am against
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:46:01 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Subject: Re: [mb-style] Audio Drama
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any idea
on how to deal with artists on tracks that are audio drama, radio drama,
I might be wrong, but if there is a box set, for example the pink floyd
shine on set, we do use earliest release or remaster ARs to link
them to the original albums. But, I don't think that they should be in
the same cultural identifier.
Bram (jongetje)
Jan van Thiel schreef:
Why is this
You could use the solution from
http://musicbrainz.org/release/0249a2c4-43ef-4185-9b5a-ab68245d8ed6.html
Just add both labels with their catalog numbers as two release events.
The barcode is the same for both which will make clear that these two
release events actually refer to the same
+1
Aaron Cooper schreef:
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,
What about Metallica and U2 both having a song called one,
should we add [the U2 song] and [the Metallica song] in the track title?
Or when Johhny Cash covered the the U2 one, should we add that
explicitly to the track title?
And with live versions, should we enter the date of the performance to
Aaron Cooper schreef:
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
+1
Paul C. Bryan schreef:
+1 on the change being proposed; the discussion thread is a bit iffy for
me.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: MusicBrainz style discussion
musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
To:
I agree with Lauri that this should be a different discussion.
But, I just got to say that I really like this idea.
IMHO the title field is abused in a lot of ways by putting featuring
stuff in there.
I would even like the idea of removing ExtraTitleInformation from the title.
Not that I expect
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:23:32AM +0200, Bram van Dijk wrote:
I would even like the idea of removing ExtraTitleInformation from the
title.
Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon, or anytime at all
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense indeed.
Chris B schreef:
2008/5/15 Bram van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What about consistent original data?
please see my propose re-write of that @
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ConsistentOriginalData (search for
Gecks)
i think the context
I like this one, and maybe then we can also change Percussion
instruments into Percussion.
Bram
Frederic Da Vitoria schreef:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Leiv Hellebo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having the double/upright bass under violins, one could use has
+1
Lauri Watts schreef:
Proposal:
Change the wording
From: Use a colon (:) to separate multi-line parts of a ReleaseTitle.
to: Use a colon (:) to separate parts of a ReleaseTitle
Where:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SubTitleStyle
Why:
1) It unnecessarily restricts
The way I see it, MusicBrainz collects the metadata of official and
bootleg releases and whatnot.
One thing we do not do is adding my personal best 13 tracks ever
compilation in the database, which I selected for my car cd-player.
Why not?
Because it is of no use to anybody else!
IMHO with
This one:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/HowToAddDiscIDs
(though you might say it is not a guideline)
If I am not mistaken, burning the exact same mp3 or whatever will result
in different discIDs dependent on the which burner one uses. Maybe even
with which program?
Thus, if we allow this, we
, 2 different
releases of the same album follow this pattern, but I estimate that the
probabilities are astronomically small for any release with more than
say 5 tracks.
Bram
Lukáš Lalinský schreef:
Dňa Pi, 2008-05-09 o 15:42 +0200, Bram van Dijk napísal:
This one:
http
I like this idea!
Chris B schreef:
2008/5/9 Lukáš Lalinský [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If they were hidden, it would be ok to keep them? I think we all know
that the MB website is far from ideal, but we should change the graphic
layout to fit the data, not the data to fit the layout.
one
I like the way this is going to, cleaning up FAS itself instead of
having a separate classical FAS.
Brian Schweitzer schreef:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Andrew Conkling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Andrew Conkling
[EMAIL
Brian Schweitzer schreef:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Mike Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Lauri Watts wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Mike Morrison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Mike Morrison schreef:
Thanks everyone for your artist examples!
I am assuming, then, that all four of the following are theoretically
acceptable, although the distinctions between membership, collaboration,
and support might need to be decided on a case-by-case basis:
Person
+1
Lauri Watts schreef:
n Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Paul C. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
An attempt to summarize the discussion.
Brian saw that some releases belonging to a box set were being merged
away into single releases.
He sent a RFC, which stated that this should not be allowed anymore.
Soon a few people started complaining, mainly using the clutter
argument in various
Frederic Da Vitoria schreef:
...
The previous system had this advantage that if there was one Release
per TOC, when you entered your CD in Picard you went to the correct
release with all the ARs. If you split Releases (until track whatever
is running) you reach an arbitrarily partial
schreef:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Bram van Dijk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria schreef:
...
The previous system had this advantage that if there was one Release
per TOC, when you entered your CD in Picard you went
Leiv Hellebo schreef:
Bram van Dijk wrote:
Box sets don't have the same discID, as they are newly pressed, if they
do have the same discID then they are bundles, which is a wrapping
around previously existing albums.
Are you sure?
I have popped in quite a few BoxSet discs [1
right, so I learned something new today...
maybe I should keep out of these discussions...
Brian Schweitzer schreef:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Bram van Dijk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that is the reason why musicbrainz works with discID's. Of course I
did not mean to say
Brian omitted one point Chris B was making which I happen to agree on:
we're going over the same points again and again. at this point you
have to reword your RFC to specifically address non-bundles, or accept
that we don't all agree on this issue.
I think this is needed,
though I agree with
+1
Brian Schweitzer schreef:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But yes, I am in favor of merging away only the class Oliver described
as bundles. A box set
Just my 2 cents,
it seems to me that everybody agrees on 2 things:
A1. a couple of standard cd's wrapped together should not be duplicated.
These should perhaps be called bundles instead of box sets.
A2. As soon as there is new material present in the box set, the whole
set should be
Brian Schweitzer schreef:
In both the wikidoc and wiki versions of this style,
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/BoxSetNameStyle , it reads as follows:
-
There are two cases of BoxSets:
1. A set of albums or singles which are
So maybe what we really need is just a copy this release into a new
release draft kind of thingy like discogs has. This way adding both the
boxset version and the single release version is pretty easy. Which
leaves only the cluttering argument, which I don't find too important
myself...
Bram
you convinced me too;-)
Lauri Watts schreef:
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
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 until then, it may be better to keep the releases
together.
Bram
Chris B schreef:
On 19/03/2008, Lauri Watts [EMAIL
As we usually don't like redirects, I think that this doesn't change
anything in this discussion.
Bram
david scotson schreef:
I'm not sure how this would be communicated to less sophisticated
Musicbrainz/Wikipedia users but the following is possible:
Well, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PerformerRelationshipType says
literally that
*additional and guest*
There is no guideline yet that specifies what /exactly/ these two are for.
These seem to overlap a little. I suppose that *additional* should
designate performers who did not play a main
Olivier schreef:
The main proposition (which is barely a succession of
questions/answers and use cases) is located at:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameArtistWithDifferentNames
(which name is supposed to balance IdenticallyNamedArtists)
Thanks, I like it, this is really something we can
I agree with Brian, if we want to make the strong guidelines, artist
intent or consistent original data less vague that is another discussion
(which may also be useful).
The issue now is whether we this style principle should be official, and
I think it should...
Bram
Brian Schweitzer
Barry Platt schreef:
There is a list of all the different Track/Release AR types on my wiki
page http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BarryPlatt which categorizes the ARs
into three types.
* Type 1 ARs are nominally track-level but would be considered to apply
to a subset of tracks on a release if
Chris B schreef:
to be honest, i think this is a DBA issue. i mean, it's for ruoak
and/or lukz or whoever (sorry i know there are many involved but yes!)
to say how ARs relate to tracks. i can only look at it is from a
display issue and say what should be represented (which is where the
thanks for clearing that up, and we should document this distinction
very well, because it will probably confuse a lot of editors...
also thanks for clearing up the fuzzy thingy...
I really think it's great we are reaching a consensus everybody seems to
be happy with...
Brian Schweitzer
Thanks! I agree with this proposal.
Jim DeLaHunt schreef:
Hi, folks:
I had just come strongly to Brian's Viewpoint #2 when this thread broke out.
I support his proposal, but I'd like to reword it (below):
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
...
Viewpoint 2:
A release and its tracks are two
Now we are getting somewhere...
Lauri Watts schreef:
On Jan 3, 2008 2:52 PM, Bram van Dijk
On another note, I think that the quarrel here is also a bit about
what musicbrainz is. Either a database for tagging mp3 files, or an
encyclopedia of music.
If it is just a means of tagging MP3
+1
though I really wish we could come up with another word for "fuzzy".
IMHO "fuzzy" states that we dont know what an AR means,
while in my opinion we know exactly what it means.
Lauri Watts schreef:
On Jan 3, 2008 7:16 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We would
I vote for viewpoint 2.
Lots of releases have liner notes like this:
Artist A: vocal, guitar, piano, bass, whatever, some weird percussion
thingy, and yet a few instruments more
Artist B: another list with a gazillion instruments.
There is usually no way to know which track each specific
It is very intuitive actually, now that I think about it a bit more.
take the example of a performed drums AR:
A track-level AR means that the artist played the drums somewhere in the
track. He/she may not be the only drummer, doesn't necessarily play the
whole song, maybe only in the last 10
Well, as I see it:
both your solutions (remove AR's from later releases; add AR's to later
releases) require lots of editing effort, and since there will (some
day) be a technical solution to these issues, the concensus seems to be
that this effort can be used in more productive ways.
Bram
you are absolutely right, and this seems like a sensible scheme to me...
Brian Schweitzer schreef:
A bit off-topic, but: maybe we could use the is same track as AR
as a
supertype for is the earliest release of, is a later version
of and
is a remaster of, maybe also is a
A bit off-topic, but: maybe we could use the is same track as AR as a
supertype for is the earliest release of, is a later version of and
is a remaster of, maybe also is a cover of. Sometimes it is a bit
hard to find out which of them applies, and in that case we could just
enter an AR stating
See also discussion here:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7741829
Age Bosma schreef:
Bram van Dijk wrote:
there are also some of the bad seeds with vocal credits, so if Nick
Cave would have gotten the track lavel credit it would have said has
vocal performed by Blixa Bargeld, Nick
Hi,
I recently added AR's of Nick Cave singing on every track of his album
Murder Ballads at the track level. I was corrected that this credit
should have been at the album level, though it turned out that there was
no guideline (yet) which told that.
Initially I had 2 reasons to put them at
76 matches
Mail list logo
