d as a
> remaster is in fact a remix - in this case, follow the remix guidelines
> above."
>
I don't think this should be entirely removed, as this is an important
consideration. But maybe it could be moved to the "Recordings with
Different Mastering" section.
--
+1
2013/4/19 LordSputnik
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
> > Shouldn't "of audio track" be "of an audio track" or "of audio tracks"?
>
> Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying "the job involves eating pieces of
> chocolate bar&qu
1806.html
> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.o
+1
2013/4/19 Tom Crocker
> yep, and as and when (release) tracks get a page, a link to them
>
>
> On 19 April 2013 11:07, symphonick wrote:
>
>> 2013/4/19 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>
>>> I was thinking of something simple, like those from your second group
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
>
> I assume this refers to MB-tracks, as in the logical/technical divisions
> of a release. As opposed to 'audio tracks' as defined in this proposal.
>
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicb
te' might be the problem.
>> Some options:
>> MusicBrainz Recordings do not* *designate* *any particular mastering.
>> MusicBrainz Recordings **are not associated with* *any particular
>> mastering.
>>
>> Overall, I think the definitions are okay but could
2013/4/18 symphonick
> 2013/4/18 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/4/18 symphonick
>>
>>>
>>> IMO the remasters section should be expanded to include masters or
>>> "different masters".
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand w
Don't try to "explain" why a mastering is not a recording in MB. Most
> mixing also happens after recording (unless you capture something using
> multiple mics pre-mixed to stereo).
>
I think the idea is not to explain, but to make sure users will not
accidentally mi
Ah, right. I only missed the first sentence :-P
2013/4/18 Tom Crocker
> That was why I took it out of the definition . But remasters don't involve
> combining tracks, which is required in the definition of mix
> On Apr 18, 2013 11:10 AM, "Frederic Da Vitoria"
> wro
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651699.html
> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists
Also, shouldn't the definition page say how the duration is calculated. If
it isn't stated here, I don't know where users would find it.
2013/4/17 Frederic Da Vitoria
> "MusicBrainz Recordings do not indicate any particular mastering." isn't
> quite clear to
e currently using it.
>
>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651635.html
>> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _
e). Are we almost in a worse place than the current because
> we're not saying 'unique' anywhere?
>
>
> On 16 April 2013 14:49, lixobix wrote:
>
>> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
>> > I was referring to symphonick's last 2 suggestions, which were includ
There is something I like in the 5th definition: it separates the
"released" aspect from the "unedited/edited/mixed" aspect. There is
somethinkg I dislike in it: the first sentence is longer than the other
definitions.
2013/4/16 lixobix
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
2013/4/16 lixobix
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
> > ...if a recording is released then edited and this edit is it self
> > released, the edited recording would be
> > considered as the same as the first...
>
> The definition clearly states these would be two recordings
Isn't this a tautology? Wouldn't "released" be enough?
2013/4/16 Tom Crocker
> As I say, I liked the all recordings being released part. Previously
> unreleased as in previous to its release. Because an audio track can be an
> existing release.
> On Apr 16, 201
what we want.
In your question, I don't see the point in "previously unreleased".
Previously to what?
2013/4/16 Tom Crocker
>
>
>
> On 16 April 2013 10:19, symphonick wrote:
>
>> 2013/4/16 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>
>>> 2013/4/16 Tom Crocker
>
be enough.
2013/4/16 symphonick
> 2013/4/16 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/4/16 Tom Crocker
>>
>>>
>>> On 15 April 2013 22:26, symphonick wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2013/4/15 LordSputnik
>>>>
>>>>> I've done a small
roach will help because
> it requires less of a mental leap for someone reading it the first time.
> It's less likely we've forgotten to include some possible configuration. It
> focuses on what matters, the things that define uniqueness, rather than how
> processed or raw
d be made where a mono track has been
> split into stereo, for example in
> Duophonic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duophonic>recordings."
>
I had a similar reaction.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre
Tom Crocker
> Yep, I considered original and I'm not sure. It needs thinking about
> because we should only be saying what is important. Does it matter if a
> recording has been altered already? Anyway, something to ponder. I don't
> have an answer yet.
>
>
> On
uot; would be even better,
because "source" could be relative (it could itself be already altered)
while "original" seems to be less ambiguous.
--
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
2013/4/15 Tom Crocker
>
> On 14 April 2013 21:10, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>
>> 2013/4/14 Tom Crocker
>>
>>> I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are
>>> lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea?
>&g
rect terms is one of the
most important things, one of the first things to consider. If "recording"
can be understood with very different meanings by different users, and
worse if they don't realize that this risk exists, then ban the word
"recording" from the documentatio
_
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
htt
gs if it is not
recordings, or at least reasonably close to it. A mix is not reasonably
close to a recording IMO.
2013/4/12 lixobix
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
> > If we replace Recording with Mix (which
> > we will do at some point), we get "A MusicBrainz Mix is defined as a
>
; On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> If we replace Recording with Mix (which we will do at some point)
>>
>
> Er, will we? What makes you think that, exactly?
>
> --
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
>
s issue would probably be the
correct word for it. But we are bound to have this kind of issue. The only
way to avoid those issues would be to create our own words, to which we
could attach the exact technical meaning we want without fear of
misinterpretation.
2013/4/12 LordSputnik
> Fred
2013/4/12 lixobix
> LordSputnik wrote
> > I've done another update to the guidelines, to try to address the major
> > issues since last time. I've added a section on edits, extended the remix
> > section to cover dubs, versions and mixes, and added an example for the
> > audio channels part of th
That's what I thought. I am a bit ashamed to say it took me a long time to
notice one could select more than one line there.
2013/4/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I was not clear enough as usual.
/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> If the UI shows this, then I agree with your RFC as is. If not, I suggest
>> you edit your example: "if an artist usually performs vocals and guitar for
>> a band
; On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> IIUC, this new feature allows for only one instrument. Shouldn't "primary
>> role(s) associated" really be "primary role associated"
>>
>
> You, sir, are wrong! :) While usu
at we now have a way to link conductors to
> groups.
>
> Ticket is at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-168
> Expected RFV date is April 18.
>
> --
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing lis
Yes, that's also what I thought. I suggest the guide should mention that
the first cover may not be a good indication of whether it is a mix or a
remaster. Just to tell users not to follow blindly what is printed in big
characters.
2013/4/11 symphonick
> 2013/4/10 Frederic Da
An other example of remix called "remaster": Jethro Tull's Lcomotive Breath.
2013/4/10 Frederic Da Vitoria
> 2013/4/8 symphonick
>
>> corner case - something has been called a remaster but it's actually a
>> remix? I think we can assume that most of the
#x27;t expect to. The commercial meanings of
those words as usual will become unrelated to their technical meanings.
I'm not sure this is a corner case: what is the sure way to distinguish
remasters from remixes if you forget what is printed? How do we know how
frequently remaster has been used
You are right, we could decide that if someone has a work dedicated to
her/him,then he meets the condition for being stored in MB. This would
allow us to create the AR.
2013/4/1 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
_
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.a
2013/3/23 Rachel Dwight
>
> On Mar 23, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
> 2013/3/23 Rachel Dwight
>
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 11:23 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <
>> reosare...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar
nother proposal on the drawing board to restructure the language
> table to cover regional dialects, but from the sound of things it's going
> to need a LOT of work.
>
I don't understand the "translated" attribute. Why not a more general
2013/3/20 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria > wrote:
>>
>> Back to the RFC: I suggest again that simply replacing the "Type" section
>> title with "Secondary Types" would solve the issue. In the U
2013/3/20 Kuno Woudt
> Hello,
>
> On 03/19/2013 10:18 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > 2013/3/19 Ben Ockmore mailto:ben.s...@gmail.com>>
> >
> > I agree that something should be said about Primary types. There
> > could perhaps be something o
uld be the name of those other pages) For example,
shouldn't the explanations about single be in the style page?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
_
ge to define distinct works outside the scope
of classical music, so please use whichever general usage applies best in
this case." Please correct my English first, I am not sure what I just
wrote is clear enough :-)
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April -
2013/3/18 Frederic Da Vitoria
> 2013/3/18 symphonick
>
>> 2013/3/10 symphonick
>>
>>> http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-6002
>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Symphonick/Orchestration
>>>
>>> This RFC will expire Sunday, March 1
ompletely different performances as the same Work sometimes
misses an important musical point. Any method to enable some way to split
(without generating one Work for each cover) is good news to me.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre
2013/3/15 symphonick
> This proposal seem to have stalled. Are there issues that need to be
> fixed, or can I get a +1?
>
+1
BTW, I wish there was a way to hide the start date and end date attributes
when they are not relevant. Maybe it is already possible?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
direct support for this type.
>
> I was not able to found any previous suggestions to add this type
> (except for one proposal to significantly extend work types).
>
> Please comment on this
>
No comment, this is obviously needed IMO.
+1
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Memb
2013/3/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2013/3/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>>
>>> The guidelines for type on
>>> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release_Group are incorrect now that
&
types?" I believe it should at
least first explain that there are Primary types and secondary types.
Further explanations would probably be more for a user guide than for a
style guide.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défe
2013/3/10 symphonick
> I've updated the proposal with "Fly me to the moon".
>
Shouldn't "CSG" be a link?
You are referring to CSG to define what a work is, but what about when the
works are not classical music?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2013/3/8 SwissChris
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah, but I wasn't speaking of "political" border
2013/3/8 SwissChris
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> Ah, but I wasn't speaking of "political" borders. I was saying that
>> historical borders had a major cultural signification, and that current
>> political bord
tates or
> what nationality an artist born in Alsace at a certain date should be
> credited to.
>
> If we can find a reliable external source for such historical entities
> (like we did for "countries"): great! If not, what we have now will (have
> to) suffice…
>
&g
s which we wouldn't want to cope with at this early
stage, but I can't understand saying that the historical country is not
worth considering. Or did I misunderstand "sufficient"?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel l
2013/3/8 Kuno Woudt
> Hello,
>
> On 03/08/2013 10:23 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > The concept of single Artist is flawed. Who are we decide that this
> > artist or that artist is to be The track Artist (or The release Artist
> > for that matter)?
>
> I do
into movement titles,
data like "bonus disk" into release titles... We have to find a balance
between doing things right from the start and losing information because of
the schema change delay.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l&
ack number then? Is track 1 on the first side "11"?
> "11"? No, simply use a delimiter to separate the side identifier from
> the track identifier. Say, "1 1" or "1.1". I prefer the former.
I believe there should *always* be a delimiter between the si
k listing on
the back cover. Of course, we can and should try to define exceptions to
the rules, in order to avoid as much as possible silly consequences. But
those exceptions should stay simple and easy to decide.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « prom
and I only dreamed about Works in MB :-) I agree it
is outdated and should be put away, but not before we are sure it is
replaced.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
_
2013/3/7 symphonick
> 2013/3/7 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/3/7 symphonick
>>
>>> 2013/3/7 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>>
>>>> 2013/3/7 symphonick
>>>>
>>>>> 2013/3/7 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>>>>
>
2013/3/7 symphonick
> 2013/3/7 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/3/7 symphonick
>>
>>> 2013/3/7 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>>
>>>> 2013/3/7 symphonick
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Symphonick
2013/3/7 symphonick
> 2013/3/7 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/3/7 symphonick
>>
>>>
>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Symphonick/Has_Arrangement_Relationship_Type
>>>
>>> Proposal rewritten. Resetting the clock; it will expire on Thu
entified the correct JSB
work. I can't think of anything else.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@list
2013/3/6 symphonick
> I made a page with notes about my planned proposals and more. Comments,
> questions and suggestions welcome.
>
Maybe you should post a link to that page ;-)
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel
2013/3/6 symphonick
> 2013/3/6 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/3/6 symphonick
>>
>>> 2013/3/6 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>>
>>>> 2013/3/5 symphonick
>>>>
>>>>> And can you explain when a new version is not "based on&quo
2013/3/6 symphonick
> 2013/3/6 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/3/5 symphonick
>>
>>> And can you explain when a new version is not "based on"?
>>>
>>
>> I have been thinking about this since yesterday, but I'm not very happy
&
2013/3/5 symphonick
> And can you explain when a new version is not "based on"?
>
I have been thinking about this since yesterday, but I'm not very happy
with the result. If someone has better ideas...
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvo
2013/3/5 David Gasaway
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have started assembling a general guideline about when to use ther
>> different Work-Work ARs:
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/How_To_
2013/3/5 symphonick
> 2013/3/5 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have started assembling a general guideline about when to use ther
>> different Work-Work ARs:
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/How_To_Link_Works_Together
>>
>> Th
se I can't decide if the title should use the French or the
English spelling, but also because I can't decide if the Revision or
Version AR should be used?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défend
ge it's translated into (it's not like they will
> be many, with very rare exceptions)...
>
I agree, some operas have more than one translation, so this rule may make
users use a pre-existing translation because they don't know who the ac
f label countries. If you have
> more general questions or comments about my changes, however, please direct
> those to me privately, so we can keep this thread cleaner.
>
> --
> Ian McEwen
> A262 D5C4 40CB 0E1C 5F24 C3A1 ABED 1ABD 7131 A76F
> http://ianmcorvid
2013/3/4 symphonick
>
> 2013/3/4 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>>
>> How_Works_Are_Related or How_To_Relate_Works ? Anyhow, my RFC is not out
>> yet and we have we have until the RFV to decide :-)
>>
>>
> BTW if someone wants to see a RFV for _this_ proposal, I
2013/3/4 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2013/3/4 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria >> > wrote:
>>>
>&
2013/3/4 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
> wrote:
>
>> 2013/3/4 symphonick
>>
>>> 2013/3/4 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>>
>>>> 2013/3/4 symphonick
>>>>
>>>>> 201
2013/3/4 symphonick
> 2013/3/4 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/3/4 symphonick
>>
>>> 2013/3/4 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder about "Revising music can include arranging. Do not use
>>>> another "ve
2013/3/4 symphonick
> 2013/3/4 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>>
>> I wonder about "Revising music can include arranging. Do not use another
>> "version of"-relationship at the same time as revision." I understand the
>> second sentence, but I am unsur
Revising music can include arranging. Do not use another
"version of"-relationship at the same time as revision." I understand the
second sentence, but I am unsure about the first.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libr
2013/3/3 symphonick
> 2013/3/3 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/3/2 symphonick
>>
>>> 2013/3/2 Frederic Da Vitoria
>>>
>>>> I wonder about "not" adding a disambiguation comment for generic
>>>> versions. I'd actually d
2013/3/2 symphonick
> 2013/3/2 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> I wonder about "not" adding a disambiguation comment for generic
>> versions. I'd actually do the reverse: define a standard comment in order
>> to be able to easily select all generic works. Or may
rue every time you link a full performance of a
> multi-part work - say a piano sonata - to the main work. You can't find all
> performances of the first movement of "Moonlight sonata" in one place.
>
Right. So this would have to be solved by making the queries smarter.
--
2013/3/2 caller#6
> On 03/02/2013 11:10 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > Or maybe generic works will be marked with an Advanced Property (I
> > keep forgetting their actual name, but IIUC they should be implemented
> > soon).
> Dynamic Attributes?
> http://tickets
es forms a layer independent from the music that doesn't
> fit into the current work schema
>
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style ma
2013/2/28 David Gasaway
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria > wrote:
>
>> Hmm, this means that if I am looking for recordings of "Non piu andrai",
>> MB won't be able to give an exhaustive list, won't it?
>>
>
> I
ar arias and such; perhaps even to
> be helpful for less experienced editors?
>
Hmm, this means that if I am looking for recordings of "Non piu andrai", MB
won't be able to give an exhaustive list, won't it?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April
itions spread over the different
possibilities and if it would be advisable to cross-link them in the guides.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-st
2013/2/28 symphonick
> 2013/2/28 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/2/28 Lemire, Sebastien
>>
>> How about just leaving out Opera, and perhaps ballet out of this proposal
>>> and we could have an RFC just for them without interrupting the other works
>>>
cerpt works or that you should be forced to use them. Or should we
>>> just say nothing about it, opera will be a complete mess anyway? :-(
>>>
>>
>> Subdividing opera is a big problem. Even when numbers are split, the
>> name of the number is just some part
2013/2/27 symphonick
> 2013/2/27 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/2/27 symphonick
>>
>>> 2013/2/27 ListMyCDs.com
>>>
>>> On 27.2.2013 13:09, symphonick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I disagree. Every arrangement that exists is not a va
C for a new AR?
>
It is not only one AR missing, I am counting at least 4 here and there is
no reason this is all that would be missing. The only sensible answer I can
see would be to consider that these are works.
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membr
2013/2/27 ListMyCDs.com
> On 27.2.2013 10:59, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > 2013/2/27 ListMyCDs.com > <mailto:musicbra...@listmycds.com>>
>
> > If three works would be connected together with relationships, middle
> > one might be missing thanks to
2013/2/26 symphonick
> 2013/2/26 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/2/26 symphonick
>>
>>>
>>> http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-195
>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Symphonick/CSG_Works
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> &q
e most recent common ancestor
to two Works which are in the MB database." Do you have examples where a
similar rule would be needed for arrangements?
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
_
typo: "recoding" -> "recording"
It took me some time to understand why you wrote "Do not confuse audio
excerpts (edited recordings) with a deliberate performance of an excerpt."
I believe you should explain, something like "an audio excerpt should be
linked to
rticular
> arrangement or another.
>
> I think the distinction we should make should be based on how creatively
> different an arrangement is from the original work, but that needs a more
> concrete definition.
>
I agree with the suggestion, but I agree too this is probably going
2013/2/24 symphonick
>
> 2013/2/24 Frederic Da Vitoria
>
>> 2013/2/24 ListMyCDs.com
>>
>> On 24.2.2013 13:29, LordSputnik wrote:
>>> > "Only use Revision to link surviving works. Do not enter works that
>>> cannot be
>>> > p
lieve nothing related to music should be outside
the scope of MB :-)
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrai
se numbers performed. If someone would
> create a time line based on dates from relationships, we could also see
> that composer wasn't having a long break but was busy with a work which
> is currently missing.
>
Yes, I agree too
--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)
Me
201 - 300 of 1759 matches
Mail list logo
