have been treated simply as errors to be corrected,
but now editors can choose to list the variant spelling as an artist
credit. But based on the current documentation, I'm finding it
difficult to know exactly how to choose.
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Mike Morrison m...@mikemorr.com wrote:
Hi
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Proposal:
Change the last bullet of #6 in SortNameStyle to read as follows:
Artist names that contain a person's name (usually eponymous band names)
sort as the person primarily, with remaining identifiers as
comma-separated
It's been two weeks since I opened the RFC [1] on the current revision [2]
of this wiki page, and no changes have been suggested on this list in that
time, so I am moving it to RFV.
I will remove the work in progress and not official warning from the
page after 48 hours, if there is no veto.
OK everyone, I don't know if the wiki page needs a formal RFC/RFV, since
the RFV for the AR itself already passed, but I figured it wouldn't hurt.
I've edited the wiki page per Muz's suggestion; here's the diff:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/YouTubeRelationshipType?action=diffrev2=2rev1=1
So
Regarding punctuation:
The following appears on both
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BrianFreud/sandbox
and
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BrianFreud/sandbox4
(quote)
Standard ASCII punctuation should always be used for the space , the
full-colon :, the semi-colon ;, the hyphen-minus -, single
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
(1) Does this apply both to CSG-for-Works and CSG-for-Tracks?
Much more works, I think. Tracks I would think we'd just be going from a)
what is used on the liner, then b) normal MB-general style guidelines on
punctuation/etc.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Mike Morrison mikem...@umich.edu wrote:
In that case, can we change it to an explicit list? I'd change:
Standard ASCII punctuation should always be used for the space , the
full-colon :, the semi-colon
I've created a first draft of the wiki page for the new YouTube AR.
Comments/edits, anyone?
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/YouTubeRelationshipType
Mike
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Mustaqil Ali wrote:
I wouldn't use the text has a YouTube page as this is rather ambiguous
and may lead to the user linking, or attempting to link, video pages to
that artist, which is not what's wanted.
I'd rather using has an official YouTube channel at.
I agree,
Re: winds, it is sometimes used as an abbreviation of woodwinds, but
to my ear it is a very natural way to refer to the woodwinds and brass
together. For example:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B03CSE The Cleveland Symphonic Winds
http://www.music.umich.edu/departments/winds_perc/index.htm
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Philip J?genstedt wrote:
I don't agree. If I see two discids I'll think that there are (at
least) two pressings of the CD, not that someone ripped a CDR (from a
friend or whatever) and used MusicBrainz to tag it. Peoples homemade
discids are cruft and I applaud anyone who
On Fri, 9 May 2008, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
In many areas of MB, we try to strike a balance between
structural/factual strictness and utility. If someone burns an album
downloaded from iTunes, Amazon, eMusic et al, shouldn't they be entitled
to index those against releases indexed in MB? The
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Sean Porter wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has heard of the Voices of Trance series, but they do
a monthly trance mix, and I've been working on streamlining processes for
efficiently reformatting and adding the releases to MB, but I'm not
absolutely sure where I should
How long is an RFV supposed to stay open? I thought it was 48 hours per
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/StyleCouncil but then I came across
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/RelationshipEditor which says two weeks.
Thanks warp, who said on IRC that a week should be fine, at least when it
comes to the RFV
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Mike Morrison wrote:
It having been one week with no additional comments on this Request For
Comment, I am submitting it as a Request For Veto.
My initial post on this topic:
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-April/006776.html
My initial RFC
It having been one week with no additional comments on this Request For
Comment, I am submitting it as a Request For Veto.
My initial post on this topic:
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-April/006776.html
My initial RFC on this topic:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Last, while conductors are often well known, would a similar artist-artist
Music Director AR for choirs and orchestras also be acceptable? Just one
example, when I lived in Baltimore, I honestly could not have told you who
the conductor of the BSO
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Mike Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Isn't a Music Director usually also the primary conductor?
How about this: An artist-artist AR that says Person conducted Group from
StartDate to EndDate, to be used
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 supported Person
Person supported Group
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Lauri Watts wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Mike Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/SupportingMusicianRelationshipType
and
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/MusicalAssociationRelationshipClass
seem to say
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 because I
think, if/when we do add sessions as the NGS
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
The last month my focus has not been on fixing the CSG, but rather to
say that I do not want us to standardise on one way of formatting one
piece of classical (movement, lied etc.) in the CSGS pages and make this
mandatory for how we should deal with
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
the question is, what are we going to do until then?
For now, I think each track essentially needs two title fields: one for
the TrackCoverText, and one for the CSG title. So I'm basically splitting
the userbase into two groups and proposing a way
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
CDs - or NATs. Perhaps it'd be simple to
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
There's one other problem, and I'm not sure either suggestion really
solves it - what to do then when you have two or more works on the
same track? You could link them each as instances, but how does
something trying to interpret that - the
I have to ask, what is this official classical track title that we'd be
preserving until and under NGS?
One possible choice: Exactly what is printed on the cover; typos,
inconsistencies, incomplete information and all. We could do this for
non-classical music too if we want. Then those of
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 associated with it.
For now, how about if we use the track
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Aaron Cooper wrote:
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
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
2. Conductors, choir masters, orchestras, and choirs: Currently, we
can set choir master and conductor for a release, but we cannot link
them in an artist-artist relationship. Many conductors and choir
masters are contracted by a group, sometimes
29 matches
Mail list logo
