To be honest, after reading that Wikipedia page, with it's citations
from 5 years ago, dead links and now-shuttered services, I'd be inclined
to agree with Nicolas.
Going by Google Trends, it's less popular than Vanilla Ice:
On 05/06/2012 10:48, lixobix wrote:
I'm aware what the guidelines say. What I'm getting at is that for most
digital concert boots the best we are ever going to get to a release date is
an estimate, and no geographical location (thus 'worldwide' as Kuno states).
I find it annoying to always
On 05/06/2012 19:05, lixobix wrote:
Long term, once performance date and location are fully supported I expect
this information will be writable to tags. Migration will be fairly simple
for releases using correct live bootleg style. However, many already contain
incorrect data in the release
On 04/06/2012 15:34, lixobix wrote:
I've recently noticed some users adding the show date and country in the
release date and country fields. I'm aware that the rules state these fields
should be left blank if unknown, but in my opinion such a policy is becoming
increasingly useless as
On 16/05/2012 18:29, SwissChris wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com mailto:reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:43 PM, caller#6
meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com
mailto:meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com
On 10/04/12 22:33, Johannes Weißl wrote:
The name founding member was just an misleading choice. I don't have the
links here right now, but I can research them if anyone wants.
Actually, we also need a complementary attribute for member until the
group dissolved.
I think that having a new
On 23/11/2011 08:27, MeinDummy wrote:
Nikki-3 wrote
Johannes Weißl wrote:
Hello,
I know this has been discussed before [1], but has this ever been
decided? Do we merge pure [silence] recordings from different albums
with different duration? See
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15613386
On 23/11/11 15:01, MeinDummy wrote:
That's what I thought, too.
I just wanted to get this confirmed by the dev's for both the website and
for Picard.
So does the release display on the website depend on whether all track
artists are the same?
And does Picard set the compilation flag
On 23/11/11 09:28, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Simon Austin chi...@auzsoft.net wrote:
Surely you're not saying all recordings of silence are the same! John
Cage frowns on your shenanigans.
Indeed. But I think we can agree all digital - as opposed
On 23/11/11 21:14, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 21:08 +, Simon Austin wrote:
On 23/11/11 15:01, MeinDummy wrote:
That's what I thought, too.
I just wanted to get this confirmed by the dev's for both the website and
for Picard.
So does the release display on the website
On 23/11/11 08:27, MeinDummy wrote:
Nikki-3 wrote
Johannes Weißl wrote:
Hello,
I know this has been discussed before [1], but has this ever been
decided? Do we merge pure [silence] recordings from different albums
with different duration? See
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15613386
On 05/08/11 04:43, David Gasaway wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 04:28, Ryan Torchia anarchyr...@gmail.com wrote:
So the cases where feat. is used in an actual equal collaboration, or
where a band is named Band feat. Leader aren't allowed to use feat.
because it's reserved to parse this
wrote:
In this case I'd probably create a new collaboration artist called
The Zombies featuring Colin Blunstone Rod Argent” – which is
exactly what has been done ;-)
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/5e9eb903-e1d7-416b-8a74-e5a39e175966
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Simon Austin chi
On 18/07/11 14:00, MeinDummy wrote:
swisschris wrote:
There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try to
address
separately:
1. How does as on cover (on track/release level) *ideally* translate
into
NGS structures?
For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring
On 18/07/11 21:02, SwissChris wrote:
Also, I think there's a subtle difference between a track/recording
featuring a guest artist, and an artist with featured performer(s)
[4],
which tends to be muddied by converting them to artist credits.
This last example is a temporary
On 17/07/11 10:25, Kuno Woudt wrote:
Hello,
On 16/07/11 16:45, Simon Austin wrote:
Perhaps that's misplaced, after all it does say...
This guideline applies to cases in which one or more artists are
/featured/ on a *track or release* by another artist
and
1. File the *track/release
On 17/07/11 13:25, Kuno Woudt wrote:
To be clear, my intent has always been to have it only apply to recording
and release group titles only -- that's why this guideline is a subpage
of the Recording and release group titles guideline.
The idea was that retain all the current guidelines for
Perhaps that's misplaced, after all it does say...
This guideline applies to cases in which one or more artists are
/featured/ on a *track or release* by another artist
and
1. File the *track/release* under the normal primary artist.
2. Append the name of the secondary artist(s) to the
On 16/07/2011 18:53, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
What I mean is that mostly things weren't mistakenly put under
release/track or release group/recording, so it is much more likely
that the wording wasn't updated to reflect its place than that its
place is a mistake.
If you're right,
If recording Song (Something mix) is a remix of recording Song and
has a AR such, should it *also* have a performance AR to the work for
Song?
Example: http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14781986 /
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/32c7e292-14f1-4080-bddf-ef852e0a4c59
- Si
On 06/07/11 23:24, Johannes Weißl wrote:
Hello Philip,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 11:40:32PM +0200, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779672
Right after NGS went live went live I made a few edits like this
myself, but soon stopped because it seems to be destroying
On 05/07/11 08:01, Ryan Torchia wrote:
...and? How does such a trivial distinction necessitate -- or even
benefit from -- an entirely new set of formatting rules? We treat
volume numbers and /track part numbers/ with basically the same rules;
I really don't see anything that would make that
On 02/07/11 09:48, Ryan Torchia wrote:
Why should it need to be anything more than that? It indicates order,
so it serves a purpose, and so it should be part of the title. We
don't require a higher purpose for series numbers on any other format
or release type, so what benefit is there to
On 29/06/11 13:45, Ryan Torchia wrote:
This conversation got derailed when the issues of charts got brought
in. Your terse dismissal of CD single sets as nothing more than a tool
to manipulate the charts struck me as way too narrow and cynical. But
you know, it really doesn't make a
On 28/06/11 01:09, Ryan Torchia wrote:
I don't think that's true. According to the rules outlined here:
http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-rules/ -- only one of a
disc in
a set like this will count towards the charts. In the US, the RIAA
definitely only counts
(NB: wrote this before I saw Nikki had also replied)
On 27/06/11 05:09, Ryan Torchia wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Simon Austin chi...@auzsoft.net
mailto:chi...@auzsoft.net wrote:
On 24/06/2011 13:50, Ryan Torchia wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Simon Austin
On 24/06/2011 13:50, Ryan Torchia wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Simon Austin chi...@auzsoft.net
mailto:chi...@auzsoft.net wrote:
On 21/06/2011 20:54, Ryan Torchia wrote:
I don't think it's that they don't exist or should be ignored - just
that the title field
On 21/06/2011 20:54, Ryan Torchia wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com
mailto:aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Ryan Torchia wrote:
and it serves the same
function for VA comps as it does in CD single series
For example?
Anywhere that it's used to
On 18/06/2011 01:02, Ryan Torchia wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com
mailto:aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Austin wrote:
As one of the pro-disc N voters of aeons past - isn't this what the
release comment field is for now?
I was going to say
On 15/06/2011 17:08, Andii Hughes wrote:
I was wary about suggesting this as I'm not sure if there were
multi-disc vinyl singles
or multi-cassette singles in the past. It seems pretty possible.
In the present even, give or take a few years
On 14/06/2011 06:43, Nikki wrote:
Simon Austin wrote:
As one of the pro-disc N voters of aeons past - isn't this what the
release comment field is for now?
I was going to say that. I'd personally use CD 1 and CD 2 (with or
without the space) in the comment for the UK singles ones I'm familiar
On 14/06/2011 06:39, Kuno Woudt wrote:
I do not object to adding punctuation to separate the main title from
the subtitle, I just don't think it MUST be a colon in all situations.
If a cover already has punctuation to separate subtitle from maintitle,
those characters should be retained at
On 14/06/2011 00:55, Andii Hughes wrote:
I think having one set style is preferable. If (disc n) reminds us
too much of the old
multi-disc MB, then maybe something else can be chosen but I think
it's the best choice to be honest.
I prefer it to Disc 1, CD1, Part 1 or Volume 1 as the
On 07/06/2011 03:03, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2011/6/6 Nicolás Tamargo de Egurenreosare...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
gnu_and...@member.fsf.org wrote:
On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryanpbr...@anode.ca wrote:
Sorry for jumping into the discussion so
://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=189933 but recent edits have
made all the track and recording titles into Track by Basement Jaxx
feat. Person.
http://musicbrainz.org/release/242e5f1c-2755-3217-ad0d-f9b1b5652b15
On 06/06/2011 13:13, lorenz pressler wrote:
Simon Austin-3 wrote:
I think a decision needs
On 05/06/2011 20:06, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
This seems set up for an inconsistent mess, so I'm perhaps leaning
towards *not* moving featured artists to the artist credit on the
recording level. It would be interesting to hear the NGS masterminds'
thinking about this issue.
I think a
On 30/05/2011 07:38, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
While I wouldn't mind keeping track of the fact that something was
released in several regions, duplicating releases in this situation
seems way overkill to me. For now, I'm putting additional regions in
annotations, and have even entered edits to
On 28/05/11 07:54, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2011/5/27 Simon Austin chi...@auzsoft.net mailto:chi...@auzsoft.net
In this edit, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14510889 some want to
move an
existing German release event to Europe, and keep only one Europe
release. I would
In this edit, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14510889 some want to move an
existing German release event to Europe, and keep only one Europe
release. I would disagree, but more eyes on it the better.
- Si
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Looking at the work-work and work-recording relationships possible, all
these seem to be covered already... unless I'm missing something.
For example, wouldn't a cover from two (or more) distinct covers just be
a medley?
- Si
On 25/05/2011 19:34, dj empirical wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at
On 21/05/2011 22:48, Nikki wrote:
Not right now. It's one of the (many) improvements needed for viewing
and working with relationships.
Nikki
P.S. The style list is probably not the most appropriate list for
questions about using the site. :P
I have all the lists in one folder... picked
Battles have no works at all...
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/8522b9b6-b295-48d7-9a10-8618fb80beb8/works
I assume this is because their only released album was AR'd singularly
as composed by the band as a whole, so no composed tracks/recordings exist.
Is there a more efficient way of adding
On 23/04/2011 11:12, Aurélien Mino wrote:
On 04/23/2011 07:57 AM, Bill Purosky wrote:
I'm going to add and correct the relationships on /Trespass/ by
Genesis and I was wondering about how to best reconcile some of the
credits.
MB:
Because it's not clear what it refers to unless you already know of the
style guidelines.
- Si
On 27/02/11 18:16, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Why do you feel Guess Style could be confusing?
2011/2/26 Simon Austin chi...@auzsoft.net mailto:chi...@auzsoft.net
Could be confusing. What about
On 27/02/11 22:31, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I understand both points. Of course, nobody should edit in MB without
at the very least knowing what Style means in MB. Obviously, just
naming the button Guess Style will not explain it to new users, it
will probably not even be a warning that
Could be confusing. What about Guess Corrections?
- Si
On 26/02/2011 10:06, Atedos wrote:
I'd vote for Guess Style (shows the reference to style guidelines).
2011/2/26 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
mailto:davito...@gmail.com
... or Guess Style.
2011/2/25 Jason
Is there a way to tell PUIDs apart? I suspect one or more of these is
mis-applied, but I'm not sure how to work out which
http://musicbrainz.org/show/puid/?puid=4f91eadd-92a2-377f-d27e-7eb8714efbd5
- Si (chiark)
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
On 13/10/2010 22:48, Aurélien Mino wrote:
Just for the record, in a NGS perspective it doesn't really matter.
There won't be any bonus discs anymore, just 1-disc-releases or
2-discs-releases.
How are they converted from the old system? If the set AR is used, won't
a bonus disc convert to
On 15/10/2010 22:07, Aurélien Mino wrote:
The bonus disc attribute is ignored, and instead we try to match release
events of each disc.
So in order to get both a 1-disc and 2-disc release, the first disc
should have 2 release-events (one for the standalone edition, one for
the limited
It's been my understanding that, in MB terms, a bonus disc happens
when the primary disc(s) are available both with and without the extra
disc(s). For this reason the the bonus disc AR says may be part of a
set rather than is part of a set. However, the Bonus Disc page says
Note that the
On 20/07/10 21:17, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2010/7/20 Jan van Thiel z...@musicbrainz.org:
Hi,
Recently, my edit http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=12875332
was voted down. It was to rename Go: The Very Best of Moby to Go -
The Very Best of Moby. It is against
Evigheden wrote:
I don't know how is it in English, but in Poland there is a law about
Polish language and the special council (members are mainly best
linguists and professors from physics, medicine, law, logic, etc.),
which regulate the all rules about spelling, punctuation, etc. in
every
So, Dream Theater's new album comes as a 1CD version, and a 3CD version,
with not one but two bonus discs[1].
It's currently in the DB as the following three titles[2]:
Black Clouds Silver Linings
Black Clouds Silver Linings (disc 2: Cover Songs)*
Black Clouds Silver Linings (disc 3:
I believe they're fine - apart from the discid - going by
http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3941#comment:1
http://www.nabble.com/DVD-Video-releases-of-concerts-td17004870s2885.html
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-April/002079.html
- Si: chiark
Gioele wrote:
Uhm, isn't that an example of why it is a good idea to remove the one's
that look suspicious? It goes to a vote and then we find out why it's legit.
Granted, whoever added it might not stand up for it, but if it's really
an extant disc then it should come around again and adding DiscIDs is an
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, even down to matching DiscIDs[2]
- Si
[1]
56 matches
Mail list logo
