On 01/13/2015 03:17 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com
mailto:swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
The rationale makes sense IMO. Expanding Vol. to Volumen for a
swedish release makes sense and is better than having to assume
On 11/16/2014 11:57 PM, th1rtyf0ur wrote:
Refs:
AR proposal: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-348
Wiki (w/ classical jazz examples):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_quotation
Huey Lewis' Purple Haze tease: https://youtu.be/3ZwQRCkKxNE?t=4m16s
The Beatles' Glass Onion:
On 11/06/2014 03:05 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:56 AM, caller#6 caller...@gmail.com
mailto:caller...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/29/2014 11:32 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
Evolving draft at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok
On 11/07/2014 01:11 PM, SwissChris wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:02 PM, caller#6 caller...@gmail.com
mailto:caller...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/06/2014 03:05 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:56 AM, caller#6 caller...@gmail.com
mailto:caller
On 10/29/2014 11:32 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
While we have guidelines for release titles and track artists, we
never got a guideline for classical track titles. So far most people
are following the format of the data already there (and thus the
existing pre-NGS conventions).
On 11/05/2014 10:40 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Brant Gibbard bgibb...@ca.inter.net
mailto:bgibb...@ca.inter.net wrote:
Under the Full work title section the first of the entries
marked as and not i.e. don't do this, is exactly the same as the
On 10/30/2014 05:58 PM, Ben Ockmore wrote:
I do still think that putting it all on Git is a good idea though
(especially given the online editing capabilities of GH and BB). Just
not TT templates, and separate from the server code.
For anybody interested, keep an eye on
On 10/29/2014 12:16 PM, Ben Ockmore wrote:
I think in the case of movement numbers, we can point users to the
existing series numbering guideline:
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Series_numbers
Using this (or adapting it sightly) means that we minimise the
difference between
On 10/29/2014 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2014-10-29 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com mailto:reosare...@gmail.com:
Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera
-
Recap
-
Okay, so STYLE-331 was meant to be a way to link 2-in-1s to their parts.
This was going to be the first of 3 (maybe?) similar relationships.
Examples:
[release group b]includes[release group a]:
This 2-in-1/box/whatever includes these previous
On 10/25/2014 04:04 PM, bflaminio wrote:
/No. Not before Style-331 has been implemented, as Caller asked for, to
prevent these to be simply dumped in all these Best-of-Compilations/
Bah. My super simple, change one line of text proposal got derailed by
complicated, confusing schema change
tl;dr: Maybe this relationship shouldn't be used for singles.
On 09/11/2014 12:00 PM, lixobix wrote:
1) A release group includes another when it retains:
The track list in essentially the same order as the original
The original title, possibly as a medium title, a super-title in the track
On 09/12/2014 05:09 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
On 12 September 2014 09:24, KRSCuan donc...@gmx.de
mailto:donc...@gmx.de wrote:
For the 168-disc boxset that has
been linked to a few times, things would be clearer. But the box
and the
individual sets are already in the same RG.
Hi all,
This proposal adds a relationship indicating that a release-group
includes another release-group. For example, a box set might 'include'
previous albums, EPs, or singles.
Changes based on discussion:
The original term 'composite reissue' was meant to be a placeholder, and
was dropped.
On 09/05/2014 10:54 AM, lixobix wrote:
I think we're overcomplicating this. Perhaps something simple would
work: A Box Set in a release containing multiple mediums, typically
more than the other primary release types, and typically of longer
duration. Whilst the difference between a Box Set
On 09/10/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Crocker wrote:
On 10 September 2014 22:17, caller#6 caller...@gmail.com
mailto:caller...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/05/2014 10:54 AM, lixobix wrote:
I think we're overcomplicating this. Perhaps something simple would
work: A Box Set in a release containing
I went to update link phrases in the ticket and wiki based on
discussions in this thread, and realized that I don't really have a
long link phrase. Is it really necessary?
As it stands:
Link phrase: includes
Reverse link phrase: included in
Long link phrase: includes
Objections?
On 08/28/2014 10:57 AM, caller#6 wrote:
On 08/06/2014 11:17 AM, caller#6 wrote:
Hi all,
This proposal would add a relationship linking original
release-groups with what I'm calling 'composite reissues', (e.g. box
sets, 2-in1s etc).
The purpose would be: to indicate that an earlier
On 09/06/2014 11:36 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
On 6 September 2014 19:28, rossetyler rossety...@gmail.com
mailto:rossety...@gmail.com wrote:
tommycrock wrote
Rather
than elevating Box-Set RGs to their own section on the artists
page (this
RFC), I would rather elevate these
On 09/06/2014 11:19 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
Well, ideally we would also have a RG - Release relationship that
mirrors this. But that can be done separately
Sure. I'm all for more relationships if people think they're useful. I
can imagine:
[release]includes[release_group]:
On 09/06/2014 03:13 PM, Ross Tyler wrote:
I just don't see the utility in a secondary or primary type for a kind
of packaging (box set).
I don't think this is about the packaging, any more than album is. I
mean, orginally an album was literally an album (i.e. a big
book-thingy), but it came to
. Looking for a concrete example of this.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On 09/03/2014 04:39 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
The definition I've written says usually and typically so that
should give enough wriggle-room to editors to decide on a case-by-case
basis. I'm very happy that box sets don't have to compile previous
releases.
If I have a 4-CD compilation, how do
commented earlier. Sorry.
I'm concerned with the definition[1]. As I read it, a box set is any
large compilation. If that's true, I'm not sure what value is added,
since we already know that a release is a compilation, and how large it is.
Alex / caller#6
[1] from the wiki page, a compilation
On 09/02/2014 09:35 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
On 2 Sep 2014 16:09, caller#6 caller...@gmail.com
mailto:caller...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/01/2014 02:36 PM, Tom Crocker wrote:
RFV to end: 2014-09-04 00:00 UTC
The proposal is to add Box set as a primary type of Release Group,
e.g. instead
On 08/06/2014 11:17 AM, caller#6 wrote:
Hi all,
This proposal would add a relationship linking original release-groups
with what I'm calling 'composite reissues', (e.g. box sets, 2-in1s etc).
The purpose would be: to indicate that an earlier release-group is/was
also availble as part
On 08/28/2014 10:57 AM, caller#6 wrote:
On 08/06/2014 11:17 AM, caller#6 wrote:
Hi all,
This proposal would add a relationship linking original
release-groups with what I'm calling 'composite reissues', (e.g. box
sets, 2-in1s etc).
The purpose would be: to indicate that an earlier
in data duplication.
Pragmatism before idealism.
I still don't know why this is being called misuse (which has a
negative connotation). What's the harm?
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http
being reissued with lots
of new material and a new name.
Oh. That seems simple enough.
available on or available as part of? The latter sounds better to me
for box sets.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style
.
best,
Alex / caller#6
[1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Caller_number_six/Sort_Name
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On 08/06/2014 11:17 AM, caller#6 wrote:
Hi all,
This proposal would add a relationship linking original release-groups
with what I'm calling 'composite reissues', (e.g. box sets, 2-in1s etc).
[snip]
I'm not super-happy with the term 'composite reissue'. Please suggest
something better
On 08/07/2014 09:57 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
On 7 August 2014 17:16, caller#6 caller...@gmail.com
mailto:caller...@gmail.com wrote:
the release group that includes other release groups might not
be a compilation or box set. An EP might be added to an album
reissue
without confusion.
I don't know how many digital box sets there are, but it seems likely
that such a thing exists, doesn't it? (Or would that simply be a
bundle of digital releases?)
Alex / caller#6
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Album_%28music%29
it implied (to me)
several products bundled together at a reduced price)
Alex / caller#6
links:
ticket:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-331
proposal to reclassify 2-in-1s as compilations:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Make-2-on-1-or-generically-M-on-N
line be removed from the
style guide, thereby allowing 2-on-1s to be considered compilations.
Could I ask that this not be implemented until after my composite
reissue relationship[1] has had a chance to pass (or fail)?
cheers,
Alex / caller#6
[1]
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com
keep the term box set
for packaging
Related thread:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Complete-recordings-as-a-type-of-release-groups-tp4042454.html
I can't think of an English term for complete compilations.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz
created. I
guess that means I should propose it.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On 08/03/2014 12:12 PM, Per Starbäck wrote:
Earlier a fictitious name like Mickey Mouse should be sorted as
Mickey Mouse, and not Mouse, Mickey as if it was a real person,
but RFC 203 aimed to change that.
I think you're conflating two issues:
fictitious names vs names of fictional
- MusicBrainz Wiki
Issue Title Description Raised by Champion Status WI-01 Remixes Need to
determine if remixes should be different works, and if so under what
circumstances they should be. pbryan open WI-02
View on wiki.musicbrainz.org Preview by Yahoo
Alex / caller#6 / CallerNo6
On Sunday, April
)
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On 01/21/2014 09:00 AM, caller#6 wrote:
On 01/21/2014 04:15 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
Stadiums and sports arenas aren't really a venue in the traditional
sense, but plenty of concerts take place in them. Can we add them as
a type?
RFVing this since only one person seemed opposed
general airplay.
+1 to Audio Drama.
If the split between drama and serial is important to keep, then I'd
like to propose a second type at the same time, but I'll do that in a
separate RFC.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz
Play/Drama/Serial. I guess that's
a little bit clunky.
Alex / caller#6
[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YFQxPnq_LbxdaSnRbqYCk6s3NQtMg7etElh0oNz9xy8/edit?pli=1
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http
works for notable
places, which could be a problem).
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On 01/02/2014 07:58 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2014/1/2 caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com
mailto:meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com
I'm not sure what makes a church (or stadium) other. Maybe it's
a translation thing? To me, a church is as much a venue as anything
On 11/26/2013 06:41 AM, monxton wrote:
Does anyone here think that the
translations should not be in the track titles? Personally I find them
useful when listening to the music.
In that example, I would find them useful too.
___
MusicBrainz-style
tracklist and a tracklist with parenthetical information (even if that
information is the original or un-translated title).
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman
On 10/21/2013 12:40 PM, symphonick wrote:
But don't blame me for When_does_the_CSG_apply ;-)
Blame me!
I should probably try get that one unstuck.
Input welcome @
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/pre-RFC-When-does-the-CSG-apply-td4439312.html
Alex / caller#6
artists for each track, that artist
should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no
track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release
artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is
unknown, use [unknown].
+1
Alex / caller#6
On 10/08/2013 02:14 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote:
On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:13 PM, caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
This is RFC STYLE-257.
It expires on 2013-10-15.
This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack
much value in the work types as currently implemented.
Alex / caller#6
(who has tags on the brain)
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
blocks, well, the cases you list are already
covered by the Style Principles, aren't they?
Oh well. If everybody else is on board for this, I won't veto.
cheers,
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On 08/27/2013 01:13 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
So, Caller#6 brought up the issue of things like (bonus track) in the
title. This isn't really ETI (it doesn't distinguish anything), but under
the proposal it would get copied into the recording title.
My suggestion would be to add this on the end
*An* exception is live
recordings... instead? Or was that already tried and rejected ( for
being too vague)?
Alex / caller#6
p.s. Sorry to bring this up in RFV, but jeez, the RFC thread is 146
messages. I wonder how many people (like me) didn't noticed your last
revision
On 08/18/2013 03:25 AM, Ben Ockmore wrote:
But you wouldn't say a Calvin Harris remix of XYZ, you'd say the
Calvin Harris remix of XYZ. Good points on the other two though.
Perhaps we could do something like:
IF the ETI is a named version (eg. remix/mix/edit) of the song, then
include it
On 08/18/2013 08:39 PM, th1rtyf0ur wrote:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 08:27:24AM -0700, lixobix wrote:
th1rtyf0ur wrote
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:30:55PM -0700, caller#6 wrote:
(Slight tangent, sorry, but) I've never liked how MB uses bootleg.
Unofficial would make more sense to me.
To my ear
On 08/16/2013 02:13 AM, lixobix wrote:
There are some types of edge cases that do not easily fit into our broad
definitions of official and bootleg releases:
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release wrote
official: Any release officially sanctioned by the artist and/or their record
company. Most
On 08/14/2013 02:37 PM, lixobix wrote:
caller#6 wrote
... I would always *expect* to see this recording/track/song/thingy
include the remix info appended to the title. And I think most people
would expect the same. And so IMO, for all practical purposes, it
/is/ part of the title. The same
, this recording will likely include (Calvin
Harris remix) in the title. So, effectively, the remix info becomes
part of the title.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman
On 08/14/2013 09:45 AM, lixobix wrote:
caller#6 wrote
No matter what the context, this recording will likely include (Calvin
Harris remix) in the title
This is merely reasserting that it should be part of the title, not giving a
reason why it should be, and live shouldn't. Recordings
On 08/12/2013 01:16 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
Please let me know here if you'd like to help!
Sounds great. I'm in.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo
Maybe this is just me being dumb?
I look at the proposed guideline from the point of view of somebody who
doesn't already know the answer. I learn that the recording title should
be the official title of the recording. But what's an official title?
On 07/30/2013 02:54 PM, Ben Ockmore wrote:
On 06/27/2013 04:24 AM, LordSputnik wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
But am I right that there is currently no standard way to pick the release
group title? These all sound like issues for which there should be a
general policy rather than a specific classical one to me.
I also think the rules for
On 06/27/2013 02:57 PM, Tom Crocker wrote:
However, another argument for using the Work Title (version)
approach is tagging. It's the way I tag the tracks of artists where I
have big collections because it's the best way for organising all of
these things on my machines within the
On 06/25/2013 02:22 AM, LordSputnik wrote:
I'm not so sure about subsequent cover recordings which change the
track name. I think perhaps it would be better to follow the track
titles there than the work title.
+1
What's the argument for /not/ following the track titles (and using COD
if
On 06/26/2013 02:31 PM, Tom Crocker wrote:
The classical guidelines said the normal way of picking a release
group title might not work for classical releases. Is this a pre-NGS
hangover or is there something I'm missing?
from the wiki page,
Classical releases are often multilingual, and
are spread out all over the wiki.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Category:Terminology
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
as dedicatees.
Isn't this the sort of thing that dynamic attributes were supposed to
handle? i.e. relating a work to a bit of text?
Or does that not work because some dedicatees /will/ be existing MB
artists (and we can't have it both ways)?
Alex / caller#6
/Stem_mixing_and_mastering
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
expression of the work. We can
deduce it, I guess. Same performer, same tracklist. But, yuck.
Of your choices, I like (1). It indicates that the individual recordings
are part of a single expression. (2) doesn't do this.
Alex / caller#6
On 03/11/2013 11:36 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM, caller#6
meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com
mailto:meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote:
Before: a various artists soundtrack should be entered as a
soundtrack and not a compilation
the Resevoir Dogs
soundtrack[1] is a compilation? I guess I see how it could be, but I
never thought about it in that way. Am I the only one that thinks that
sounds strange?
Alex / caller#6
[1] i.e. a soundtrack made up of oldies,
http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/914c63e9-ac09-39ca-b1bf
On 03/11/2013 11:36 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM, caller#6
meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com
mailto:meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote:
Before: The type http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group#Type
should apply to most of the tracks
credits were in the
booklet instead of on the back cover, they seem unambiguous.
What am I missing? Do we disagree on the definition of credit? Or
prominent?
Alex / caller#6
[1] http://musicbrainz.org/edit/20821774
[2] http://data.photo.sibnet.ru/upload/imggreat/125786367241.jpg
common format, but it's
not universal.
It's not uncommon in artist-specific jazz compilations* to indicate
specific track artists in the liner notes.
Alex / caller#6
* maybe anthologies is a better word?
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz
On 03/07/2013 08:10 AM, caller#6 wrote:
It's not uncommon in artist-specific jazz compilations* to indicate
specific track artists in the liner notes.
I guess an example would've been nice :-)
http://www.discogs.com/Steve-Winwood-Winwood/master/324433
to DETERMINE the track artist is by using
the back cover (or default to the release artist), or
2. BY DEFINITION, the tracklist is a representation of the data
found on the back cover (or default to the release artist)?
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz
to indicate work hierarchies*, that'd be great.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
that this is ONLY for studio-recorded
works. Maybe that'd clear up some confusion, as a conductor can do his
job either at a live recording or in a studio, whereas a recording
director cannot.
That would mean this AR shouldn't be used for the director of e.g. a
Broadway musical?
Alex / caller
well in the overall list of types, in that it's an
artistic form.
At the same time, I was being a bit pig-headed about the term book.
Maybe it's passed beyond being a medium, in the same way that an album
isn't always an album and a film is not always on film.
Either way is fine.
Alex / caller
book being read:
To me, book sounds like a medium-type. How would you feel about using
literature instead? It's not perfect either. Maybe too stuffy?
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http
On 02/24/2013 07:05 AM, caller#6 wrote:
On 02/24/2013 02:26 AM, LordSputnik wrote:
Expected RFC End: 2013-3-3, 12:00 GMT
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-194
This proposal would add a Book work type.
The Book work type would be beneficial for audiobook releases, which
Hi all,
Last year alias types were added, and we can now indicate legal name
with an alias. Does this mean we need fewer mb-artists with
performance/legal-name ARs?
I entered http://musicbrainz.org/edit/2112271 as test case.
Votes appreciated, comments welcome.
Alex / caller#6
granular)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rime_of_the_Ancient_Mariner_%28song%29
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
intellectual or artistic creation as the original,
certainly not any more than an arrangement is.
FRBR makes a distinction between translation (not a new work) and
free translation (a new work)[1]. So isn't it fair to say that some
MB-Works are more work-y than others?
Alex / caller#6
[1
Delighted People is based on Simon Garfunkel's
Sound of Silence[2].
With that in mind, I'd change composer to artist in the
description, to apply more generally to composers or lyricists.
Alex / caller#6
[1] retelling
[2] homage with extensive quoting and paraphrasing of the original
On 02/18/2013 02:54 PM, symphonick wrote:
2013/2/18 Frederik Freso S. Olesen freso...@gmail.com
mailto:freso...@gmail.com
Den 18-02-2013 22:01, caller#6 skrev:
I can imagine using this to indicate that e.g. Iron Maiden's
Rime of
the Ancient Mariner is based on the poem
) derivate works isn't the
worst thing in the world.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
understanding is that Series will
be implemented as an (RG) attribute, rather than as an entity.
As much as I'd like to see a catalog entity, would they be better as
attributes for the same reason that Series (apparently) are?
Alex / caller#6
by adding types and AR.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
On 02/10/2013 01:49 PM, caller#6 wrote:
On 02/09/2013 03:53 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
One of the obvious things we should add is some kind of field or
entity for catalogues of classical compositions... may be useful to have
some kind of
entity
... my current understanding is that Series
future,
not-yet-designed, super-genius genre tagging system.
Which is why I pretty much stopped caring what is on the list in the
short(ish) term.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http
I agree that e.g. quartet/quintet are more about arrangement and
instrumentation than type, but should there be a general chamber type?
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On 01/21/2013 12:42 PM, caller#6 wrote:
On 01/20/2013 06:54 AM, Aurélien Mino wrote:
4. VIAF Work. VIAF indeed lists some works. The problem is that
there's usuallyvery few contextual information (author, composer,
performer).
How would you then say if http://viaf.org/viaf/180914501
+1 to Aurélien's description edit.
Alex / caller#6
On 01/19/2013 02:24 AM, Aurélien Mino wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Frederik Freso S. Olesen
musicbra...@freso.dk mailto:musicbra...@freso.dk wrote:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-178
Expected expiration: 2012
, or wherever) clearly marking any fictional
data as such.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
And they should all, IMO, have a stated intent.
On 11/15/2012 04:25 PM, monxton wrote:
On 15/11/2012 08:35, LordSputnik wrote:
Ah, but if a rule is only good sometimes, then it can't really be a rule :P
That's why they are not rules but guidelines. The details can always be
overridden if
While I'm definitely in the historian camp, I agree with this. Let's
get the performance-level and audio-quality-level stuff separated first.
If that means not merging /any/ recordings for now, fine.
On 11/12/2012 09:46 AM, Frederik Freso S. Olesen wrote:
I'll advocate against merging
It seems clear that some people want to track the minutia of
audio-quality data. That's awesome.
And it seems clear that some people don't. Some of us primarily want a
place to store personnel-level metadata.
Why are we trying to do those two things in the same place?
Alex / caller#6
On 11
of any reason why this principle
would apply only to soundtracks.
Alex / caller#6
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
1 - 100 of 261 matches
Mail list logo
