On Jan 3, 2008 8:41 AM, Jim DeLaHunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bram has said just exactly what I wanted to say. A release-level AR means
that the person or group had the relationship for some or all of the
release, just as the track-level AR means they had the relationship for some
or all of
On Jan 3, 2008 3:31 AM, Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/1/3, Chad Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Olivier wrote:
I would like to drive the list attention to:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/label/?labelid=3267
Comments?
Should we make this official (eg: documented)?
Preference for
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 entirely separate considerations.
An AR added at the
Lauri Watts wrote:
We can't accomodate both points of view, and trying to is just
resulting in a mess.
We just have to pick one, and document it _clearly_. I don't
understand why everyone is so against writing down clear rules, when
not doing so results in all this ambiguity.
I
Gecks:
Gecks wrote:
changed to an RFV as i can't think of any reason why this shouldn't
already be in! anyone???
I don't know the process; I don't know what an RFV implies. But I'd feel
more comfortable delaying an final vote to implement the proposal until
there is a written proposal
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
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:55:37AM +0100, Lauri Watts wrote:
We cover that pretty well with artists by having [no artist] and
[unknown] to distinguish between the two. Why not [no label] and
[unknown].
Sounds good to me.
On Jan 3, 2008 3:31 AM, Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:41:56AM +0100, Lauri Watts wrote:
I was on the verge of writing this down in
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistRoleInheritance . I'm a
newly-arrived MB
We have to actually _have_ a consensus before running around editing
pages.
Another duality here. We
On Jan 3, 2008 9:55 AM, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be quite handy in fact in a lot of cases. Those three plus
[unknown] and the abovementioned [none] and [white label] would cover
a lot of ground, and are pretty easy to distinguish.
I think that would be very valuable.
ok, i've done so :) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType
basically, it's analogous with ArrangerRelationshipType in that you
can specifiy an instrument (and additionally, vocal type)
(whilst i was there, i amended the link phrases for both classes so
that they include instrument
Philipp Wolfer wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 9:55 AM, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be quite handy in fact in a lot of cases. Those three plus
[unknown] and the abovementioned [none] and [white label] would cover
a lot of ground, and are pretty easy to distinguish.
I think
All in all, what problem does this thread try to solve?
a * if it's the global question of NGS and AR, I think this
discussion here is not appropriate, that it's too early (without even
knowing what exactly we will have from NGS and in what timeline, and
exactly how things will get
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 files, there is no need for
release-level AR's, unless
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
On Jan 3, 2008 5:33 PM, Bram van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I do presume that _because_ AR's are being propagated, anything that
is specifically AR'ed has had a higher standard of fact checking
applied by the editor who put it there, and they did it to the highest
possible level of
On 03/01/2008, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 5:33 PM, Bram van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I do presume that _because_ AR's are being propagated, anything that
is specifically AR'ed has had a higher standard of fact checking
applied by the editor who put it
On Jan 3, 2008 6:44 PM, Chris B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/01/2008, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 5:33 PM, Bram van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* I do presume that _because_ AR's are being propagated, anything that
is specifically AR'ed has had a higher
On Jan 3, 2008 7:16 PM, Brian Schweitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We would like all ARs to be meaningful.
We would like everyone to agree on just what any given AR level implies.
We would love if all release level ARs applied only to all tracks, but we
are in agreement that:
1) This
anyway, there's 2 options:
1) take release level ARs to mean 'applies to every track' and consign
every liner credit that we can't apply to either every track or one
single track to the annotation.
2) use this proposition - ie index things that are given at the
release level to the
+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
Gecks:
Gecks wrote:
ok, i've done so :) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType
basically, it's analogous with ArrangerRelationshipType in that you
can specifiy an instrument (and additionally, vocal type)
(whilst i was there, i amended the link phrases for both classes
On 03/01/2008, Jim DeLaHunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gecks:
Gecks wrote:
ok, i've done so :) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType
basically, it's analogous with ArrangerRelationshipType in that you
can specifiy an instrument (and additionally, vocal type)
(whilst
On 03/01/2008, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
anyway, there's 2 options:
1) take release level ARs to mean 'applies to every track' and consign
every liner credit that we can't apply to either every track or one
single track to the annotation.
2) use this proposition - ie
That crashing noise was the sky falling after Brian and I just came to
almost exactly the same conclusions.
So +1 what he said above.
No wonder it's so cold here... even the flames of hell have gone out! LOL
Ok, here's just a thought on how we can do this, and at the same time,
simplify
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
My sense of what's been said, and some thoughts on how maybe we can
move forward:
We would like all ARs to be meaningful.
We would like everyone to agree on just what any given AR level implies.
We would love if all release level ARs applied only to all tracks, but
we
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Ok, here's just a thought on how we can do this, and at the same time,
simplify the 2 AR pages in to one (I don't know how many times I've tried
to
walk people through how to even get to the batch AR page...).
Bram van Dijk wrote:
...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.
I agree. Reading the exchange below between Lauri and Bram, or Olivier's
response to J-4
27 matches
Mail list logo
