[mb-style] RFC-Something: Instrumental Attribute for Performed Relationship Type
This would be pretty useful to make sure we don't claim recording X
(instrumental) has lyrics by Y once we start showing the
relationships at release level. Also, it would solve my doubts when
dealing with instrumental versions of hip hop tracks: it would allow
me to merge them as a same work unless they have their own ISWC (they
normally do not, although some do).
The best order would probably be is a {partial} {live} {instrumental}
{cover} performance of
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Performed_Relationship_Type_Instrumental_Attribute
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-Something: Instrumental Attribute for Performed Relationship Type
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 22:46 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
This would be pretty useful to make sure we don't claim recording X
(instrumental) has lyrics by Y once we start showing the
relationships at release level. Also, it would solve my doubts when
dealing with instrumental versions of hip hop tracks: it would allow
me to merge them as a same work unless they have their own ISWC (they
normally do not, although some do).
The best order would probably be is a {partial} {live} {instrumental}
{cover} performance of
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Performed_Relationship_Type_Instrumental_Attribute
This should probably have some extra wording added to take into account
karaoke recordings: In particular, that karaoke recordings /should not/
be marked as instrumental.
My reasoning:
* Many karaoke tracks have portions of the vocals left in (e.g.
background/chorus vocals)
* The intent of karaoke tracks is to be sung over top of, for that
they need lyrics :)
* Unlike many pure instrumental versions, karaoke tracks are
almost always the same arrangement, and usually just a different
mix of the same recording.
--
Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-Something: Instrumental Attribute for Performed Relationship Type
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 15:55 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 22:46 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
This would be pretty useful to make sure we don't claim recording X
(instrumental) has lyrics by Y once we start showing the
relationships at release level. Also, it would solve my doubts when
dealing with instrumental versions of hip hop tracks: it would allow
me to merge them as a same work unless they have their own ISWC (they
normally do not, although some do).
The best order would probably be is a {partial} {live} {instrumental}
{cover} performance of
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Performed_Relationship_Type_Instrumental_Attribute
This should probably have some extra wording added to take into account
karaoke recordings: In particular, that karaoke recordings /should not/
be marked as instrumental.
Oh, and other than that, you have a +1 from me :)
--
Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-Something: Instrumental Attribute for Performed Relationship Type
+1 here as well, I also there should be an attribute for the Karaoke version!
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 15:55 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 22:46 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
This would be pretty useful to make sure we don't claim recording X
(instrumental) has lyrics by Y once we start showing the
relationships at release level. Also, it would solve my doubts when
dealing with instrumental versions of hip hop tracks: it would allow
me to merge them as a same work unless they have their own ISWC (they
normally do not, although some do).
The best order would probably be is a {partial} {live} {instrumental}
{cover} performance of
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Performed_Relationship_Type_Instrumental_Attribute
This should probably have some extra wording added to take into account
karaoke recordings: In particular, that karaoke recordings /should not/
be marked as instrumental.
Oh, and other than that, you have a +1 from me :)
--
Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca
___
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
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-Something: Instrumental Attribute for Performed Relationship Type
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 15:59 -0400, Lemire, Sebastien wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca
wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 15:55 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 22:46 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
This would be pretty useful to make sure we don't claim recording X
(instrumental) has lyrics by Y once we start showing the
relationships at release level. Also, it would solve my doubts when
dealing with instrumental versions of hip hop tracks: it would allow
me to merge them as a same work unless they have their own ISWC (they
normally do not, although some do).
The best order would probably be is a {partial} {live} {instrumental}
{cover} performance of
This should probably have some extra wording added to take into account
karaoke recordings: In particular, that karaoke recordings /should not/
be marked as instrumental.
Oh, and other than that, you have a +1 from me :)
+1 here as well, I also there should be an attribute for the Karaoke version!
I'm not sure whether that's a good idea. We already have the Recording →
Recording karaoke version AR to identify karaoke versions. If we start
adding attributes for everything, that’ll be a long list! (And I would
request 'a cappella' next, as a complement to instrumental.)
--
Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-Something: Instrumental Attribute for Performed Relationship Type
Lemire, Sebastien wrote: +1 here as well, I also there should be an attribute for the Karaoke version! We already have a relationship for linking karaoke versions together. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-Something: Instrumental Attribute for Performed Relationship Type
+1. I agree with the attribute order you suggested.
On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
This would be pretty useful to make sure we don't claim recording X
(instrumental) has lyrics by Y once we start showing the
relationships at release level. Also, it would solve my doubts when
dealing with instrumental versions of hip hop tracks: it would allow
me to merge them as a same work unless they have their own ISWC (they
normally do not, although some do).
The best order would probably be is a {partial} {live} {instrumental}
{cover} performance of
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Performed_Relationship_Type_Instrumental_Attribute
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
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
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
