Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren | 4 Dec 12:41 2014

Defining how pseudo-releases should be used (STYLE-342)

Hi!

Something that has been stuck for quite a while is how to deal with pseudo-releases and duplication, at least until we have a way to just store the alternate info as part of the standard release. Some links to previous discussion can be found in http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-342

While my preferred solution to this (and that of at least a few other people) would be to just block fields like label, catno, barcode and dates in the code so that they can't be filled at all, I find the proposed solution from that ticket's first comment a fairly acceptable compromise: 

  • If a pseudo-release is linked to an original release, the pseudo-release should duplicate as little data as possible - it should generally only have the status, language and script, medium names, track names, track artists and of course the release name and artist since those are required. Any other data which can be taken directly from the original release should not be added to the pseudo-release (track times are probably acceptable).
  • If the pseudo-release is not linked to an original release (e.g. the original isn't in the database yet), it would be acceptable for data to be stored on the pseudo-release.
This ensures that we don't have to enter one pseudo per original release when the tracklists are the same anyway, keeps label entries etc. clean, and still allows people who can't enter the official version for some reason (because they can't read/type Japanese or whatever) to enter enough data so that their version can be later found and matched to the right original.

I'm going to be direct about this and say that unless I get very convincing arguments against this, I'll be eventually implementing something pretty similar to it as the guideline. That said, I'm happy to get suggestions on small improvements, changes, or just your reasoning for the idea being absolutely wrong :)

A note: I do know that Picard doesn't deal very well with this now (although see the last bits of that comment for a few things that soften it). But (apart from the general view that the data is the main goal and the software should adapt to it) we've been waiting to do something like this for ages in hope of Picard implementing better pseudo-release support and it never happened, so maybe doing this will finally make someone who cares about how this works in Picard write the relevant code :)
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Philipp Wolfer | 4 Dec 08:57 2014
Picon

Usage of DualDisc / DVDplus formats

Hi,

has there been some discussion on the usage of the DualDisc and DVDplus media formats (what's the difference between those two, anyway?). For me those formats don't really make much sense, since we don't have an entity to apply them to. Basically it's a format were two different media formats (a CD and a DVD) are put onto a single disc.

To properly represent such a release in MB we have to add two MB mediums to the release, one with the DVD and one with the CD side. Like this:

http://musicbrainz.org/release/2561ba91-0f0d-417a-b1c0-9ff1ddeb1c3b

Now we have a DVDplus type and could apply this to the two mediums like here:

https://musicbrainz.org/release/7113ce51-8e7d-4dff-bb46-99816114c3d2

Now is that really an improvement? I don't think so. Technically the individual sides are not in any way special, it's a normal CD and a normal DVD. No player can see any difference. If we apply the DVDplus type to both sides it

a) somehow suggests, that the side is some special format
b) hides the real format of that side (on the example above, which one is the CD, which the DVD)
c) still does not show directly that it is only a single physical disc

So unless we have some way to group several MB mediums according to their physical "packaging" (IMHO this is not much more than a special packaging, one could re-release the same release with two discs and have 100% identical media content) applying the DVDplus does more harm than good.

I agree that it would be useful to represent the dual sided formats in a structured way, but in the current form MB just doesn't provide that. In the meantime I think it is better to use annotations and/or folksonomy tags to mark the affected releases.

Philipp


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Steve Martin | 28 Nov 16:19 2014

Re: How to enter hybrid SACD and DVD audio+video discs?

Really?  CD and DVD on one side.  That is an oddity.  What is the title?

I’m surprised someone would do that because most DVD players would not have a way to specify which layer to play, and could possibly default to the CD layer. Or at least have no way to choose other than whichever layer the DVD player defaults to.

It works for SACD (which is technically CD and DVD (SACD trickery) on the same side) because part of the SACD player spec is that there be an option in the player to choose the CD or the SACD layer.


On Nov 28, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

IIRC, I have such a Dual Disc. After all, most DVDs are already double layers.



--
Steve Martin



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
MeinDummy | 27 Nov 10:33 2014
Picon

How to enter hybrid SACD and DVD audio+video discs?

Hi,

I was wondering how releases like http://www.discogs.com/release/540973
should be represented in MB.

Disc 1 is a hybrid SACD, i.e. there is a "regular" CD layer which can be
replayed in a standard CD drive and from which a DiscID can be generated.
The other layer contains the same audio (i.e. the same stereo mixes) and a
5.1 mix in SACD format.
Disc 2 is a DVD with a menu where you can choose between the album in stereo
or in 5.1, 3 videos (with stereo sound) or a photo gallery.

Currently it looks like this:
https://musicbrainz.org/release/d502300a-494d-42f0-a63c-b66581116f87/ 

My suggestion is to change this to a 5 media release:
1.) CD / SACD stereo, 12 tracks
2.) SACD multichannel, 12 tracks
3.) DVD stereo, 12 tracks
4.) DVD multichannel, 12 tracks
5.) DVD video, 3 tracks (or 4 including [photo gallery] ???)
The tracklists of 1 and 3 and of 2 and 4 would be identical.

BTW, stereo and 5.1 were mastered by different people in different studios.
That's why, I think we need mastering credits at medium level at least (or
allow them again on recording level if that's not possible).

Also BTW, part of this topic has already been discussed in the past but
there was no real conclusion:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Hybrid-SACDs-td3885610.html

Cheers,

Christian (MD)

--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/How-to-enter-hybrid-SACD-and-DVD-audio-video-discs-tp4669680.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
th1rtyf0ur | 17 Nov 08:57 2014

Musical quotation/lyrical references (STYLE-348)

Huey Lewis' "I Want a New Drug" came up on shuffle a while back & I
noticed the guitar solo at the end quoted the lead riff of "Purple Haze",
and realized there's currently no AR to specify such a relationship, as it
doesn't really fit under any of the existing relationships. I started
typing up a new feature request & realized this could be applied to lyrics
as well, including indirect references, e.g. The Beatles' "Glass Onion"
referring to other Beatles songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "I
Am the Walrus" (Megadeth does the same kind of thing in "Victory").

Not sure exactly how the new BDFL workflow is gonna go, but I figured it
wouldn't hurt to post a link to the feature request here for input as
well. :) Particularly, if this should be only for work-work relationships,
or if recording-work ARs should be added as well- I can think of a large
number of live recordings that include brief quotes from other songs that
seem too short to be listed as "partial live cover"... But then, in the
case of the Huey Lewis example, should it really be a work-work AR if the
shorter version (~3:32 radio/video edit; full version is ~4:46) doesn't
include the snippet? Or is "partial cover of" more appropriate there, even
if it is only a single guitar line?

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": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_Onion#Lyrics
Megadeth's "Victory": http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/megadeth/youthanasia.html#12
Trevor Downs | 8 Nov 00:48 2014
Picon

Re: Series and bundles (humble indie bundle for example)

I made a series (http://musicbrainz.org/series/4e4ad619-1b26-48d1-8bda-98f0241e1908) to collect all Humble Bundle releases (though I’ve been bad about updating it), it seemed less trouble than to actually create a series for each bundle.

On Nov 7, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Daniel Sobey <dns-VNHec/tJ5s+HXe+LvDLADg@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Hi List,

I'm wanting some advice on how best to add series information to music distributed in bundles.
For example humble indie bundle has a bundle of games and this usually includes sound tracks and works.
There are other bundles around the place such as vodo.net and Indie Roayale that follow the same model.

Should I :
1. Create a series for each bundle ie "Humble indie bundle 13"
2. Create a series for each bundle, plus an overall bundle for anything from that comes from humblebundle.com with each release in both series.
3. Create a ticket to allow for series to series relationships to create a tree of series.
    This would allow for an overall humble bundle series and this could link to each weekly bundle series.
4. Series are not meant for this type of thing and i should not do anything.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Daniel Sobey | 8 Nov 00:15 2014
Picon

Series and bundles (humble indie bundle for example)

Hi List,

I'm wanting some advice on how best to add series information to music distributed in bundles.
For example humble indie bundle has a bundle of games and this usually includes sound tracks and works.
There are other bundles around the place such as vodo.net and Indie Roayale that follow the same model.

Should I :
1. Create a series for each bundle ie "Humble indie bundle 13"
2. Create a series for each bundle, plus an overall bundle for anything from that comes from humblebundle.com with each release in both series.
3. Create a ticket to allow for series to series relationships to create a tree of series.
    This would allow for an overall humble bundle series and this could link to each weekly bundle series.
4. Series are not meant for this type of thing and i should not do anything.



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
David Gasaway | 29 Oct 23:11 2014

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
<davitofrg@...> wrote:
>
> I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from
> prepending the work name as recommended in your draft).

Not I.  I would like *some* consistency from release to release.

> If a user wants to use
> some kind of standardization, let him do it too.

If that's what users want, so be it, but there was a time when
MusicBrainz actually made it easier to tag my classical files.  In a
way, it differentiated MusicBrainz from other databases like Discogs
or CDDB.

--

-- 
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave@...
caller#6 | 29 Oct 20:53 2014
Picon

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

On 10/29/2014 12:47 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2014-10-29 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go against what we're moving towards with NGS.

I'm all for removing standardization on classical track titles (apart from prepending the work name as recommended in your draft). As long as all the tracks of a release use a consistent formatting, no problem.

Does that mean you disagree with standardizing the separators? (i.e. colon for parts, dot for movements)

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren | 29 Oct 20:52 2014
Picon

Re: Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)


On 29 Oct 2014 21:49, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <davitofrg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> 2014-10-29 19:39 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
>>
>> Forgot to mention, also, that part of the idea is to get rid of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Opera at the same time, since that basically only says "put as much info as possible on opera track titles, even if not on the release" which seems to mostly go against what we're moving towards with NGS.
>
>
>  BTW, your draft always puts the work first. In some releases (mostly compilations), I believe I saw the work name in the track title, like "Allegro from Symphony ##" or "Allegro (Symphony ##)". I'm not sure we should ask to standardize those.

That's already there :)

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren | 29 Oct 19:32 2014
Picon

Style for classical track titles (STYLE-344)

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). That's mostly fine, but it should still be codified, and slightly adapted to take the existence of works into account (which allow tracks to follow the release a bit better).


Right now it does not mention movement numbering at all. That's intentional (I feel 1. vs. I. is fairly minor and can be left to people's preference or used as on the release) but if people think it should be standardised, we can do that too, probably with one of the following:

a) "For movement numbers, use roman numerals followed by a dot ("I. Allegro").
b) "For movement numbers, use whatever the release has, followed by a dot (both "I. Allegro" and "1. Allegro" are equally acceptable)

(or something without the dot requirement, I guess, I just like the dot :) )

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Gmane