Beth | 1 Jul 09:25 2006

RE: RFC: New Artist Type: Project

Artist: Autumn's Descent
Type: Person
Born: 1996
Project Owner: Ash
Project shifted to group: 2005
Project died: 2005?
I don't know.. this is a hairy case, but there are others.

The problem is, person has a "born on date" projects aren't born. Also,
people have differing opinions; is NIN (which was Trent Reznor's project) a
person or a group? They have members when touring, therefore they're a
group? I personally disagree, but I think most people would agree it's a
project.

Celldweller, which is a project, performance name, and a studio therefore
has productions listed to it as well as recorded by and when left unstated
(artist or group) someone came along and listed it as a group, same argument
rises and you can't lock something so it's neither, which if we don't have
anything but Person or Groups is the only way to keep it from being
confusing. When celldweller (the project) tours, there are stand in
musicians. It so happens those musicians may remain over the next touring
season, or they may not. The true fact is, they have no artistic
merit/license over the songs whatsoever. Once more, project works,
group/person does not. It looks rather funny that a whole "group" recorded
an album and then it makes recorded by confusing, as Steve a while back
pointed out. Or, a whole "group" produced a song. I know, tired of hearing
about this project I'm sure.

I personally don't see how your AR idea fixes this in the slightest. It will
still come down to "is it a group, or a person" argument and I don't feel
(Continue reading)

Beth | 1 Jul 09:26 2006

RE: New AR links for Broadway Productions and ClassicalMusic

In light of this incredible amount of information, I don't feel I am as
capable of doing the wiki, perhaps if I had more free time, at the moment
though... my time is a lot more hampered than it use to be. Sorry.

-----Original Message-----
From: musicbrainz-style-bounces@...
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of Simon
Reinhardt
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:03 AM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] New AR links for Broadway Productions and
ClassicalMusic

Wendell Hicken wrote:
> Two databases I think would be useful to add formal connections to are:
> 
> IBDB - Internet Broadway Database (http://www.ibdb.com)
>     This is roughly an analogue of the Internet Movie Database, only for 
> Broadway.
>     Many artists have pages here with information on their Broadway 
> productions.

No objections here. Scanned the site a bit and they don't seem to have a
policy for linking, the disclaimer does not mention they don't want it or
only want it in a certain form. So this should not be a problem.
What we are missing experience in is how constant the links are.

I analysed their linking schema a bit. The main types are:

(Continue reading)

joan WHITTAKER | 1 Jul 09:37 2006
Picon

Re: RFC: New Artist Type: Project

This is correct.  The actual album, in front of me at the moment, is 
credited Roger Glover and Guests.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Redman" <donredman@...>
To: "MusicBrainz style discussion" <musicbrainz-style@...>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:07:39 +0200, joan WHITTAKER wrote:

> I also write to support Beth.  A classic case in point is
> http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290
>
> Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and 
> participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio, 
> Jimmy Helms, John Gustafson, etc.
>
> This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album, 
> without even the other artists featuring.  To be able to mark this as a 
> project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by 
> Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a 
> simple collaboration or even a VA.

What would change with this album?

IIUC the album would not be filed under "Roger Glover" anymore but under
"Roger Glover and Guests". This new artist would be of type "project" and
ARs would relate the members to the project.

(Continue reading)

Simon Reinhardt | 1 Jul 14:36 2006
Picon

Re: New AR links for Broadway Productions and ClassicalMusic

Beth wrote:
> In light of this incredible amount of information, I don't feel I am as
> capable of doing the wiki, perhaps if I had more free time, at the moment
> though... my time is a lot more hampered than it use to be. Sorry.

No problem. :)
I don't want to bring it through since that'd mean I really want it and have to support it. But I think with a bit
more input from the original requester we can work this out. Then we are able to write wiki pages and do an RFV.

Simon (Shepard)
Wendell Hicken | 1 Jul 18:27 2006
Picon

Re: New AR links for Broadway Productions and ClassicalMusic



On 7/1/06, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt-EbTbQB9lnPI@public.gmane.org> wrote:
I don't want to bring it through since that'd mean I really want it and have to support it. But I think with a bit more input from the original requester we can work this out. Then we are able to write wiki pages and do an RFV.

What sort of input would you like?  Do you want me to try to contact the "admins" for these sites and clarify the link
persistence issue?

Wendell

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Simon Reinhardt | 1 Jul 18:43 2006
Picon

Re: New AR links for Broadway Productions and ClassicalMusic

Wendell Hicken wrote:
> What sort of input would you like?  Do you want me to try to contact the 
> "admins" for these sites and clarify the link
> persistence issue?

You could do that for one, it would surely help a bit.
And since it's your proposal you could also sum up and decide for link formats and for phrases for the ARs. I
will help with the wiki pages.
Don Redman | 2 Jul 01:57 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: RFC: New Artist Type: Project

OK, I think I got your point: There are artists in the DB that cannot be  
clearly classified as either "person" or "group", it is time to give them  
a proper type of their own.

So, you got positive feedback on this. The only thing that remains is that  
it is difficult to forsee how big a semantic change this is. I would  
therefore suggest the following (this should remedy the problem of  
semantic changes _and_ help you complete the project _and_ keep  
discussions focussed):

Get a dev to make the few changes which are required for this new type on  
a test server (I have completely lost track of the test servers. Ask  
Robert for one).

Then you can start to use it (you will probably find some aspects that you  
have not thought about), create a wiki page about it and document it.
Once there is some rudimentary documentation you can present the new type  
on mb-users and ask for concrete feedback there and here on mb-style. This  
should help you to flesh out the docs, so that they are in an acceptable  
state (I said acceptable. Good should come much later).

That is about the time when you will want to request a veto.

While this looks like a lot of work, the advantage of this approach is  
that after the RFV period, making the feature reality is a matter of a  
snap (it will just go into the next minor server release).

Is this approach acceptable to you?
I do not want to raise excessive barriers to your project. We had that in  
the past of the Style Council and I do not want these times back. However,  
the discussions about fruitless tangents have shown that we have a lack of  
focus on concrete solutions. That is why I thought that it would be better  
to work on a concrete solution instead of requesting a veto for something  
wich is -- in its current state -- still a relatively abstact concept.

What do you think?

   DonRedman

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 09:25:04 +0200, Beth wrote:

> Artist: Autumn's Descent
> Type: Person
> Born: 1996
> Project Owner: Ash
> Project shifted to group: 2005
> Project died: 2005?
> I don't know.. this is a hairy case, but there are others.
>
> The problem is, person has a "born on date" projects aren't born. Also,
> people have differing opinions; is NIN (which was Trent Reznor's  
> project) a
> person or a group? They have members when touring, therefore they're a
> group? I personally disagree, but I think most people would agree it's a
> project.
>
> Celldweller, which is a project, performance name, and a studio therefore
> has productions listed to it as well as recorded by and when left  
> unstated
> (artist or group) someone came along and listed it as a group, same  
> argument
> rises and you can't lock something so it's neither, which if we don't  
> have
> anything but Person or Groups is the only way to keep it from being
> confusing. When celldweller (the project) tours, there are stand in
> musicians. It so happens those musicians may remain over the next touring
> season, or they may not. The true fact is, they have no artistic
> merit/license over the songs whatsoever. Once more, project works,
> group/person does not. It looks rather funny that a whole "group"  
> recorded
> an album and then it makes recorded by confusing, as Steve a while back
> pointed out. Or, a whole "group" produced a song. I know, tired of  
> hearing
> about this project I'm sure.
>
> I personally don't see how your AR idea fixes this in the slightest. It  
> will
> still come down to "is it a group, or a person" argument and I don't feel
> anyone that follows these (becoming) expansive projects is happy with the
> disambiguation that is being forced on the database because one simple  
> (if
> indeed Robert's statement is true) artist type isn't added. As far as why
> the previous mention of Joan's will change the database, I'm not  
> familiar so
> can't give light into that instance.
>
> Nyght aka Beth
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: musicbrainz-style-bounces@...
> [mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of Don
> Redman
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 7:39 AM
> To: MusicBrainz style discussion
> Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:07:39 +0200, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
>
>> I also write to support Beth.  A classic case in point is
>> http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290
>>
>> Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and
>> participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio,
>> Jimmy Helms, John Gustafson, etc.
>>
>> This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album,
>> without even the other artists featuring.  To be able to mark this as a
>> project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by
>> Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a
>> simple collaboration or even a VA.
>
> What would change with this album?
>
> IIUC the album would not be filed under "Roger Glover" anymore but under
> "Roger Glover and Guests". This new artist would be of type "project" and
> ARs would relate the members to the project.
>
> 1) Is this correct?
>
> If this is correct, then Robert's statement is not true:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:26:51 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote:
>
>> Effect on the current system?: Unsure
>>  Same, very minimal impact.
>
> In fact this is a relatively major change in the semantics of the
> database. Releases that were previously grouped under one artist would  
> now
> be distributed between multiple artists.
>
> I am *not* saying this is a bad idea. I just want to correct Robert's
> statement. And I want to prevent another desaster of not-understood
> semantic changes. I suppose that some beta-editing on a test server would
> be appropriate.
>
>
> Now to the content of the proposal:
> I am not sure that a new Artist type is needed at all to solve the issue.
> We currently distinguish between person and group, where everything that
> is more than a single person is a gourp.
>
> Alternative Solution:
> Would an AR "<artist> is a solo project by <artist>" not do the trick?
> This would cater for both the wumpscut case which has only one member and
> would therefore be considered a 'person'; and for the "Roger Glover and
> Guests" case, which is a kind of collaboration.
>
> Or to put it very simply: "Collaborations" are distinguished form "Bands"
> by the connecting AR not by an artist attribute. Why should this be
> different for solo projects?
> Actually such an AR would really make sense as a sub-type to the
> collaboration AR.
>
>    DonRedman
>
>

--

-- 
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation  
around! :-)
Don Redman | 2 Jul 02:31 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: RFC: New Artist Type: Project

I just realized that you (Beth) are not alone on this project (just  
finished reading mb-users).

So, I want to bring Simon's excelent summary to everybody's attention:
<http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Artist-Type%3A-Solo-Project-p5068189s2885.html>

That mail could serve as a good starting point for a wiki page.

And it would surely help to work on this issue in a team.

   DonRedman
Beth | 2 Jul 07:20 2006

RE: RFC: New Artist Type: Project

Thank you for a clear plan of attack. I appreciate it. I know Shep is
willing to do the links, I'll ask if he has the ability on test.

-----Original Message-----
From: musicbrainz-style-bounces@...
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of Don
Redman
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 5:57 PM
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project

OK, I think I got your point: There are artists in the DB that cannot be  
clearly classified as either "person" or "group", it is time to give them  
a proper type of their own.

So, you got positive feedback on this. The only thing that remains is that  
it is difficult to forsee how big a semantic change this is. I would  
therefore suggest the following (this should remedy the problem of  
semantic changes _and_ help you complete the project _and_ keep  
discussions focussed):

Get a dev to make the few changes which are required for this new type on  
a test server (I have completely lost track of the test servers. Ask  
Robert for one).

Then you can start to use it (you will probably find some aspects that you  
have not thought about), create a wiki page about it and document it.
Once there is some rudimentary documentation you can present the new type  
on mb-users and ask for concrete feedback there and here on mb-style. This  
should help you to flesh out the docs, so that they are in an acceptable  
state (I said acceptable. Good should come much later).

That is about the time when you will want to request a veto.

While this looks like a lot of work, the advantage of this approach is  
that after the RFV period, making the feature reality is a matter of a  
snap (it will just go into the next minor server release).

Is this approach acceptable to you?
I do not want to raise excessive barriers to your project. We had that in  
the past of the Style Council and I do not want these times back. However,  
the discussions about fruitless tangents have shown that we have a lack of  
focus on concrete solutions. That is why I thought that it would be better  
to work on a concrete solution instead of requesting a veto for something  
wich is -- in its current state -- still a relatively abstact concept.

What do you think?

   DonRedman

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 09:25:04 +0200, Beth wrote:

> Artist: Autumn's Descent
> Type: Person
> Born: 1996
> Project Owner: Ash
> Project shifted to group: 2005
> Project died: 2005?
> I don't know.. this is a hairy case, but there are others.
>
> The problem is, person has a "born on date" projects aren't born. Also,
> people have differing opinions; is NIN (which was Trent Reznor's  
> project) a
> person or a group? They have members when touring, therefore they're a
> group? I personally disagree, but I think most people would agree it's a
> project.
>
> Celldweller, which is a project, performance name, and a studio therefore
> has productions listed to it as well as recorded by and when left  
> unstated
> (artist or group) someone came along and listed it as a group, same  
> argument
> rises and you can't lock something so it's neither, which if we don't  
> have
> anything but Person or Groups is the only way to keep it from being
> confusing. When celldweller (the project) tours, there are stand in
> musicians. It so happens those musicians may remain over the next touring
> season, or they may not. The true fact is, they have no artistic
> merit/license over the songs whatsoever. Once more, project works,
> group/person does not. It looks rather funny that a whole "group"  
> recorded
> an album and then it makes recorded by confusing, as Steve a while back
> pointed out. Or, a whole "group" produced a song. I know, tired of  
> hearing
> about this project I'm sure.
>
> I personally don't see how your AR idea fixes this in the slightest. It  
> will
> still come down to "is it a group, or a person" argument and I don't feel
> anyone that follows these (becoming) expansive projects is happy with the
> disambiguation that is being forced on the database because one simple  
> (if
> indeed Robert's statement is true) artist type isn't added. As far as why
> the previous mention of Joan's will change the database, I'm not  
> familiar so
> can't give light into that instance.
>
> Nyght aka Beth
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: musicbrainz-style-bounces@...
> [mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of Don
> Redman
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 7:39 AM
> To: MusicBrainz style discussion
> Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:07:39 +0200, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
>
>> I also write to support Beth.  A classic case in point is
>> http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=504290
>>
>> Roger Glover would in this context be the owner of the project and
>> participants would be Glenn Hughes, David Coverdale, Ronnie James Dio,
>> Jimmy Helms, John Gustafson, etc.
>>
>> This is in the database at the moment as a simple Roger Glover album,
>> without even the other artists featuring.  To be able to mark this as a
>> project and to show that Roger Glover adapted the concept from a book by
>> Alan Aldridge would clearly show it as a stand alone project and not a
>> simple collaboration or even a VA.
>
> What would change with this album?
>
> IIUC the album would not be filed under "Roger Glover" anymore but under
> "Roger Glover and Guests". This new artist would be of type "project" and
> ARs would relate the members to the project.
>
> 1) Is this correct?
>
> If this is correct, then Robert's statement is not true:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:26:51 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote:
>
>> Effect on the current system?: Unsure
>>  Same, very minimal impact.
>
> In fact this is a relatively major change in the semantics of the
> database. Releases that were previously grouped under one artist would  
> now
> be distributed between multiple artists.
>
> I am *not* saying this is a bad idea. I just want to correct Robert's
> statement. And I want to prevent another desaster of not-understood
> semantic changes. I suppose that some beta-editing on a test server would
> be appropriate.
>
>
> Now to the content of the proposal:
> I am not sure that a new Artist type is needed at all to solve the issue.
> We currently distinguish between person and group, where everything that
> is more than a single person is a gourp.
>
> Alternative Solution:
> Would an AR "<artist> is a solo project by <artist>" not do the trick?
> This would cater for both the wumpscut case which has only one member and
> would therefore be considered a 'person'; and for the "Roger Glover and
> Guests" case, which is a kind of collaboration.
>
> Or to put it very simply: "Collaborations" are distinguished form "Bands"
> by the connecting AR not by an artist attribute. Why should this be
> different for solo projects?
> Actually such an AR would really make sense as a sub-type to the
> collaboration AR.
>
>    DonRedman
>
>

--

-- 
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation  
around! :-)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Stefan Kestenholz | 2 Jul 12:58 2006
Picon

RE: RFC: New Artist Type: Project

I've added [1] the new artist type, and it is ready on test to play around
with. I agree with robert that this has minimal impact, since it doesn't
influence ReleaseArtistStyle IMO, but helps to achieve a finer granulation
how we can represent an Artist (a project is very often clearly perceived as
that in a non-database view of the music world).

regards, Stefan

[1] http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/changeset/8010
[2] http://test.musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=3931038

> Thank you for a clear plan of attack. I appreciate it. I know Shep is
> willing to do the links, I'll ask if he has the ability on test.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: musicbrainz-style-bounces@...
> [mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces@...] On 
> Behalf Of Don
> Redman

> Get a dev to make the few changes which are required for this 
> new type on  
> a test server (I have completely lost track of the test servers. Ask  
> Robert for one).
> 
> Then you can start to use it (you will probably find some 
> aspects that you  
> have not thought about), create a wiki page about it and document it.

Gmane