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
RSS Feed