symphonick | 1 Mar 12:06 2012
Picon

Re: RFV: CSG Release/RG Artist (previously RFC-352)

Sure. Slightly simplified:
Before: "The ReleaseArtist of a classical Release should always be either the composer or VariousArtists"
After: "The ReleaseArtist of a classical Release should include the composer(s) and performers featured on the front cover"

2012/2/29 jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe-1YkopTs1fDFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
Could you briefly explain the before→after differences ?
Thanks :)


/symphonick
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Rupert Swarbrick | 1 Mar 12:20 2012
Picon

Re: RFV: CSG Release/RG Artist (previously RFC-352)

jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe@...>
writes:
> Could you briefly explain the before→after differences ? 
> Thanks :)

At the moment, there is not a CSG at all. This describes how release
artists should be formatted. So the diff is quite easy to compute :-)

Rupert
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
practik | 1 Mar 19:10 2012
Picon

"recording" ≠ "performance" (?)

I think we might want to stop using the word "performance" as a synonym for
"recording" in the MB interface.  So for example, when creating
relationships between a work and a recording, the drop-down box that now
says

is a {partial} {live} {instrumental} {cover} performance of

would say

is a {partial} {live} {instrumental} {cover} recording of

instead.  On recording pages, relationships to works would show up as
"recording of" instead of "performance of."  Et cetera.

My reasoning is basically that:
a) it's too hard to define what a "performance" is, and also irrelevant for
our purposes, and 
b) for the minority of users who care about terminology, it can be confusing
to see "performance" and "recording" used as though they meant the same
thing. 

For a little more background and explanation, including a couple of examples
of why I think it's confusing, see my original posting on the forums
(http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=17589).  More discussion
may also pop up on the second thread I stupidly started on the Style forum
(http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=3434).

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have on this!

--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/recording-performance-tp7333478p7333478.html
Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren | 1 Mar 19:41 2012
Picon

Re: RFV-346. Style/Language/Vietnamese : Punctuation change

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philip@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 15:35, Rupert Swarbrick
<rswarbrick@...> wrote:
>> jesus2099 & Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> ... lots.
>>
>> Guys, you have been discussing this for quite some time, frantically
>> scoring points against each other and arguing that the other is not
>> following a reputed source. You then both agreed that you should get
>> input from a style leader.
>>
>> Nikki basically pointed out that this really doesn't matter to
>> MusicBrainz: there are very few releases where the question makes any
>> difference, and these have been de facto standardised.
>>
>> As such, your continuing discussion in this forum is off topic, as well
>> as bitter and unpleasant. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree?
>
> Thank you for interrupting us. While this is the appropriate forum for
> RFC/RFV of style guidelines, I do apologize for the state of
> discourse. I have tried very hard to stay on topic and not do
> point-by-point replies for every detail I disagree with, but have not
> always succeeded.
>
> I believe that the references and "studies" I have documented will
> stand up to scrutiny by third parties and that the conclusion is
> clear. The RFV has gotten its V, so I will not reply further unless
> explicitly asked to do so by one of our style leaders.

I seriously think a clash so strong about such a minor issue by two
editors who are not even native speakers of the language is quite
absurd. The most obvious choice, seeing that there is a not negligible
minority of uses of space before punctuation and that it doesn't seem
to be seen as a wrong use, is to follow the cover. As jesus said, for
each one's own collection those can be converted into what each of you
see as right.

> --
> Philip Jägenstedt
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

--

-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
SwissChris | 1 Mar 19:59 2012
Picon

Re: RFV: CSG Release/RG Artist (previously RFC-352)

As said before several times I strongly dislike the mixing of composer and performer names in an artist credit field unsuited for this. I still think a specific composer field, inheriting data from works (or ARs) is the thing we need. But since NGS (but for adding the Works concept) mostly ignored the needs of classical editors (making editing even more complicated, time-consuming and tedious than it was before) we have to cope with DB-structures and UIs basically unsuited for classical. Thus we need guidelines that allow adding, improving and withdrawing data in some way – twisted as this may be – until we get better structures. I acknowledge this need and will not veto the proposal, even if IMHO it's just a (clumsy, quickly to be replaced) workaround solution.


Just wondering where this guideline will be included in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style ? As long as we don't have official CSG guidelines (of which this will hopefully become a part) we'll probably need some initial comment stating this guideline being for classical releases only …

chris/chabreyflint

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe-1YkopTs1fDFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
writes:
> Could you briefly explain the before→after differences ?
> Thanks :)

At the moment, there is not a CSG at all. This describes how release
artists should be formatted. So the diff is quite easy to compute :-)

Rupert

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Frederic Da Vitoria | 1 Mar 22:43 2012
Picon

Re: "recording" ≠ "performance" (?)

2012/3/1 practik <kronpilz-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
I think we might want to stop using the word "performance" as a synonym for
"recording" in the MB interface.  So for example, when creating
relationships between a work and a recording, the drop-down box that now
says

is a {partial} {live} {instrumental} {cover} performance of

would say

is a {partial} {live} {instrumental} {cover} recording of

instead.  On recording pages, relationships to works would show up as
"recording of" instead of "performance of."  Et cetera.

My reasoning is basically that:
a) it's too hard to define what a "performance" is, and also irrelevant for
our purposes, and
b) for the minority of users who care about terminology, it can be confusing
to see "performance" and "recording" used as though they meant the same
thing.

For a little more background and explanation, including a couple of examples
of why I think it's confusing, see my original posting on the forums
(http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=17589).  More discussion
may also pop up on the second thread I stupidly started on the Style forum
(http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=3434).

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have on this!

I agree, but I'd like to know why the word "performance" was used in the first place? Is there an advantage, something I am missing?

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Frederic Da Vitoria | 1 Mar 22:46 2012
Picon

Re: RFV: CSG Release/RG Artist (previously RFC-352)

Please explain what would be the suitable use? Does printing a name on a cover not mean crediting? If not, what would mean artist credit in a classical release (if it has a meaning, of course)?

2012/3/1 SwissChris <swisschris-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
As said before several times I strongly dislike the mixing of composer and performer names in an artist credit field unsuited for this. I still think a specific composer field, inheriting data from works (or ARs) is the thing we need. But since NGS (but for adding the Works concept) mostly ignored the needs of classical editors (making editing even more complicated, time-consuming and tedious than it was before) we have to cope with DB-structures and UIs basically unsuited for classical. Thus we need guidelines that allow adding, improving and withdrawing data in some way – twisted as this may be – until we get better structures. I acknowledge this need and will not veto the proposal, even if IMHO it's just a (clumsy, quickly to be replaced) workaround solution.

Just wondering where this guideline will be included in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style ? As long as we don't have official CSG guidelines (of which this will hopefully become a part) we'll probably need some initial comment stating this guideline being for classical releases only …

chris/chabreyflint

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe-1YkopTs1fDFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
writes:
> Could you briefly explain the before→after differences ?
> Thanks :)

At the moment, there is not a CSG at all. This describes how release
artists should be formatted. So the diff is quite easy to compute :-)


--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Alex Mauer | 1 Mar 22:57 2012
Picon

Re: "recording" ≠ "performance" (?)

On 03/01/2012 12:10 PM, practik wrote:
> instead.  On recording pages, relationships to works would show up as
> "recording of" instead of "performance of."  Et cetera.
>
> My reasoning is basically that:
> a) it's too hard to define what a "performance" is, and also irrelevant for
> our purposes, and
> b) for the minority of users who care about terminology, it can be confusing
> to see "performance" and "recording" used as though they meant the same
> thing.

+1, completely agree.
symphonick | 2 Mar 00:17 2012
Picon

Re: RFV: CSG Release/RG Artist (previously RFC-352)

This RFV has passed. We have to look into creating a CSG frontpage soon.


2012/3/1 Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Please explain what would be the suitable use? Does printing a name on a cover not mean crediting? If not, what would mean artist credit in a classical release (if it has a meaning, of course)?


2012/3/1 SwissChris <swisschris-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
As said before several times I strongly dislike the mixing of composer and performer names in an artist credit field unsuited for this. I still think a specific composer field, inheriting data from works (or ARs) is the thing we need. But since NGS (but for adding the Works concept) mostly ignored the needs of classical editors (making editing even more complicated, time-consuming and tedious than it was before) we have to cope with DB-structures and UIs basically unsuited for classical. Thus we need guidelines that allow adding, improving and withdrawing data in some way – twisted as this may be – until we get better structures. I acknowledge this need and will not veto the proposal, even if IMHO it's just a (clumsy, quickly to be replaced) workaround solution.

Just wondering where this guideline will be included in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style ? As long as we don't have official CSG guidelines (of which this will hopefully become a part) we'll probably need some initial comment stating this guideline being for classical releases only …

chris/chabreyflint

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe-1YkopTs1fDFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
writes:
> Could you briefly explain the before→after differences ?
> Thanks :)

At the moment, there is not a CSG at all. This describes how release
artists should be formatted. So the diff is quite easy to compute :-)


--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



--

/symphonick
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
SwissChris | 2 Mar 01:26 2012
Picon

Re: RFV: CSG Release/RG Artist (previously RFC-352)



On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Please explain what would be the suitable use? Does printing a name on a cover not mean crediting? If not, what would mean artist credit in a classical release (if it has a meaning, of course)?

I don't think "artist credit" as it is now makes sense for classical. It's designed (with all link phrases) to store one performing artist, with eventually one ore more featured artist(s) (what is a featured artist in classical?). Pre-NGS we had at least functions: work (by composer) feat. conductor, orchestra, soloist; now we just have a bunch of names (and a fuzzy mess if editors don't follow exactly a specific syntax): not really helpful unless you're very familiar with the classical Who's who.

And then you have to add relationships (much more useful than simple artist credits) one by one, which is bad for every edit. For classical, and even more so for Opera, where you have easily 40 or 60 tracks sharing the same composer, conductor, orchestra, it's simply insane…



2012/3/1 SwissChris <swisschris-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
As said before several times I strongly dislike the mixing of composer and performer names in an artist credit field unsuited for this. I still think a specific composer field, inheriting data from works (or ARs) is the thing we need. But since NGS (but for adding the Works concept) mostly ignored the needs of classical editors (making editing even more complicated, time-consuming and tedious than it was before) we have to cope with DB-structures and UIs basically unsuited for classical. Thus we need guidelines that allow adding, improving and withdrawing data in some way – twisted as this may be – until we get better structures. I acknowledge this need and will not veto the proposal, even if IMHO it's just a (clumsy, quickly to be replaced) workaround solution.

Just wondering where this guideline will be included in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style ? As long as we don't have official CSG guidelines (of which this will hopefully become a part) we'll probably need some initial comment stating this guideline being for classical releases only …

chris/chabreyflint

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe-1YkopTs1fDFAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
writes:
> Could you briefly explain the before→after differences ?
> Thanks :)

At the moment, there is not a CSG at all. This describes how release
artists should be formatted. So the diff is quite easy to compute :-)


--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

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

Gmane