Could you briefly explain the before→after differences ?
Thanks :)

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!

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

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

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