|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
Orion wrote:
> from DonRedman:
> > As I said before I do not think this is a matter of _storing_ data
> > only. Since there is no system in place to _use_ the data, should it
> > only be stored in ARs (i.e. the website doe not display it on the
> album
> > view, the tagger cannot use it) I am strongly opposed to change the
> > stuile guidelines in a way that they render data unusable.
>
> I'm still not clear on how the data isn't usable. What makes the data
> unusable if it's stored under Slayer & Ice-T - song instead of Slayer
> - song (feat. Ice-T)? It no longer shows under Slayer's page but it
> does now show on artist searches on Slayer or Ice-T, whereas
> previously it didn't show on Ice-T's page and didn't show up on an
> artist search on Ice-T either. The data is still completely accesible
> under Slayer & Ice-T and can be used in the tagger just fine...
>
OK...I realize that, in fact, I have misread the proposal. Sorry about
that. I have some concerns about determining when neither artist is the
primary artist, but I can see some utility in moving in this direction.
Please change my vote to +.7 (still Style Council).
Sorry for the confusion.
--Dylan
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Kestenholz" < g0llum@...>
To: "MusicBrainz style discussion" < musicbrainz-style@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the
vote.
> Again: this does not mean we don't store _guest_ artists as (feat. artist
> x) anymore!
good :) this doesn't seem to have been covered in the wiki entry, or any of
the discussions (granted i could have missed it...both get increasingly
complex with time :P). but i think it's important the SG5 still has a place,
just the scenarios it applies to should be under review. i don't think it
should be scrapped outright - that doesn't seem useful.
Cheers,
Chris B
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
Rod Begbie wrote:
> OK folks, it's been a couple of weeks since anyone has added anything
> to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle>
> Because I'm fed up with 'mo' dicking around with my moderations, I'd
> like to try putting this to a (completely non-binding) vote, using the
> Apache Lazy Concensus rules.
>
> Reply to this thread, and simply say +1 if you agree, -1 if you
> disagree, or a number in between if you're opinion is in between (see
> bottom of this mail for examples). Also say if you're a member of the
> Style Council, or just a mailinglist participant. Next Saturday
> (12th), I'll tot-up the votes.
>
> PROPOSAL: We change FeaturingArtistStyle to read: "When two or more
> artists collaborate on a track or release, file the track/release
> under the primary artist, and then add "performed on" relationships to
> the secondary artists.
Fair enough.
> If no artist can be considered secondary,
> create a new artist in the form 'Artist 1 & Artist 2' and add
> "collaborated on" relationships to the artists."
I don't think that case exists. You've immediately put "Artist 1 &
Artist 2". Artist 1 is primary. Primary has no meaning, other than they
happen to be first on the list. I don't think we should create artists
unless they are a popular brand, rather than just a single colaboration
- e.g. "Simon and Garfunkel", or "Sonny and Cher". It's obvious in those
cases they they were long term groups of those particular names.
If you really don't like to make one primary, file the track under the
"Various Artists" artist, and add "performed on" relationships" to all
artitsts.
On database modifications, we don't need to allow multiple artists per
track as they are ALREADY ALLOWED! That's what AR is. If anything we
should abolish the legacy track - single artist links. We do need
improvements to the interfaces, but not to the database.
Robert Munro
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
Hi Robert.
Interesting... you've gone the exact opposite way I expected people
to react to my proposal. Most people seem to object to the first part
(remove '(feat)' for guest performances) over the second (create
collaborative artists).
On 11/6/05, Robert (Jamie) Munro < rjmunro@...> wrote:
> I don't think that case exists. You've immediately put "Artist 1 &
> Artist 2". Artist 1 is primary. Primary has no meaning, other than they
> happen to be first on the list.
That's not the only meaning. I think of primary as "most important."
The dictionary backs me up. The first two definitions at
http://www.answers.com/primary are our differing readings.
1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.
2. Being or standing first in a list, series, or sequence.
So the track "Under Pressure" by David Bowie and Queen doesn't have a
primary artist -- both artists are equally important.
> I don't think we should create artists
> unless they are a popular brand, rather than just a single colaboration
> - e.g. "Simon and Garfunkel", or "Sonny and Cher". It's obvious in those
> cases they they were long term groups of those particular names.
The questions becomes how does one decide if it's a "long-term group".
Consider the following cases:
* John Lennon & Yoko Ono released two or three albums.
* Tim Booth and Angelo Badalamenti recorded one album together, under
the performance name "Booth and the Bad Angel".
* Aimee Mann & Michael Penn have recorded a few songs together which
have featured on several compilations. They're married, have toured
together, and will likely produce further collaborations down the
road.
* Deborah Harry and Iggy Pop did one song together, but it features on
a lot of compilations.
* Paul Weller, Paul McCartney and Noel Gallager recorded one song
under the name "Smokin' Mojo Filters'
Can you honestly write a rule which clearly distinguishes what a user should do.
SG5 may suck, but it's at least fairly unambiguous. There is a
"correct" way to enter track and artist information, and people can
edit or vote accordingly.
Rod.
--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> Rod Begbie wrote:
>
>>OK folks, it's been a couple of weeks since anyone has added anything
>>to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle>>
>>Because I'm fed up with 'mo' dicking around with my moderations, I'd
>>like to try putting this to a (completely non-binding) vote, using the
>>Apache Lazy Concensus rules.
>>
>>Reply to this thread, and simply say +1 if you agree, -1 if you
>>disagree, or a number in between if you're opinion is in between (see
>>bottom of this mail for examples). Also say if you're a member of the
>>Style Council, or just a mailinglist participant. Next Saturday
>>(12th), I'll tot-up the votes.
>>
>>PROPOSAL: We change FeaturingArtistStyle to read: "When two or more
>>artists collaborate on a track or release, file the track/release
>>under the primary artist, and then add "performed on" relationships to
>>the secondary artists.
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
>>If no artist can be considered secondary,
>>create a new artist in the form 'Artist 1 & Artist 2' and add
>>"collaborated on" relationships to the artists."
>
>
> I don't think that case exists. You've immediately put "Artist 1 &
> Artist 2". Artist 1 is primary. Primary has no meaning, other than they
> happen to be first on the list. I don't think we should create artists
> unless they are a popular brand, rather than just a single colaboration
> - e.g. "Simon and Garfunkel", or "Sonny and Cher". It's obvious in those
> cases they they were long term groups of those particular names.
>
> If you really don't like to make one primary, file the track under the
> "Various Artists" artist, and add "performed on" relationships" to all
> artitsts.
>
> On database modifications, we don't need to allow multiple artists per
> track as they are ALREADY ALLOWED! That's what AR is. If anything we
> should abolish the legacy track - single artist links. We do need
> improvements to the interfaces, but not to the database.
>
> Robert Munro
I forgot to say -.5, SC member, based on the arguments above.
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
[mb-style] Re: Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
Thanks for all the comments and patience so far.
As people have rightly pointed out, there are really two issues here,
munged into one confusing spiralling argument. It's my fault for not
trying the separate them more.
Firstly, the "Person A & Person B" issue. (eg. Ice-T and Slayer).
My suggestion that this be treated as a new artist seems to be getting
mostly positive feedback (RJMunro being the main dissenter).
The second, separate-but-connected issue are cases of "Person A"
guesting on a track by "Person B" (eg. Macy Gray doing vocals on a
Fatboy Slim track).
My original proposal said that the secondary artist should not be
included in the title field, but as AR only, and this seems to be the
clause that's generally making people (Michelle and DonRedman in
particular) unhappy, and I fully understand their reasons.
I'd be more than happy for now to go with the first fix, and leave the
second until a future time when we can improve the website and tagger.
Would anyone's vote change if I suggested changing SG5 to the following:
When two artists collaborate on a track or release, file the
track/release under the primary artist, and then append the name of
the secondary artist to the name of the track/release as follows:
* "Put Your Lights On (feat. Everlast)"
If no artist can be considered secondary, create a new artist in the
form 'Artist 1 & Artist 2' and add "collaborated on" relationships to
the artists.
Rod.
--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
On Sunday 06 November 2005 10:01, Rod Begbie wrote:
> OK folks, it's been a couple of weeks since anyone has added anything
> to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle>
> Because I'm fed up with 'mo' dicking around with my moderations, I'd
> like to try putting this to a (completely non-binding) vote, using the
> Apache Lazy Concensus rules.
>
> Reply to this thread, and simply say +1 if you agree, -1 if you
> disagree, or a number in between if you're opinion is in between (see
> bottom of this mail for examples). Also say if you're a member of the
> Style Council, or just a mailinglist participant. Next Saturday
> (12th), I'll tot-up the votes.
>
> PROPOSAL: We change FeaturingArtistStyle to read: "When two or more
> artists collaborate on a track or release, file the track/release
> under the primary artist, and then add "performed on" relationships to
> the secondary artists. If no artist can be considered secondary,
> create a new artist in the form 'Artist 1 & Artist 2' and add
> "collaborated on" relationships to the artists."
>
> I vote +1, but I'm not a Style Council member.
>
> Rod.
++1. I've always hated SG5's hardline "split all artist pairings" approach. It
only makes sense in a "database neatness" way, not in a "what the end-user
expects" way, and doesn't achieve anything particularly useful except making
the track in question appear on one artist's page (_at the expense of the
other artist, I might add_) and for causing heated arguments in this mailing
list and in edit notes.
t
--
http://moto-coda.org/public.gpg.key--
http://moto-coda.org/public.gpg.key_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
oh and -0.9 from me, style council member.
i think this blanket removal of (feat. x) is not useful. SG5 shouldn't be
removed, it should be adapted. we do need a rule to cover the presentation
of featuring artists, and this works fine in such situations. i agree that
it's application to true collaborations (or anything where the contribution
is more like 50:50), is incorrect.
Cheers,
Chris B
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris B" < chris@...>
To: "MusicBrainz style discussion" < musicbrainz-style@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the
vote.
> i'd prefer to keep it, but to only use it when that's how it actually
> appears on the tracklisting. a lot of 'bad' edits have been done under the
> current guideline - eg putting (feat. x) on stuff like the chemical
> brothers use of famous guest vocalists on a lot of tracks - in my
> experience they don't credit them beyond a mention in the liner, not on
> the tracklisting. so i don't think the SG5 should be applied.
>
> i want the guidelines to organise data found on tracklistings, not
> add/remove stuff (within reason). not by default, anyway. once AR info is
> transferred to tags, this could all be user preferences in the tagger (eg
> you could have 'SomeDudes - FunkyShit (feat. Dave [Bass], Steve [Kazoo])'
> or whatever)
>
> not got round to adding this as an alternative on the wiki yet, though.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris B
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rod Begbie" < rodbegbie@...>
> To: "MusicBrainz style discussion" < musicbrainz-style@...>
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:01 PM
> Subject: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
>
>
>> OK folks, it's been a couple of weeks since anyone has added anything
>> to http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle>>
>> Because I'm fed up with 'mo' dicking around with my moderations, I'd
>> like to try putting this to a (completely non-binding) vote, using the
>> Apache Lazy Concensus rules.
>>
>> Reply to this thread, and simply say +1 if you agree, -1 if you
>> disagree, or a number in between if you're opinion is in between (see
>> bottom of this mail for examples). Also say if you're a member of the
>> Style Council, or just a mailinglist participant. Next Saturday
>> (12th), I'll tot-up the votes.
>>
>> PROPOSAL: We change FeaturingArtistStyle to read: "When two or more
>> artists collaborate on a track or release, file the track/release
>> under the primary artist, and then add "performed on" relationships to
>> the secondary artists. If no artist can be considered secondary,
>> create a new artist in the form 'Artist 1 & Artist 2' and add
>> "collaborated on" relationships to the artists."
>>
>> I vote +1, but I'm not a Style Council member.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>> -----
>> Expressing Votes: +1, 0, -1, and Fractions
>>
>> The voting process in Apache may seem more than a little weird if
>> you've never encountered it before. Votes are represented as numbers
>> between -1 and +1, with '-1' meaning 'no' and '+1' meaning 'yes.'
>>
>> The in-between values are indicative of how strongly the voting
>> individual feels. Here are some examples of fractional votes and ways
>> in which they might be intended and interpreted:
>>
>> * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okey with this.'
>> * -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.'
>> * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational
>> justification for my feelings.'
>> * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's do it!'
>> * -0.9: 'I really don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in
>> the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.'
>> * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have
>> time/the skills necessary to help out.'
>>
>> -- http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>> --
>> :: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>> Musicbrainz-style@...
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style>
>
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Re: Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to thevote.
> If no artist can be considered secondary, create a new artist in the
> form 'Artist 1 & Artist 2' and add "collaborated on" relationships to
> the artists.
yes, that's it. and to be honest, i missed the guest artist+feat. part where
i now have to agree with what donredman and michelle said. my vote: ++1
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
RE: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
> On 11/6/05, Robert (Jamie) Munro < rjmunro@...> wrote:
> > I don't think that case exists. You've immediately put "Artist 1 &
> > Artist 2". Artist 1 is primary. Primary has no meaning, other than
> > they happen to be first on the list.
>
> That's not the only meaning. I think of primary as "most important."
> The dictionary backs me up. The first two definitions at
> http://www.answers.com/primary are our differing readings.
>
> 1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.
> 2. Being or standing first in a list, series, or sequence.
>
> So the track "Under Pressure" by David Bowie and Queen
> doesn't have a primary artist -- both artists are equally important.
Actually Queen is the primary artist. They were in the studio recording the
album Hot Space when he happened to drop by and they asked him to sit in on
what became Under Pressure. The track did not appear on a Bowie studio
release, only a greatest hits
http://www.illustrated-db-discography.nl/index.html.
> > I don't think we should create artists unless they are a popular
> > brand, rather than just a single colaboration
> > - e.g. "Simon and Garfunkel", or "Sonny and Cher". It's obvious in
> > those cases they they were long term groups of those
> particular names.
>
> The questions becomes how does one decide if it's a "long-term group".
> Consider the following cases:
>
> * John Lennon & Yoko Ono released two or three albums.
>
> * Tim Booth and Angelo Badalamenti recorded one album
> together, under the performance name "Booth and the Bad Angel".
>
> * Aimee Mann & Michael Penn have recorded a few songs
> together which have featured on several compilations.
> They're married, have toured together, and will likely
> produce further collaborations down the road.
>
> * Deborah Harry and Iggy Pop did one song together, but it
> features on a lot of compilations.
>
> * Paul Weller, Paul McCartney and Noel Gallager recorded one
> song under the name "Smokin' Mojo Filters'
>
> Can you honestly write a rule which clearly distinguishes
> what a user should do.
>
> SG5 may suck, but it's at least fairly unambiguous. There is
> a "correct" way to enter track and artist information, and
> people can edit or vote accordingly.
>
> Rod.
>
> --
> :: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
In all but the first two case, these were one-off collaborations. Because
both the first two were full recordings I would classify both as an entity
and not collaboration. Booth and Badalamenti actually recorded under a
"name" so they wouldn't even fall into this category.
________________________________
Cristov (wolfsong)
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you
actually look forward to the trip. -caskie stinnett
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
On 11/6/05, Cristov Russell < wolfsong@...> wrote:
> In all but the first two case, these were one-off collaborations. Because
> both the first two were full recordings I would classify both as an entity
> and not collaboration. Booth and Badalamenti actually recorded under a
> "name" so they wouldn't even fall into this category.
No, Aimee Mann & Michael Penn is not a one-off. They have jointly
recorded at least two tracks that I'm aware of: Two of Us and
Christmastime. (Of course, this is hard to find out in the current
site, as sometimes they're assigned to AM (feat. MP), sometimes
they're assigned to MP (feat. AM) and sometimes they're assigned to AM
& AP
But you see how hard this is to describe. You're using words like
"one-off", "entity" and "name", none of which appear in the current
SG5 rule, leaving this all up to individual moderator decisions.
Surely better to make this all unambigious and consistent?
Rod.
--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
RE: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
> On 11/6/05, Cristov Russell < wolfsong@...> wrote:
> > In all but the first two case, these were one-off collaborations.
> > Because both the first two were full recordings I would
> classify both
> > as an entity and not collaboration. Booth and Badalamenti actually
> > recorded under a "name" so they wouldn't even fall into
> this category.
>
> No, Aimee Mann & Michael Penn is not a one-off. They have
> jointly recorded at least two tracks that I'm aware of: Two
> of Us and Christmastime. (Of course, this is hard to find
> out in the current site, as sometimes they're assigned to AM
> (feat. MP), sometimes they're assigned to MP (feat. AM) and
> sometimes they're assigned to AM & AP
Neither recording is part of a larger release, that's what I'm calling a one
off.
> But you see how hard this is to describe. You're using words
> like "one-off", "entity" and "name", none of which appear in
> the current
> SG5 rule, leaving this all up to individual moderator decisions.
> Surely better to make this all unambigious and consistent?
>
> Rod.
>
> --
> :: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
I have no objection in clarifying the use of SG5 but I do object to the
notion that it should not be used.
________________________________
Cristov (wolfsong)
Organic architecture seeks superior sense of use and a finer sense of
comfort, expressed in organic simplicity. - Frank Lloyd Wright
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:45:07 +0100, Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
> yes, that's what i meant... we can talk about how a future system might
> handle the case better, or we can throw away the stupid SG5 part now.
> Again: this does not mean we don't store _guest_ artists as (feat.
> artist x) anymore! We can even add the AR's to the respective artist
> entities that were part of the collaboration, such that we can write a
> report to list such collaborations, or even do some things automatically
> if/once the system is ready to store the data in a more sophisticated
> manner.
Oh, I did not read Rod's proposal that way. He wrote:
>> PROPOSAL: We change FeaturingArtistStyle to read: "When two or more
artists collaborate on a track or release, file the track/release
under the primary artist, and then add "performed on" relationships to
the secondary artists. If no artist can be considered secondary,
create a new artist in the form 'Artist 1 & Artist 2' and add
"collaborated on" relationships to the artists."<<
If you change that to:
PROPOSAL(B): We change FeaturingArtistStyle to read:
When two or more artists collaborate on a track or release, file the
track/release under the primary artist, and
* add "performed on" relationships to the secondary artists.
* append the name of the secondary artist to the name of the
track/release as follows:
"Put Your Lights On (feat. Everlast)"
If no artist can be considered secondary, create a new artist in the form
'Artist 1 & Artist 2', file the track/rleease under that artist, and add
"collaborated on" relationships to the artists.
I would vote for this one (+1).
The big difference is, obvioulsly, that the featuring artist does not
disappear, and become unusable to client applications that cannot parse
AR, e.g. the Taggers.
The proposal changes SG5 only for cases in which there is no primary
artist. and requires ARs to be added in all cases. That means that once AR
is more mature, the "feat." parts can just be scrapped. Since there is
already a script that generates ARs from these entries, it should be easy
to write one that just deletes them.
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
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
++1 for the new proposal.
A question for people opposing the new proposal:
What if a group of artists do a one time collaboration under a single
name that does not include their respective names (e.g. Band Aid)? The
only reason this isn't listed under ArtistA - TrackName (feat.
ArtistB, ArtistC,...) is because of the new name. But then why should
a collaboration between ArtistA and ArtistB released as e.g. "ArtistA
& ArtistB" or "ArtistA and ArtistB" be split up? If Joe Cocker and
Jennifer Warnes would've released Up Where We Belong under the name JJ
(as an example), this would be a separate entry. (Actually, "Joe
Cocker & Jennifer Warnes" is in the database at the moment, since some
releases have been added with this artist after my 'cleanup'. Which is
proof for the fact that it's more intuitive to list such a track as if
the new proposal was the rule.)
Jan (zout)
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:07:30 +0100, Dylan Steinberg wrote:
>> I'm still not clear on how the data isn't usable. What makes the data
>> unusable if it's stored under Slayer & Ice-T - song instead of Slayer -
>> song (feat. Ice-T)? It no longer shows under Slayer's page but it does
>> now show on artist searches on Slayer or Ice-T, whereas previously it
>> didn't show on Ice-T's page and didn't show up on an artist search on
>> Ice-T either. The data is still completely accesible under Slayer &
>> Ice-T and can be used in the tagger just fine...
>>
> OK...I realize that, in fact, I have misread the proposal. Sorry about
> that. I have some concerns about determining when neither artist is the
> primary artist, but I can see some utility in moving in this direction.
> Please change my vote to +.7 (still Style Council).
Can you explain in what way you have misread it? Because I think I read it
exactly the same way as you did in your previous post (voting no). See my
other mail and the counter-Proposal(B).
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
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:08:53 +0100, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> If you really don't like to make one primary, file the track under the
> "Various Artists" artist, and add "performed on" relationships" to all
> artitsts.
>
> On database modifications, we don't need to allow multiple artists per
> track as they are ALREADY ALLOWED! That's what AR is. If anything we
> should abolish the legacy track - single artist links. We do need
> improvements to the interfaces, but not to the database.
Yes, very good point. Basically that pushes for what I sad before: The
MusicBrainz summit is close. SG5 is the top point on the agenda (at least
that is my impression). The problem we have is not a data storage problem
but an interface problem. Let us fix the interface problem. Then SG5 will
just _vanish_.
This is the reason why SG5 has not been changed after the past discussins,
and why I think it should not be changed now: It _is_not_ an issue of data
storage. It is a symptom af a massive lack of interfaces for AR.
My counter-Proposal(B) Is as bad as Rod's regarding Robert's criticism: It
creates new redundant artists, just because there is no interface that
displays the artists which are attached to tracks by AR.
Do you realize that if we had that feature, your proposal (and mine too)
would be stupid? And I believe we _will_ have this feature. And I hope
this will not take too long, and when we have it, all these collaborations
will have to be removed from the database again, and be replaced by
performance ARs.
Do you realize that _this_ is the problem, _this_ is what we should
discuss, not SG5?
The question is: How can we, and should we _use_ AR? What interfaces to AR
do we need (what searces, queries, displays, tagging scripts, etc)?
Of course, this question is so huge, that it will take about a year to
find and implement the solutions. But in this process SG5 will be removed,
and removed for good.
I think it is stupid to make a small patchy change to SG5 now that we will
regret later. Although I proposed one myself, just out of frustration.
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
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:37:57 +0100, Rod Begbie wrote:
> But you see how hard this is to describe. You're using words like
> "one-off", "entity" and "name", none of which appear in the current
> SG5 rule, leaving this all up to individual moderator decisions.
> Surely better to make this all unambigious and consistent?
The most unambigous method would be: File all as AdvancedRelationships and
let MusicBrainz do the rest. The problem is that MusicBrainz is not able
to do the rest, which would be: Display the artists, make them searchable
etc.
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
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:07:22 +0100, Jan van Thiel wrote:
> ++1 for the new proposal.
>
> A question for people opposing the new proposal:
>
> What if a group of artists do a one time collaboration under a single
> name that does not include their respective names (e.g. Band Aid)? The
> only reason this isn't listed under ArtistA - TrackName (feat.
> ArtistB, ArtistC,...) is because of the new name. But then why should
> a collaboration between ArtistA and ArtistB released as e.g. "ArtistA
> & ArtistB" or "ArtistA and ArtistB" be split up? If Joe Cocker and
> Jennifer Warnes would've released Up Where We Belong under the name JJ
> (as an example), this would be a separate entry. (Actually, "Joe
> Cocker & Jennifer Warnes" is in the database at the moment, since some
> releases have been added with this artist after my 'cleanup'. Which is
> proof for the fact that it's more intuitive to list such a track as if
> the new proposal was the rule.)
What is the problem here? To me this calls for this guideline:
If the artists performed under a _name_ (e.g. Band Aid), file them under
that name, regardless of how many or few tracks they released.
If they just released it under both their names (concatenated with any of
the following expressions) relate them wihth AR.
* and, &
* featuring, feat.
* versus, vs
* ...
Do you realize that we could just add a bunch of
AdvancedRelationshipAttributes to descibe these:
primary, featuring, versus, etc.
And the (yet to be coded) display script could sort the artists like so:
First all primary artists concatenated by " and ", then all featruring
artists, concatenated by ", feat. ", then all versus artists concatenated
by " versus ", etc.
If the result is not what you want it to be, then abviously the order is
important, and we have a _name_, so go ahead and create a new artist with
the name exactly as you want it to be.
_That_ is a proposal which is well adapted to AR, but it will take some
time to implement it.
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
|
|
Re: [mb-style] Lets put GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle to the vote.
Jan van Thiel wrote:
> ++1 for the new proposal.
I like the new proposal too.
> A question for people opposing the new proposal:
Which isn't me, but I have an answer anyway...
> What if a group of artists do a one time collaboration under a single
> name that does not include their respective names (e.g. Band Aid)? The
> only reason this isn't listed under ArtistA - TrackName (feat.
> ArtistB, ArtistC,...) is because of the new name. But then why should
> a collaboration between ArtistA and ArtistB released as e.g. "ArtistA
> & ArtistB" or "ArtistA and ArtistB" be split up? If Joe Cocker and
> Jennifer Warnes would've released Up Where We Belong under the name JJ
> (as an example), this would be a separate entry. (Actually, "Joe
> Cocker & Jennifer Warnes" is in the database at the moment, since some
> releases have been added with this artist after my 'cleanup'. Which is
> proof for the fact that it's more intuitive to list such a track as if
> the new proposal was the rule.)
Users are far more likely to understand that Band Aid releases appear
under Band Aid and not under the individual artists, then they are to
understand why "Up Where We Belong" doesn't appear under Joe Cocker.
The presence or absence of a separate collaboration name doesn't affect
the logical nature of the grouping, that's true, but it does affect how
users expect it to be presented.
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
|
signature.asc (261 bytes) 