For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense

[Rod Begbie]

OK gang, I'm pissed off.

For about the third time in a week, I've come across Mo automodding
away "collaborative" artists on compilations and in doing so losing
valuable data, and polluting database values.

http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=857331
http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605

I'm sick of it.  I want the damned style guide changed, and now.

For the uninitiated, here are my two previous threads on the subject:

April '05: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-April/020491.html
May '05: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-May/000107.html

Once again, my arguments:

1)  ID3 tags and MP3 players (both hardware and software) have a field
for "Title" and a field for "Artist".  In 99% of cases, we should be
populating these with the Title and Artist shown on the CD case.

2)  The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place because
there was no way to link artists to collaborations.  Now there is.
It's AR.  It works.

3)  In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a different DB
schema that can assign more than one artist to a track.  But we're not
in the future, we're in the present.  And presently, the best way to
store this data, SO THAT IT CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use
AR to specify collaborations.

4)  Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random, stuffing
the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR THIS TO
HAPPEN in "The Future".

Please, for my sanity's sake, so that I don't want to punch the
otherwise hugely helpful mo in the groin, can we change the
styleguide?

Thanks,

Rod.


--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::

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

[Brian G]

I've run into similar problems and it's pretty annoying and frustrating.
the wiki has the best definition of collaboration and sadly the style
guide is kind of backwards and spotty in comparison.

why isn't there an AR for tracks to artists called "featuring"?

Rod Begbie wrote:

>OK gang, I'm pissed off.
>
>For about the third time in a week, I've come across Mo automodding
>away "collaborative" artists on compilations and in doing so losing
>valuable data, and polluting database values.
>
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=857331
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
>
>I'm sick of it.  I want the damned style guide changed, and now.
>
>For the uninitiated, here are my two previous threads on the subject:
>
>April '05: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-April/020491.html
>May '05: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-May/000107.html
>
>Once again, my arguments:
>
>1)  ID3 tags and MP3 players (both hardware and software) have a field
>for "Title" and a field for "Artist".  In 99% of cases, we should be
>populating these with the Title and Artist shown on the CD case.
>
>2)  The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place because
>there was no way to link artists to collaborations.  Now there is.
>It's AR.  It works.
>
>3)  In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a different DB
>schema that can assign more than one artist to a track.  But we're not
>in the future, we're in the present.  And presently, the best way to
>store this data, SO THAT IT CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use
>AR to specify collaborations.
>
>4)  Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random, stuffing
>the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR THIS TO
>HAPPEN in "The Future".
>
>Please, for my sanity's sake, so that I don't want to punch the
>otherwise hugely helpful mo in the groin, can we change the
>styleguide?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rod.
>
>
>--
>:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
>
>_______________________________________________
>MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>MusicBrainz-users@...
>http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>
>  
>

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

[Trevor Stinson]

I'm in complete agreement.

I've experienced these same problems, and I agree with your logic and
conclusion.

--
Trevor Stinson (Aidje)



Rod Begbie wrote:

>OK gang, I'm pissed off.
>
>For about the third time in a week, I've come across Mo automodding
>away "collaborative" artists on compilations and in doing so losing
>valuable data, and polluting database values.
>
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=857331
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
>
>I'm sick of it.  I want the damned style guide changed, and now.
>
>For the uninitiated, here are my two previous threads on the subject:
>
>April '05: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-April/020491.html
>May '05: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-May/000107.html
>
>Once again, my arguments:
>
>1)  ID3 tags and MP3 players (both hardware and software) have a field
>for "Title" and a field for "Artist".  In 99% of cases, we should be
>populating these with the Title and Artist shown on the CD case.
>
>2)  The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place because
>there was no way to link artists to collaborations.  Now there is.
>It's AR.  It works.
>
>3)  In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a different DB
>schema that can assign more than one artist to a track.  But we're not
>in the future, we're in the present.  And presently, the best way to
>store this data, SO THAT IT CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use
>AR to specify collaborations.
>
>4)  Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random, stuffing
>the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR THIS TO
>HAPPEN in "The Future".
>
>Please, for my sanity's sake, so that I don't want to punch the
>otherwise hugely helpful mo in the groin, can we change the
>styleguide?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Rod.
>
>
>--
>:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
>
>_______________________________________________
>MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>MusicBrainz-users@...
>http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>
>
>  
>

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

[Rod Begbie]

On 10/18/05, Brian Gurtler <brian@...> wrote:
> why isn't there an AR for tracks to artists called "featuring"?

Because there's more detail available.  You specify things like from
artist to track like "Performed Guest Lead Vocal" or "Performed
Electric Slide Trombone" instead.

Rod.

--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::

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

[Brian G]

oh yeah, dur.
i had just woke up..

Rod Begbie wrote:

>On 10/18/05, Brian Gurtler <brian@...> wrote:
>  
>
>>why isn't there an AR for tracks to artists called "featuring"?
>>    
>>
>
>Because there's more detail available.  You specify things like from
>artist to track like "Performed Guest Lead Vocal" or "Performed
>Electric Slide Trombone" instead.
>
>Rod.
>
>--
>:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::
>
>  
>

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

[Cristov Russell]

I guess I get first crack at this.

> OK gang, I'm pissed off.
>
> For about the third time in a week, I've come across Mo
> automodding away "collaborative" artists on compilations and
> in doing so losing valuable data, and polluting database values.
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=857331
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=966605

1st: I can find nothing wrong with mo's mods, he followed the SG exactly and
corrected your incorrect use of the Artist field data.
2nd: I see no data loss whatsoever.

> I'm sick of it.  I want the damned style guide changed, and now.
>
> For the uninitiated, here are my two previous threads on the subject:
>
> April '05:
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-
> April/020491.html
> May '05:
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-
> May/000107.html

3rd: Railing away and making demands probably won't get the support of
myself or other members of the SC. This is a long standing problem that no
one really likes but for which there is no simply solution. This has already
been reiterated in each thread you mentioned by several members of the SC.
 
> Once again, my arguments:
>
> 1)  ID3 tags and MP3 players (both hardware and software)
> have a field for "Title" and a field for "Artist".  In 99% of
> cases, we should be populating these with the Title and
> Artist shown on the CD case.

Normally this is probably true but I won't agree with 99% since there are a
lot of multi-artist compilations.

> 2)  The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place
> because there was no way to link artists to collaborations.  
> Now there is.
> It's AR.  It works.

Wrong. AR does NOT work ANY tagger...yet. Until it can, the hack is
necessary.

> 3)  In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a
> different DB schema that can assign more than one artist to a
> track.  But we're not in the future, we're in the present.  
> And presently, the best way to store this data, SO THAT IT
> CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use AR to specify collaborations.

The initial release of AR was never intended to replace the SG, only to add
more functionality.

> 4)  Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random,
> stuffing the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT
> HARDER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN in "The Future".

It's what makes sense with the current schema.

> Please, for my sanity's sake, so that I don't want to punch
> the otherwise hugely helpful mo in the groin, can we change
> the styleguide?

Not yet.

> Thanks,
>
> Rod.

________________________________
Cristov (wolfsong)

Nasty little hobbits! We didn't mean them no harm! But they jumps on us like
cats on poor mices they did, my precious... - Gollum


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

[Rod Begbie]

On 10/18/05, Cristov Russell <wolfsong@...> wrote:
> 1st: I can find nothing wrong with mo's mods, he followed the SG exactly and
> corrected your incorrect use of the Artist field data.

I agree that he followed the SG.  However, I consider the SG broken,
and I want it changed, so that this doesn't keep happening.

> 2nd: I see no data loss whatsoever.

Explain to me how, at a SQL level, I can identify Ice-T as a performer
on this track:
http://musicbrainz.org/track/481a78d2-0524-45c9-b094-29d1ed750ff7.html

Before mo mangled it, it was possible to use the collaboration ARs on
the "Slayer & Ice-T" artist to make the join.  Now, it isn't.  This
moderation *reduced* the usefulness of MB data.

> 3rd: Railing away and making demands probably won't get the support of
> myself or other members of the SC. This is a long standing problem that no
> one really likes but for which there is no simply solution. This has already
> been reiterated in each thread you mentioned by several members of the SC.

In May, I was told to "give it time".  It's been four and a half
months, and I see no improvement.

Squeaky wheel, etc.

I find "we'll get to it after AR can deal with it".... "we'll get to
it when Picard can deal with it"...  "We'll get to it when our alien
overlords can deal with it"... an unsatisfactory answer.

>> 2)  The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place
>> because there was no way to link artists to collaborations.
>> Now there is.
>> It's AR.  It works.
> Wrong. AR does NOT work ANY tagger...yet.

Read my statement again.  I say nothing about tagging.  I'm talking
about data storage.

MB is oh so much more than just a way to tag MP3s.

> Until it can, the hack is
> necessary.

Why?  Why is it necessary?  Are there any users who are saying "Please
put artist information in the title field of my MP3s"?

Re-reading the "no mean (feat.)" thread, the concensus from Style
Guide members seemed to be that putting it in Title was wrong, and
that "the" tagger should be putting them in the artist field in the
future.

Personally, I'd like my MP3 tags to resemble the information from the
back of the CD sleeve.

Either way, the database isn't going to be able to do that without a
lot of editing in the future, and the current state of the SG will
just keep compounding this.  The more crap we pour in now, the more
we'll need to sift in "The Future" to find the nuggets of corn.

> > 3)  In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a
> > different DB schema that can assign more than one artist to a
> > track.  But we're not in the future, we're in the present.
> > And presently, the best way to store this data, SO THAT IT
> > CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use AR to specify collaborations.
>
> The initial release of AR was never intended to replace the SG, only to add
> more functionality.

You're missing my point.  I know that AR isn't a replacement for a SG.
 You need both.  But the SG needs to change to take into account the
existence of AR.

To quote myself from five months ago:
---
So since there is a clear plan, namely that In The Future, "the"
tagger (and, let's not forget, any other app powered by the MB data)
will allow the user to customize how the data will be used to populate
"artist" and "title" fields, why don't we start cleaning the data
*now* by changing the styleguide?
---

No-one answered that question satisfactorily.  Jamie Munro made some
excellent points about future directions the database could go, but
nothing that precluded this SG change as an intermediary event.

> > 4)  Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random,
> > stuffing the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT
> > HARDER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN in "The Future".
>
> It's what makes sense with the current schema.

I disagree.  It's what made sense with the schema a year ago.  It's
inappropriate for the current schema.

> > Please, for my sanity's sake, can we change
> > the styleguide?
>
> Not yet.

Do you now speak on behalf of the entire Style Council?  Is there a
musicbrainz-cabal list where you've discussed this proposal in detail
before giving your official ruling?

Or could we perhaps get a vote from the Style Council members?

[ ] Leave as is until Picard is finished (in about 12-18 months)
[ ] Change SG5 now
[ ] Other

Rod.

--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::

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

[Cristov Russell]

> On 10/18/05, Cristov Russell <wolfsong@...> wrote:
> > 1st: I can find nothing wrong with mo's mods, he followed the SG
> > exactly and corrected your incorrect use of the Artist field data.
>
> I agree that he followed the SG.  However, I consider the SG
> broken, and I want it changed, so that this doesn't keep happening.
>
> > 2nd: I see no data loss whatsoever.
>
> Explain to me how, at a SQL level, I can identify Ice-T as a
> performer on this track:
> http://musicbrainz.org/track/481a78d2-0524-45c9-b094-29d1ed750ff7.html
>
> Before mo mangled it, it was possible to use the
> collaboration ARs on the "Slayer & Ice-T" artist to make the
> join.  Now, it isn't.  This moderation *reduced* the
> usefulness of MB data.

I don't think that's exactly true. There is a already a script that runs
that creates AR links based parsed from titles containing feat. Further it's
bad data design to consolidate unique data (each artist) that exists
separately elsewhere in the database to create what is essentially not
unique data.

> > 3rd: Railing away and making demands probably won't get the
> support of
> > myself or other members of the SC. This is a long standing problem
> > that no one really likes but for which there is no simply solution.
> > This has already been reiterated in each thread you
> mentioned by several members of the SC.
>
> In May, I was told to "give it time".  It's been four and a
> half months, and I see no improvement.
>
> Squeaky wheel, etc.
>
> I find "we'll get to it after AR can deal with it".... "we'll
> get to it when Picard can deal with it"...  "We'll get to it
> when our alien overlords can deal with it"... an
> unsatisfactory answer.

Squeaking is fine but be productive about. Email by the was is a fairly
inefficient means of "squeaking", it can be ignored and deleted.
Contributing via development of ideas or financially however is far more
productive.
 

> >> 2)  The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place because
> >> there was no way to link artists to collaborations.
> >> Now there is.
> >> It's AR.  It works.
> > Wrong. AR does NOT work ANY tagger...yet.
>
> Read my statement again.  I say nothing about tagging.  I'm
> talking about data storage.
>
> MB is oh so much more than just a way to tag MP3s.

You've missed MB's primary purpose. Read the About page.
http://musicbrainz.org/wd/AboutMusicBrainz. What else do you believe this
data is currently or in the foreseeable future going to be used for?

> > Until it can, the hack is
> > necessary.
>
> Why?  Why is it necessary?  Are there any users who are
> saying "Please put artist information in the title field of my MP3s"?
>
> Re-reading the "no mean (feat.)" thread, the concensus from
> Style Guide members seemed to be that putting it in Title was
> wrong, and that "the" tagger should be putting them in the
> artist field in the future.

Moving all the information to AR when the tagger can't access AR info is bad
for tagging. When the tagger can support it, changing this rule will make
more sense.

> Personally, I'd like my MP3 tags to resemble the information
> from the back of the CD sleeve.

So using MB for tags IS important to you as well. You always have the option
to change the tags to whatever you want but MB isn't about you personally.
One of the long term questions MB faces is "how can members of the MB
community utilize the data to fit there own preferences?". Again, one of the
things that has been envisioned is an updated tagger that allows the user to
decide how their tags should look. Some people will want different things.
Wouldn't it be better if EVERYONE gets what they want?

What you're describing is not so much a problem with the SG but a problem
with the way the data can be used.

> Either way, the database isn't going to be able to do that
> without a lot of editing in the future, and the current state
> of the SG will just keep compounding this.  The more crap we
> pour in now, the more we'll need to sift in "The Future" to
> find the nuggets of corn.

This same argument came up last year when there was a huge push for getting
AR out the door. The developers looked at it, reprioritized it, and worked
really hard to get it out the door ASAP. When it arrived, everyone was
thrilled that we had this long long long awaited feature but as days went
by, people noticed a flaw in the design. AR isn't that easy to use. The
interface can be a bit cumbersome when it comes to entering large amounts of
metadata. Almost as soon as AR was out, everyone was complaining again. I'm
willing to bet that hardly any AR data is being created at the track level
at all and that's the only way place that your SQL could return the kind of
results you're looking for. Are you saying that you're willing to commit to
entering AR links to every track for the mods you enter? Chew on that a
while before you answer.

> > > 3)  In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a
> different DB
> > > schema that can assign more than one artist to a track.  
> But we're
> > > not in the future, we're in the present.
> > > And presently, the best way to store this data, SO THAT IT CAN BE
> > > ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use AR to specify collaborations.
> >
> > The initial release of AR was never intended to replace the
> SG, only
> > to add more functionality.
>
> You're missing my point.  I know that AR isn't a replacement for a SG.
>  You need both.  But the SG needs to change to take into
> account the existence of AR.
>
> To quote myself from five months ago:
> ---
> So since there is a clear plan, namely that In The Future, "the"
> tagger (and, let's not forget, any other app powered by the
> MB data) will allow the user to customize how the data will
> be used to populate "artist" and "title" fields, why don't we
> start cleaning the data
> *now* by changing the styleguide?
> ---
>
> No-one answered that question satisfactorily.  Jamie Munro
> made some excellent points about future directions the
> database could go, but nothing that precluded this SG change
> as an intermediary event.

That was not first time the issues with SG5 have been raised. Believe me,
there was a time not long ago (a year and 3 days to be exact
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2004-October/018505
.html) when I rallied behind Tarragon to kill it but my opinions on this
change over time and not long after AR's launch had an entirely different
perspective on why we can't rush to change it.

> > > 4)  Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at
> random, stuffing
> > > the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT HARDER
> FOR THIS TO
> > > HAPPEN in "The Future".
> >
> > It's what makes sense with the current schema.
>
> I disagree.  It's what made sense with the schema a year ago.
>  It's inappropriate for the current schema.

The current SG is more than a year old so it has made sense for some time
now. There has not been a significant event to justify changing SG5 in
particular...yet.

> > > Please, for my sanity's sake, can we change the styleguide?
> >
> > Not yet.
>
> Do you now speak on behalf of the entire Style Council?  Is
> there a musicbrainz-cabal list where you've discussed this
> proposal in detail before giving your official ruling?
>
> Or could we perhaps get a vote from the Style Council members?
>
> [ ] Leave as is until Picard is finished (in about 12-18
> months) [ ] Change SG5 now [ ] Other
>
> Rod.

No that was solely my own point of view. However, it's been proposed that
you'll need the consensus of at least 3 council members and I believe the
primary minister of the area it touches. Depending on how you look it at,
that may mean myself or Gecks and personally I'm not convinced the time is
now. That in no way means it still can't happen but I also think Robert Kaye
is in agreement with me on this and while not a member of the SC, as primary
coder and founder, his opinion is influential.

________________________________
Cristov (wolfsong)

Feel the power of team work; If you know that a drop of water easily gets
dried And a pool of water hardly gets dried. - Brian Hu


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

[david scotson]

On 10/18/05, Rod Begbie <rodbegbie@...> wrote:
> OK gang, I'm pissed off.

I agree 100% with everything in that post,

The only thing I have to add is that SG5 has *always* been partly
broken and the fact that we are still following it when any glimmer of
usefulness has been removed is a bit sad.

cheers,

dave (bawjaws)

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

[Gecks]

Cheers,
Chris B
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Begbie" <rodbegbie@...>
To: "MusicBrainz style discussion" <musicbrainz-style@...>
Cc: "General discussions about MusicBrainz"
<musicbrainz-users@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:26 AM
Subject: [mb-users] Re: [mb-style] For the love of god,let's sort out this
(feat) nonsense


> Re-reading the "no mean (feat.)" thread, the concensus from Style
> Guide members seemed to be that putting it in Title was wrong, and
> that "the" tagger should be putting them in the artist field in the
> future.

i can't remember what i said at the time, but it strikes me that most media
library type mp3 applications (itunes, etc) wouldn't work so hot with that.
they sort primarily on artist, then album, track no., etc. if you had it as
"Artist (feat. Somedude)" then any affected tracks would appear outside of
all the others from that artist.

i do agree that "artist (feat. x) - songname"is the most logical way, and
that it is how our data should appear on the DB, *BUT* i think the tagger
should deal with such cases differently. perhaps even having as a user
preference setting to suit whatever kind of mediaplayer they are using.

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

[Robert Kaye]

On Oct 18, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Rod Begbie wrote:
> In May, I was told to "give it time".  It's been four and a half
> months, and I see no improvement.
>
> Squeaky wheel, etc.
>
> I find "we'll get to it after AR can deal with it".... "we'll get to
> it when Picard can deal with it"...  "We'll get to it when our alien
> overlords can deal with it"... an unsatisfactory answer.

Well, I don't think I can give you a satisfactory answer.

It takes time to develop software, and there are only a handful of  
people working on the server. With dozens of people screaming for new  
features, we work on the things that get the most screams. I've been  
hearing about this issue for months now, yet there are some issues  
I've been hearing about for years. Which one should I work on first?  
Your pet hate that is 6 months old or someone elses pet hate that is  
3 years old?

Your screams make it move higher to the top of the list, but that  
still only lets me work 50-60 hours a week on MusicBrainz. This is an  
open source software project, and that means that if you really care  
about a feature that YOU start hacking on it. Complaining about  
things not getting done without actually doing things yourself is not  
very useful, I'm afraid.

As for what is on the radar at MusicBrainz? Take a look at the  
emerging agenda for Summit 7:

   http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainzSummit7

There are a lot of tricky things in that list. A lot of things that  
people have been screaming for. I have high hopes that with Lukas and  
Stefan doing more hacking on the server that we can pick up the pace  
and start nailing a few of these issues sooner than later.

--

--ruaok      Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot.

Robert Kaye     --     rob@...     --    http://mayhem-chaos.net


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

[Rod Begbie]

On 10/19/05, Robert Kaye <rob@...> wrote:
> It takes time to develop software, and there are only a handful of
> people working on the server.

Robert, I realise this thoroughly, and I apologise if you thought my
rants were in any way directed at you or the other coders.  The change
I want is purely at a StyleGuide level.

I'm taking a week's vacation from work in November, and hope to get my
rusty Perl skills up to speed so that I can have a bash at scratching
a few MB server itches.  (A better way to add multiple members to the
same band is my current thought)

Rod.

--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::

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

[DonRedman]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:36:50 +0200, Rod Begbie wrote:

> On 10/19/05, Robert Kaye <rob@...> wrote:
>> It takes time to develop software, and there are only a handful of
>> people working on the server.
>
> Robert, I realise this thoroughly, and I apologise if you thought my
> rants were in any way directed at you or the other coders.  The change
> I want is purely at a StyleGuide level.

The whole point of this debate, as I understand it, is that this problem  
is _not_ just on a StyleGuide level.

I have high hopes that we get a better understanding of what AR does at  
the summit. And in respect to that: Thank you for your rant. It came right  
on schedule, because it pointed at a problem that should perhaps be  
tackled first, before we start thinking about even new features (like  
reviews, folksonomy etc).

   DonRedman



--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation  
around! :-)
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[david scotson]

On 10/19/05, Chris B <chris@...> wrote:
>
> i can't remember what i said at the time, but it strikes me that most media
> library type mp3 applications (itunes, etc) wouldn't work so hot with that.
> they sort primarily on artist, then album, track no., etc. if you had it as
> "Artist (feat. Somedude)" then any affected tracks would appear outside of
> all the others from that artist.

It slightly worries me that as a group we fail so miserably to
communicate on this issue. Every time it comes up we seem unsure of
what the actual problem is and what the different arguments for and
agaist it are. Is there a definitive write up somewhere of the alleged
problem(s) and proposed solution(s)?

On this particular point, as shown by the examples pointed to in the
first post, It is not a case of "Important Artist (feat. Someone
no-one cares about)" for three reasons, a) because the tracks we're
discussion are true collaborations amongst equals with no sensible way
to decide top billing for a single artist, b) because they aren't
single collaboration tracks on an album that is primarily by one
artist, and c) because in MusicBrainz (as with genres) you often can't
make subjective judgements because a  Queen fan thinks Under Pressure
(feat. David Bowie) makes sense while Bowie fans want the opposite.

So in iTunes etc. you cannot win by moving one artist to the song
title and in fact in the particular case of iTunes (though I'm sure
the same applies in other apps) you break functionality. iTunes is
built around search and if you choose to search for all artists with
Queen in the title iTunes, unsurprisingly, doesn't look in the song
title, album title or anywhere else but the artist field.

(Incidently iTunes can also handle what it calls Compilations, but
what MusicBrainz more sensibly calls Various Artist albums, and could
cope with a couple of Freddy Mercury tracks on a Queen greatest hits
just as well as a collection of 40 recent chart hits by Britney, Usher
etc.)

> i do agree that "artist (feat. x) - songname"is the most logical way, and
> that it is how our data should appear on the DB, *BUT* i think the tagger
> should deal with such cases differently. perhaps even having as a user
> preference setting to suit whatever kind of mediaplayer they are using.

If my album says "Teenage Fanclub & De La Soul" on it, why can't
Musicbrainz use that? Why do we need to throw that information in the
bin? Practically the whole purpose of standardising on feat. in the
first place has been usurped (and improved on immensely) by Advanced
Relationships.

I also think the tagger issue is a distraction. What's the point of
implementing something in the tagger if the data doesn't conform? It's
a chicken and egg situation, but as I said a red herring, because
changing this rule now can give benefit now, regardless of the
tagger's support for it. Though importantly, the tagger could be
better if this rule was changed.

As I said in my previous post it has *always* been broken, and could
and should have been fixed at any point. The only reason it wasn't
fixed (in my opinion) is because it was widely ignored when it was
stupid and I thought after the last time this was brought up that
everyone pretty much agreed to continue ignoring it where doing so
made sense. The problems only arise when people start taking the
letter of the law too seriously and following parts of the guide that
most people are sensibly ignoring.

cheers,

dave (bawjaws)

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

[DonRedman]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:41:19 +0200, david scotson wrote:

> On 10/19/05, Chris B <chris@...> wrote:
>>
>> i can't remember what i said at the time, but it strikes me that most  
>> media
>> library type mp3 applications (itunes, etc) wouldn't work so hot with  
>> that.
>> they sort primarily on artist, then album, track no., etc. if you had  
>> it as
>> "Artist (feat. Somedude)" then any affected tracks would appear outside  
>> of
>> all the others from that artist.
>
> It slightly worries me that as a group we fail so miserably to
> communicate on this issue. Every time it comes up we seem unsure of
> what the actual problem is and what the different arguments for and
> agaist it are. Is there a definitive write up somewhere of the alleged
> problem(s) and proposed solution(s)?

No there is not, but this might help. What about a wiki page like  
GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle?

I think the problem is huge, but I know that others disagree. Maybe if  
would help to list all issues on one page.

   DonRedman



--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation  
around! :-)
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[Jan van Thiel-2]

On 10/20/05, Don Redman <donredman@...> wrote:
> No there is not, but this might help. What about a wiki page like
> GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle?

I've created one. Please add content here:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle

Jan (zout)

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

[Rod Begbie]

On 10/20/05, Jan van Thiel <zout@...> wrote:
> I've created one. Please add content here:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle

Thanks for starting it, Jan.  I've just filled it out more with my vision.

Gotta run to a meeting.  Back in a couple hours.

Rod.

--
:: Rod Begbie :: http://groovymother.com/ ::

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

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

Rod Begbie wrote:
> 4)  Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random, stuffing
> the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR THIS TO
> HAPPEN in "The Future".

That isn't the case. How do we know not to delete, for example Sonny and
Cher, which should be left as is, but to delete other colaborations. The
(feat. ) linking script seems to have worked quite well, and now that
the links are there, the data is already in place for n:n track:artist
links in the future.

Jamie


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

[david scotson]

On 11/6/05, Robert (Jamie) Munro <rjmunro@...> wrote:
> Rod Begbie wrote:
> > 4)  Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random, stuffing
> > the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR THIS TO
> > HAPPEN in "The Future".
>
> That isn't the case. How do we know not to delete, for example Sonny and
> Cher, which should be left as is, but to delete other colaborations.

a) because Sonny Bono and Cher are 'members of' Sonny & Cher and not
'collaborators on' Sonny & Cher

b) because 'deleting' "Elton John + 5" or other collaborations is a
bad idea anyway, as you lose information on how the collaboration
wants to be presented, and lose a node to hang information on. See the
recent discussion about supporting artists that play instruments on
'solo' artist's tracks.

(And note again the discrepancy between a collaboration such as Band
Aid or Saint Etienne Daho which under this system is kept *only*
because they chose a collective name, and even thene only because it
is one that, like "Elton John + 5" isn't too similar to just listing
the two artists. What if Sonny and Cher had called themeselves The
Singing Bonos? Why is such an arbritrary naming decision so important
in deciding whether things get deleted or not?)

Some of this is covered in the wiki, but if people don't put
objections and questions there it's only going to be half the picture:

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/GettingRidOfFeaturingArtistStyle

cheers,

bawjaws

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