Nabble - Musicbrainz - Users

Re: Wikipages in other languages for english artists

2009-11-23T12:48:49Z

Thanks to all.
I thought of screen scraping English Wikipedia at first...
Until I read Philip's post about Wikipedia's API. Fantastic. Thanks too all
for all help.

And yes, I now agree that English is more than enough for English artists.

(For the archives: Wikipedias API @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php )

Best Regards,
Matti Zemack

>
> Philip J?genstedt wrote:
>> There was a big disputed vote on this a while back, if someone can
>> find a link that would be nice.
>>
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115778
>
> Nikki

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

Re: Subscribe to artists in your collection

2009-11-23T04:39:07Z

2009/11/23 Chris B <chris@...>:

> Hi all,
>
> I realise there is a ticket for this -
> http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/4003 - but I thought I'd also post
> it to the list to try and gauge the interest in such a feature, as it
> seems to have been around for a year (and probably 3 years in
> different forms - http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/1539 ). I imagine
> it'll be in NGS but if we could have it sooner that would be a great
> help!
>
> For me, artist subscriptions are pretty much impossible to keep up
> with in their current form, so I gave up with them probably 4+ years
> ago (does anyone still use them?). I don't really see edits to my
> releases any more, unless I happen to be looking at edit histories. At
> discogs I just subscribe to changes to releases in my collection so I
> can ensure no bad changes go through, and good changes get voted
> through quickly. If we could have the same thing at MBz i believe it
> would have an immediate positive impact on data quality :)
>
> Thanks,
> Chris/Gecks
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>

Having used the Discogs feature as well, I agree this would be a very
useful addition.

But before that, I think MB collections would actually have to be
usable again: http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/5208
--
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8

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

Subscribe to artists in your collection

2009-11-23T04:31:12Z

Hi all,

I realise there is a ticket for this -
http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/4003 - but I thought I'd also post
it to the list to try and gauge the interest in such a feature, as it
seems to have been around for a year (and probably 3 years in
different forms - http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/1539 ). I imagine
it'll be in NGS but if we could have it sooner that would be a great
help!

For me, artist subscriptions are pretty much impossible to keep up
with in their current form, so I gave up with them probably 4+ years
ago (does anyone still use them?). I don't really see edits to my
releases any more, unless I happen to be looking at edit histories. At
discogs I just subscribe to changes to releases in my collection so I
can ensure no bad changes go through, and good changes get voted
through quickly. If we could have the same thing at MBz i believe it
would have an immediate positive impact on data quality :)

Thanks,
Chris/Gecks

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

New URL relationship types

2009-11-23T02:35:22Z

[mb-users] New URL relationship types

"Would anyone like to champion this idea and propose it to the
style list?"

I will do this.

Nigel

http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

Re: Wikipages in other languages for english artists

2009-11-21T02:04:20Z

Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> There was a big disputed vote on this a while back, if someone can
> find a link that would be nice.
>

http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115778

Nikki

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

Re: Wikipages in other languages for english artists

2009-11-21T01:46:28Z

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:37, Matti Zemack - List
<listmail@...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> I was looking at presenting to Swedish Radio, the national swedish public
> service radio, a usage of MusicBrainz.
> They could for example receive info about the artist now played. Such as the
> Myspace, Imdb, WIkipedia etc.
> And they would of course add back info to Musicbrainz.
>
>
> Wikipedia has some rather good texts about the artists.
>
> But, they are not in Swedish. So I added some Swedish Wikipedia pages to
> English artists. And this seemed to be wrong on my behalf. Sorry about my
> addings.
>
> So, my question is; is there a place on Musicbrainz for non English
> Wikipedia pages for English artists?
> My suggestion is that these are allowed, but maybe not presented on the
> Musicbrainz web interface. Probably easily done with the same function that
> lets us know which Wikipedia site the info comes from, eg. "en: ".
>
> My concern is also regarding what language an artist sings in. Most Swedish
> artists sing in English. Are they Swedish or English. Some have a huge fan
> base in Japan. Should they be classified as Japanese?
>
>
> (not trying to start a flame, just trying to open up MusicBrainz to non
> English speaking uses)
>
> Best Regards,
> Matti Zemack, Stockholm, Sweden
>

There was a big disputed vote on this a while back, if someone can
find a link that would be nice.

In any case I suggest that you simply use the existing links (usually
English and artist's native language) to automatically find other
languages via whatever APIs Wikipedia provides. Possibly this is
something that MusicBrainz should be doing, but it should then be
automatic. Maintaining many Wikipedia ARs manually is just a huge
waste of time.

--
Philip Jägenstedt

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

Re: Wikipages in other languages for english artists

2009-11-21T00:56:28Z

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:37:02AM +0100, Matti Zemack - List wrote:
>
> So, my question is; is there a place on Musicbrainz for non English
> Wikipedia pages for English artists?
> My suggestion is that these are allowed, but maybe not presented on the
> Musicbrainz web interface. Probably easily done with the same function that
> lets us know which Wikipedia site the info comes from, eg. "en: ".

There currently is no strict guideline on which wikipedia pages we should
or should not link too. You can definitely link to non-english wikipedia
pages for any artist.

Personally, I would consider how useful that link is, and base my choice
of wether to link to wikipedia for a particular artist on that.

So, if for some reason a french artist has a great wikipedia page on
the german wikipedia, by all means link to it. But if that wikipedia
page is just a stub with hardly any useful information, I wouldn't
include it.

Ofcourse, a wikipedia page can improve (or deteriorate :) over time,
so you may want to include a stub if you intend to improve the
wikipedia page yourself, or if in general it is very hard to find
information about a certain artist, and _any_ information would be
considered useful to people interested in that artist, etc...

-- kuno / warp.

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

Wikipages in other languages for english artists

2009-11-21T00:37:02Z

Hi all,

I was looking at presenting to Swedish Radio, the national swedish public
service radio, a usage of MusicBrainz.
They could for example receive info about the artist now played. Such as the
Myspace, Imdb, WIkipedia etc.
And they would of course add back info to Musicbrainz.

Wikipedia has some rather good texts about the artists.

But, they are not in Swedish. So I added some Swedish Wikipedia pages to
English artists. And this seemed to be wrong on my behalf. Sorry about my
addings.

So, my question is; is there a place on Musicbrainz for non English
Wikipedia pages for English artists?
My suggestion is that these are allowed, but maybe not presented on the
Musicbrainz web interface. Probably easily done with the same function that
lets us know which Wikipedia site the info comes from, eg. "en: ".

My concern is also regarding what language an artist sings in. Most Swedish
artists sing in English. Are they Swedish or English. Some have a huge fan
base in Japan. Should they be classified as Japanese?

(not trying to start a flame, just trying to open up MusicBrainz to non
English speaking uses)

Best Regards,
Matti Zemack, Stockholm, Sweden

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-20T08:24:20Z

Hi,

another type of URL to consider here are the CC license ARs.
I think it makes sense to keep these URLs with an end date instead of e.g. removing the AR and adding an annotation even if the music cannot be retrieved from archive.org. This way, at least the CC type info remains in the database in a structured way.
Expiration dates for the URLs may sometimes be hard to verify, though.

Christian (MD)

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-18T01:03:20Z

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 04:21:30AM +0100, Per Øyvind Øygard wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:28:59 +0100, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote:
>
> Why not? Official pages are semantically different to fan pages, they're
> unique within a timeline, whereas there can be any multitude of fan pages.
> The fact that an artist has changed domain name, maybe used geocities at
> some point, is to me possibly interesting. However, the fact that there
> has existed at one point a geocities fan page, without any other metadata,
> is just redundant.
>
> > The utility or historical interest is in the eye of the beholder, things
> > which may be pointless to you now may prove very interesting to someone
> > twenty years from now.
>
> I really don't see how it could possibly be interesting in the context of
> the artist. We're already filtering based on fan page usefulness, so it's
> not like it's anywhere close to a complete list.

> In either case, I see little point in dealing in hypotheticals.

agreed.

> One counterargument I can recognize is the fact that it can be a pain to
> run all 404s through archive.org before taking action. As such I don't
> have a problem with people labeling links with an end date, as long as I
> don't get complaints if I find they are in fact nonexistant and remove
> them.

> I don't particularly expect the problem to come up much either way.

agreed. :)

-- kuno / warp.

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-17T19:21:30Z

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:28:59 +0100, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote:

> n Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 07:57:20PM +0100, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 19:55, Per Øyvind Øygard <peroyo@...>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > But, if archive.org has no copy then I see little point in keeping
>> it, a
>> > random dead geocities address won't be of any use to anyone.
>> >
>> > I should also mention that I'm only talking about fan pages here,
>> keeping
>> > stale official homepage addresses could be interesting either way, if
>> only
>> > for historical purposes.
>>
>> I agree, just a URL with no way of getting at the data is completely
>> useless.
> I disagree, an URL is a possibly interesting fact. While I understand
> the
> desire te distinguish between different types of URLs, and assigning some
> notion of "historical importance" to some types and not others, it is
> not a direction we should be moving to.

Why not? Official pages are semantically different to fan pages, they're
unique within a timeline, whereas there can be any multitude of fan pages.
The fact that an artist has changed domain name, maybe used geocities at
some point, is to me possibly interesting. However, the fact that there
has existed at one point a geocities fan page, without any other metadata,
is just redundant.

> The utility or historical interest is in the eye of the beholder, things
> which may be pointless to you now may prove very interesting to someone
> twenty years from now.

I really don't see how it could possibly be interesting in the context of
the artist. We're already filtering based on fan page usefulness, so it's
not like it's anywhere close to a complete list. In either case, I see
little point in dealing in hypotheticals.

One counterargument I can recognize is the fact that it can be a pain to
run all 404s through archive.org before taking action. As such I don't
have a problem with people labeling links with an end date, as long as I
don't get complaints if I find they are in fact nonexistant and remove
them. I don't particularly expect the problem to come up much either way.

--
Per / Wizzcat

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-17T14:28:59Z

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 07:57:20PM +0100, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 19:55, Per Øyvind Øygard <peroyo@...> wrote:
> >
> > But, if archive.org has no copy then I see little point in keeping it, a
> > random dead geocities address won't be of any use to anyone.
> >
> > I should also mention that I'm only talking about fan pages here, keeping
> > stale official homepage addresses could be interesting either way, if only
> > for historical purposes.
>
> I agree, just a URL with no way of getting at the data is completely useless.

I disagree, an URL is a possibly interesting fact. While I understand the
desire te distinguish between different types of URLs, and assigning some
notion of "historical importance" to some types and not others, it is not a
direction we should be moving to.

The utility or historical interest is in the eye of the beholder, things
which may be pointless to you now may prove very interesting to someone
twenty years from now.

If we are to keep a historical record for certain URL ARs, I say just keep
a record for all of them.

-- kuno / warp.

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-17T10:57:20Z

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 19:55, Per Øyvind Øygard <peroyo@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:42:55 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt <philip@...>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 13:02, Per Øyvind Øygard <peroyo@...>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:14:21 +0100, Gioele <gioele@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that we should have a clear guideline on cases like that to
>>>> keep
>>>> the
>>>> AR and modify it to acknowledge that it used to be there but it is no
>>>> longer. We should just add an end date like we do for disbanded bands.
>>>
>>> While I agree for the purposes of finding information on archive.org,
>>> I'll
>>> say that I don't think it's particularly valuable to keep URL ARs in
>>> cases
>>> where a physical copy of the webpage doesn't exist. Most ARs are correct
>>> and valid by themself, while URL ARs are just a reference, and fairly
>>> worthless without the endpoint.
>>>
>> Are you saying that URL ARs are fairly worthless if the original site
>> can't be reached at the original URL any longer, or only if there's
>> also no know copy of it (at archive.org)?
>
> Only if there's no copy of it at archive.org. Removing links that can
> still be reached means potentially losing a source of information since
> editors might not otherwise stumble over the URL. I've drilled through
> archive.org plenty of times, and while it's a terrible experience, it can
> be quite rewarding for oldish artists.
>
> But, if archive.org has no copy then I see little point in keeping it, a
> random dead geocities address won't be of any use to anyone.
>
> I should also mention that I'm only talking about fan pages here, keeping
> stale official homepage addresses could be interesting either way, if only
> for historical purposes.

I agree, just a URL with no way of getting at the data is completely useless.

--
Philip Jägenstedt

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-17T10:55:01Z

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:42:55 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt <philip@...>
wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 13:02, Per Øyvind Øygard <peroyo@...>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:14:21 +0100, Gioele <gioele@...> wrote:
>>
>>> I think that we should have a clear guideline on cases like that to
>>> keep
>>> the
>>> AR and modify it to acknowledge that it used to be there but it is no
>>> longer. We should just add an end date like we do for disbanded bands.
>>
>> While I agree for the purposes of finding information on archive.org,
>> I'll
>> say that I don't think it's particularly valuable to keep URL ARs in
>> cases
>> where a physical copy of the webpage doesn't exist. Most ARs are correct
>> and valid by themself, while URL ARs are just a reference, and fairly
>> worthless without the endpoint.
>>
> Are you saying that URL ARs are fairly worthless if the original site
> can't be reached at the original URL any longer, or only if there's
> also no know copy of it (at archive.org)?

Only if there's no copy of it at archive.org. Removing links that can
still be reached means potentially losing a source of information since
editors might not otherwise stumble over the URL. I've drilled through
archive.org plenty of times, and while it's a terrible experience, it can
be quite rewarding for oldish artists.

But, if archive.org has no copy then I see little point in keeping it, a
random dead geocities address won't be of any use to anyone.

I should also mention that I'm only talking about fan pages here, keeping
stale official homepage addresses could be interesting either way, if only
for historical purposes.

--
Per / Wizzcat

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-17T06:42:55Z

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 13:02, Per Øyvind Øygard <peroyo@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:14:21 +0100, Gioele <gioele@...> wrote:
>
>> I think that we should have a clear guideline on cases like that to keep
>> the
>> AR and modify it to acknowledge that it used to be there but it is no
>> longer. We should just add an end date like we do for disbanded bands.
>
> While I agree for the purposes of finding information on archive.org, I'll
> say that I don't think it's particularly valuable to keep URL ARs in cases
> where a physical copy of the webpage doesn't exist. Most ARs are correct
> and valid by themself, while URL ARs are just a reference, and fairly
> worthless without the endpoint.
>

Are you saying that URL ARs are fairly worthless if the original site
can't be reached at the original URL any longer, or only if there's
also no know copy of it (at archive.org)?

Philip

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-17T04:02:24Z

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:14:21 +0100, Gioele <gioele@...> wrote:

> I think that we should have a clear guideline on cases like that to keep
> the
> AR and modify it to acknowledge that it used to be there but it is no
> longer. We should just add an end date like we do for disbanded bands.

While I agree for the purposes of finding information on archive.org, I'll
say that I don't think it's particularly valuable to keep URL ARs in cases
where a physical copy of the webpage doesn't exist. Most ARs are correct
and valid by themself, while URL ARs are just a reference, and fairly
worthless without the endpoint.

--
Per Øyvind

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-16T20:04:44Z

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Gioele <gioele@...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a recent vote has been held on an edit [1] to remove a HasFanPage AR to a no
> longer existing site.

[snip]

> Summing up, should we add end dates to such ARs or should we just remove the
> ARs?

I think the date should be added. Filtering these AR's out of the
default display makes sense. Deleting the data does not make sense to
me.

-Mark / InSinU8

> [1] http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11426504
> [2] http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/4697

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

Re: We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-16T13:38:11Z

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 22:14, Gioele <gioele@...> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> a recent vote has been held on an edit [1] to remove a HasFanPage AR to a no
> longer existing site.
>
> I think that we should have a clear guideline on cases like that to keep the
> AR and modify it to acknowledge that it used to be there but it is no
> longer. We should just add an end date like we do for disbanded bands.
>
> Murdos also pointed out that there is an open bug report about linking gone
> sites to archive.org. I think that, given the recent closure of geocities,
> such a feature is really needed. Please note that the original discussion
> that generated the bug report was about the *official homepage*, not about
> generic broken links.
>
> The MusicBrainz community is very fond of its interest in _facts_ is common
> policy not to allow edit on track titles or other data only to simplify the
> work of file taggers. In a similar fashion, I think we should not let the
> fact that the browsers cannot reach a site now, lead us to *remove* facts
> like the existence of certain pages, even when they are no longer available.
> In a few years that data will probably be historians' work material. :)
>
> Summing up, should we add end dates to such ARs or should we just remove the
> ARs?
>
> [1] http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11426504
> [2] http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/4697
>

Since I filed that bug obviously I agree that keeping the AR:s around
with an end date is best. However, they should then be hidden from
view by default to give room for more relevant information. That's
true of many AR:s though, right now we just get a truncated
alphabetical list of all the AR:s. That's another issue though.

--
Philip Jägenstedt

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

We do not edit for the tagger, why should we add ARs for browser?

2009-11-16T13:14:21Z

Hello,

a recent vote has been held on an edit [1] to remove a HasFanPage AR to a no
longer existing site.

I think that we should have a clear guideline on cases like that to keep the
AR and modify it to acknowledge that it used to be there but it is no
longer. We should just add an end date like we do for disbanded bands.

Murdos also pointed out that there is an open bug report about linking gone
sites to archive.org. I think that, given the recent closure of geocities,
such a feature is really needed. Please note that the original discussion
that generated the bug report was about the *official homepage*, not about
generic broken links.

The MusicBrainz community is very fond of its interest in _facts_ is common
policy not to allow edit on track titles or other data only to simplify the
work of file taggers. In a similar fashion, I think we should not let the
fact that the browsers cannot reach a site now, lead us to *remove* facts
like the existence of certain pages, even when they are no longer available.
In a few years that data will probably be historians' work material. :)

Summing up, should we add end dates to such ARs or should we just remove the
ARs?

[1] http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11426504
[2] http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/4697

--
Gioele <gioele@...>

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

Re: New URL relationship types

2009-11-05T13:09:07Z

On Nov 5, 2009, at 4:57 AM, Nigel Smith-Online wrote:

> Since more artists have official Facebook and Twitter accounts
> shouldn't these be made into defined URL types like MySpace and
> YouTube. At the moment Facebook and Twitter are just filed under
> 'online communities'

I would agree to this -- at the recent Future of Music Summit it
became clear that Facebook and Twitter are the prime promotion tools
that bands use to talk to their fans.

In IRC we discussed having a "X microblogs at Y" relationship to cover
these. Would anyone like to champion this idea and propose it to the
style list?

--

--ruaok The answer to whether or not something is a good idea
or not, should not be taken as an indication of whether I want to do it.

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

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

Re: New URL relationship types

2009-11-05T06:27:46Z

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Nigel Smith-Online
<nigel.smith.01@...> wrote:
> Since more artists have official Facebook and Twitter accounts shouldn't
> these be made into defined URL types like MySpace and YouTube. At the
> moment Facebook and Twitter are just filed under 'online communities'

I agree. I think those have become popular enough, particularly
Facebook that creating a named attribute for it would make sense.

I have been categorizing Twitter as "blog" though.

> It would certainly make sense on our BBC artist pages to categorise the
> links better, i.e.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/72c536dc-7137-4477-a521-567eeb840fa8/links
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Nigel (BBC_Nigel - http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?username=BBC_Nigel)
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
> on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

New URL relationship types

2009-11-05T04:57:33Z

New URL relationship types

Since more artists have official Facebook and Twitter accounts shouldn't these be made into defined URL types like MySpace and YouTube. At the moment Facebook and Twitter are just filed under 'online communities'

It would certainly make sense on our BBC artist pages to categorise the links better, i.e.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/72c536dc-7137-4477-a521-567eeb840fa8/links

Thanks a lot

Nigel (BBC_Nigel - http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?username=BBC_Nigel)

Re: last.fm download links

2009-11-04T14:26:04Z

Pavan Chander skrev:
> I believe the "What Not To Link To" guideline refers to creating Artist or
> Release relationships like "discography at", "biography at", "fan site
> at", and in last.fm's case, not using the site as proof in an edit note.

I did that too until I was told a download link to last.fm was
unacceptable. That's why I suggest the wording should be changed.

I also noticed that http://musicbrainz.org/doc/WhatNotToLinkTo says "The
data submitted by the label companies are simply some numbers and the
permission to play their tracks.". That is clearly inaccurate or do anyone
really think last.fm have every single piece of music available so that if
some obscure band from Ukraine gives them permission they just say "Ok,
we'll just have to get the CD from our storage and rip it and then it will
be playable at our site.".

> You may be correct that some of the data is submitted by the artist/record
> company, but I certainly don't know what kind of data they may have added,
> and from what I can tell there is no precise way to determine the source
> of the data, so whether or not some of the data comes from an "official"
> source is irrelevant if I can't determine if *this* data did or not.

If the album is at least playable then the tune must have been uploaded
either by the artist or the label so that info you can trust. Non-playable
albums can come from some site last.fm cooperates with (MusicBrainz,
Amazon and iTunes I think).

> The only issue that I can see arising is if free downloads are provided on
> last.fm when the copyright holder has not given permission that they be
> released, I'm not too knowledgeable on how songs can be added for
> download, so someone else may have to chime in on that point.

Strictly speaking it is their problem. I don't think they have a pattern
matching system to automaticly determine if a track is a copyright
violation.

--
http://www.interface1.net

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

Re: last.fm download links

2009-11-04T11:10:19Z

I believe the "What Not To Link To" guideline refers to creating Artist or Release relationships like "discography at", "biography at", "fan site at", and in last.fm's case, not using the site as proof in an edit note.

You may be correct that some of the data is submitted by the artist/record company, but I certainly don't know what kind of data they may have added, and from what I can tell there is no precise way to determine the source of the data, so whether or not some of the data comes from an "official" source is irrelevant if I can't determine if *this* data did or not.

Having said that, if you want to add a "Free Download Relationship" link to last.fm, go right ahead! I've done it a few times myself. In case you haven't seen it we have a guideline for the "Free Download Relationship": http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Free_Download_Relationship_Type. The quality of the (meta)data on last.fm, in my opinion, is very poor, but if a free download is provided then there aren't any "quality" problems (except for perhaps bitrate :) ).

The only issue that I can see arising is if free downloads are provided on last.fm when the copyright holder has not given permission that they be released, I'm not too knowledgeable on how songs can be added for download, so someone else may have to chime in on that point.

Pavan Chander // navap

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:17 AM, liftarn <liftarn@...> wrote:

A lot of indie artists and labels put their albums up for free download at
last.fm so I think http://musicbrainz.org/doc/WhatNotToLinkTo should be
clarified.

It also has some other inaccuracies.
"Last.fm uses MusicBrainz's data, so linking artists or releases to Last.fm
is recursive and unnecessary."
Partially true. It also seem to colelct data from Amazon and possibly iTunes
as well, but more importantly it also uses data submitted by the artist or
record company. If that is the case it's no less reliable than the official
site.

"Last.fm's data is based on the people submitting their tags and
MusicBrainz's own data"
Partially true as mentioned above.

--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/last.fm-download-links-tp26195082p26195082.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.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

First release of Viva Las Vegas

2009-11-04T05:24:27Z

Hey,

I'm trying to create CoverRelationshipType AR for a cover of Viva Las
Vegas by Elvis Presley. However, I have no idea which track the first
release is. Wikipedia [1] says it was originally released as a
double-sided single, but I can't find that one in the MB database. So my
question: does anybody know which one I should link to in the AR?

Cheers,
Jeroen / MightyJay

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_Las_Vegas_%28song%29

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

last.fm download links

2009-11-04T04:08:24Z

A lot of indie artists and labels put their albums up for free download at last.fm so I think http://musicbrainz.org/doc/WhatNotToLinkTo should be clarified.

It also has some other inaccuracies.
"Last.fm uses MusicBrainz's data, so linking artists or releases to Last.fm is recursive and unnecessary."
Partially true. It also seem to colelct data from Amazon and possibly iTunes as well, but more importantly it also uses data submitted by the artist or record company. If that is the case it's no less reliable than the official site.

"Last.fm's data is based on the people submitting their tags and MusicBrainz's own data"
Partially true as mentioned above.

Picard 0.12.1 hotfix release

2009-11-01T11:12:14Z

Hi,

Picard 0.12.1 is an important hotfix release. Due to a bug Picard 0.12
deletes all ID3 comment tags (COMM frames) when saving files. In
addition this release restores the native file dialog when adding
folders on Windows.

Sorry for the trouble.

Download
========

Picard 0.12.1 is available for download for Windows and Linux:
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/PicardDownload

Changes
=======

* Fixed deletion of all COMM frames in ID3, which was introduced
with the iTunNORM fix in Picard 0.12.0.
* Restored native add folder dialog.

--
Philipp Wolfer

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

Re: Video track

2009-10-30T08:01:47Z

I usually enter an annotation in these cases, it helps people identify
their CDs.

-- Bogdan Butnaru

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Gregorio Pellegrino <greghy90@...> wrote:

> Yes is the last track and it is not visible in a CD player.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> 2009/10/30 Pavan Chander <pchander@...>
>>
>> Have you had a chance to see our data track guideline?
>> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Data_Track_Style
>>
>> In my experience video tracks generally occur last on a release, and as
>> the guideline says, "if the data track comes last on the CD and isn't
>> visible in an audio CD player, the track should not be entered into
>> MusicBrainz."
>> Hope that helps,
>>
>> Pavan Chander // navap
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Gregorio Pellegrino <greghy90@...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm adding a release in which there is a video track, how can I insert
>>> the video track? <Track title> + (video)?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Re: Video track

2009-10-30T05:16:31Z

Yes is the last track and it is not visible in a CD player.

Thanks,
Greg

2009/10/30 Pavan Chander <pchander@...>

Have you had a chance to see our data track guideline?
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Data_Track_Style

In my experience video tracks generally occur last on a release, and as the guideline says, "if the data track comes last on the CD and isn't visible in an audio CD player, the track should not be entered into MusicBrainz."

Hope that helps,

Pavan Chander // navap

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Gregorio Pellegrino <greghy90@...> wrote:

Hi,
I'm adding a release in which there is a video track, how can I insert the video track? <Track title> + (video)?

Thanks,
Greg

_______________________________________________
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

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

Re: Video track

2009-10-30T04:58:43Z

Have you had a chance to see our data track guideline?
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Data_Track_Style

In my experience video tracks generally occur last on a release, and as the guideline says, "if the data track comes last on the CD and isn't visible in an audio CD player, the track should not be entered into MusicBrainz."

Hope that helps,

Pavan Chander // navap

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Gregorio Pellegrino <greghy90@...> wrote:

Hi,
I'm adding a release in which there is a video track, how can I insert the video track? <Track title> + (video)?

Thanks,
Greg

_______________________________________________
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

Video track

2009-10-30T04:48:47Z

Hi,
I'm adding a release in which there is a video track, how can I insert the video track? <Track title> + (video)?

Thanks,
Greg

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

Re: release events of pirate editions

2009-10-28T04:15:52Z

Hi,

I would treat those bootlegs as follows:
If they are unique: add a release with status 'bootleg' and release event as below
If they are identical to any official release on any format: add the release if necessary and release events for both versions, set status according to the official version

release events:
Date: the year as printed on cover unless the bootleg release date / year are known
Country: where this was bought, independently from the country of origin
Label/cat#/barcode: only in annotation

See also the discussion in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11341624

Cheers,

Christian (MD)

Johannes Dewender wrote:

Hello,

I have some releases which I bought in Russia. Some of them are official,
some are quite certainly not. I read something about this beeing somewhat
legal for non-russion releases for some time, so maybe it is more common for
releases bought in russia than in other countries, but maybe I am wrong.

Examples:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/b9a6b49f-b9a2-45be-9ff9-98fd07f1af6d.html
Apocalyptica - Live
There is an official DVD, but I bought an audio disc with the same content.

http://musicbrainz.org/release/03087c87-4d2d-4cee-971a-ca985be5fd12.html
Apocalyptica - Reflections
I have a version with 7 bonus tracks, having the same barcode and cat# as the
original release without bonus tracks.
I have some notes and links in
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11366609

So my question is what we are doing with the release events for these?
They sometimes copy the information of original releases, so they would be
identical in terms of the events, but this doesn't look right..
With the barcode you would actually connect a wrong ASIN and you would have
the cat# listed twice on the label page.
Are there any guidelines on this? I searched the forum and the ML a bit, but
couldn't find much. There is a lot of talk about "real" bootlegs, but not much
on pirated releases.
I am quite certain that these are releases we should keep, because they are
professional made copies, sold at many places (at least in russia, I guess..)
and not like homebrews.

I would do it like this:
Date: only the year printed on cover
Country: Where this was bought.
(I am not so certain about that because I bought some in Russia which copied
german release data, so I put Europe)
Label/cat#/barcode: only in Annotation.
(This would make finding the official releases by barcode and cat# easier and
clean the label pages)

Other ideas? Objections to seeing the examples mentioned as bootlegs?

JonnyJD

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

Re: larger icon for picard?

2009-10-27T11:32:39Z

>> Can we get a larger icon for picard or is there one hidden somewhere?
>> The largest one I can find in the installation is 32x32 pixels.
>>
>> - Grant
>
> Have a look at the just released Picard 0.12
> (http://blog.musicbrainz.org/?p=408), it includes a new icon in
> different sizes up to 256x256 pixels.
>
> Philipp

Very nice, thank you Philipp.

- Grant

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

Re: larger icon for picard?

2009-10-27T09:08:13Z

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Grant <emailgrant@...> wrote:
> Can we get a larger icon for picard or is there one hidden somewhere?
> The largest one I can find in the installation is 32x32 pixels.
>
> - Grant

Have a look at the just released Picard 0.12
(http://blog.musicbrainz.org/?p=408), it includes a new icon in
different sizes up to 256x256 pixels.

Philipp

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

larger icon for picard?

2009-10-27T08:59:34Z

Can we get a larger icon for picard or is there one hidden somewhere?
The largest one I can find in the installation is 32x32 pixels.

- Grant

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