#musicbrainz

anybody have any suggestions for how to handle cc-licensed music which is no longer available for download?

What do you mean by "handle"?

yllona: on the dev questions.

the "preferred" way of indoctrinating mb_server devs is this:

1. Have everyone download the latest VMWare Player image of mb_server. Free. Runs windows & Linux, Mac Soon

2. Play in this sandbox on your own machine

dholmes: well, the "add cc license" requires a URL

3. Create a patch, send to patches@ or use subversion.

Hm. No idea then.

It's also kind of weird that only cc licensing is relatable, but (say) public domain is not

oh wait

n/m

why the heck is "public domain" under a CC license type?

4. At some point the devs decide what goes into the next release and they aggregate the various patches/subversion branches and merge it into a release

5. the release can then be tested at test.musicbrainz.org -- that is the official test box for new releases.

BUt the idea of multiple instances on one box is too much of a pain in the ass.

virtualization fixes this problem.

just run the player and there is your setup.

I hope someone is going to read the backscroll. :)

hawke: ping me next time with that question and I'll explain.

ruaok: "next time"?

ruaok: it would be good, if on my next trip to SLO (coming soon -- i promise) you could walk me thru a build & config

ruaok: Where can one get this VMWare image?

hawke: next time I appear. :)

oh, OK

yllona: be glad to.

coolness.. laterz folks

ruaok: which question, the one about why CC license requires a URL, or why public domain is under add CC license?

or both?

dholmes: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DebianVMWareDatabase

the latter.

k

PD is listed under a license because of an artifact of US copyright laws.

currently when you scribble a few "things" on a napkin, its by default copyrighted to you.

there is no "official way" to disclaim a copyright in the US.

there are conventions, but none that have ever been legally recognized.

the CC is making the release of content into the public domain a very explicit act.

because of the current difficulty in doing so.

IHTMS

I can understand it being under license, but not CC

hmm...IHTMS = "I hear the mermaids singing"?

Jugdish: Around?

yep

i hope thats my sushi

i have to make soup

this is crazy

I've got my own MB server (well, dataset... working on replication)

I'm just looking at random artist names

I thought I knew something about music before working with MB

which is kind of liking knowing something about books before visiting the library of congress

*like

:)

242 bands with "tones" in their namre

*name

18000 in the form of "The..."

118 "Boyz"

ew

lol

so how do we decide whether a group is "The Foo's" or simply "Foo's"?

ugh, this is awful: http://musicbrainz.org/show/artist/?mbid=0114b4...

Yeah

do some research :)

check their album covers, website, etc

what they refer to themselves as

Did MB ever decide what do do about artists like that link?

I think they should be split

I mean... use artist relations

what role did each artist play on each track?

the album should be a VA

The album is a VA

If you look at the album itself it's even worse; a ton of different combinations

But sometimes there isn't an easy way to pick a single artist as the "main" artist

well, I think eventually the notion of a "main" artist is being done away with

all artists will be related to a track

this is true

I'd rather have them all in one artist name than have "Various Artists" as the track artist

yeah, it's sort of hacky as it is now, but I'm sure it made sense at the time

MB is lightyears ahead of the rest in this regard

That's certainly better than the current situation in this case, but for normal cases, there still has to be some artist to go into the "Artist" tag

I don't see any way out of that

dholmes: why?

just have relations between artist and track?

one relation for one artist

bow before the mighty relational calculus! :-)

I use MB so my collection is usable in iTunes and WMP. iTunes would be pretty useless without something meaningful in the "Artist" tag

"Multiple Artists" might suffice in crazy cases like that, but all the same

well, tagging is just one case

MB seeks to be more general

NGS will be allowing multiple artists, so all these & ones are going away

Perhaps, but it's probably the one the vast majority care about

BrianFreud: oh, excellent

but technically they are the artists its credited to... (I assume)

That's what I was wondering

!quote 13

BrianFreud: Quote #13: <foodmo> BrianFreud 1) Does this address getting rid of & artists? luks 1) yes (added by: BrianFreud, views: 6, score: 0)

so when your files are tagged, MB would simply get all the different artists and concatenate them, probably in an order based on their relation type

I don't think that would be sane

that parts up to luks :)

There are plenty of tracks that have a dozen people contributing to them, but only one belongs in the "Artist" tag

added it as a quote, it was such good news :)

Yeah, that's exactly what I wanted

dholmes: right, but you try to design for the worst case, and keep your normal case sane

dholmes: yes, and those ought to be AR'd. But the ones that we now do as & artists, those are going away

phrontist: that is a normal case. Pretty much any band could have half a dozen ARs on each track, but only the band should be the artist

But then you get a case like, oh, "Queen & George Michael"

yeah

which sucks

collaborations are not artists

though that one's even messier than most

lol

HA

I'm happy with this solution

the NGS system, or the status quo?

The NGS system

The status quo drives me nuts

yeah, it's what everyone's wanted for a long time, I think

likewise

it's a bitch to transition though

nah

well, just from a code standpoint, it's not a spur of the moment tweak

just create a report listing all artists with & in the name. 95+% will be artists who need splitting

I was just about to add "Sheryl Crow & Sting" today because I couldn't get any meaningful input on that one

and then no more arguing about if you have a sortname based on a "band 1 & band 2" or just a "band" :)

I'm a pretty easy going guy (I think) in every day affairs, but man does database design get me going OCD

That's good, though

DBAs need to be that way