#musicbrainz

clever_ is now known as clever

anyone here?

nope

certainly not me

"then hand your toboggan to your roadie to take up the hill"

hilarious

hehe

ruaok, on the wiki files thing, I don't have anywhere online to store the files, but I'll add a note to the page directing people to the wiki version of the page for the moment.

seems to be an issue with any transcluded wiki page which has files linked in through the wiki, rather than the ftp

I could give you a "users" account, if you want.

lol, or I could do that :P

you decide.

sure, that sounds like a cleaner solution than mine :)

k.

what login do you want?

I guess the same? brianfreud?

k

lol

cool, I got it to work :)

Woo!

!asin B000G75AJS

BrianG: ASIN: B000G75AJS; UPC: 639111103227; Country: U.S. and Canada; Label: Some Records; Year: 2006; Media: Audio CD; Title: Soft Targets; Artists: Earl Greyhound

?

yeah i'm here

Artist Intent :P

artist intent may be one over the other (and I have no preference which guy is listed first) but they shouldn't be 2 seperate artists

I can open this up to the room here. Artist A and Artist B, listed on one VA comp as A & B, on another B & A ....

does anyone agree that there should be 2 artists in the database "A & B" and "B & A"

or do people think they should be merged together

Same two people?

yes

I'd vote for just one artist then

unfortunately, I'm on the phone, and have a reason.

you should link them to the notes page, please, and I'll follow up in a minute for WHY it should not be just one artist

ok. http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7763953

drsaunde, yeah, I'd say just merge em :P

out of curiousity... What is the "drsaunde" tag?

You cannot simply say: "VA Comp A lists Artist X & Artist Y. VA Comp B lists Artist Y & Artist X"

1) Yes, they ARE two VA comps.

2) They are 2 VA comps (three, actually), that are all for the same exact franchise.

The soundtracks are VA because multiple handfuls of artists contribute.

The soundtracks are produced by the same music studio/people that produce the music as it goes into the game(s) themselves.

Both games, DDR Supernova, and IIDX RED list "Tatsh & NAOKI" for Red Zone, in Game, and on the OSTs

IIDX DistorteD, for "Deep Roar", both the game and the soundtrack, list "NAOKI & Tatsh"

hm

in-game is the same order as on the OST?

VxJasonxV: yes, but even the sheer existance of this artist is only a system hack

"Artist A" &

"Artist B"

when we can associate multiple artists to the same release/track, this artist will split anyhow - main reason order doesn't matter.

l8nite, yes, they are.

brianfreud, then we'll fix the technical limitation then

but this data should not be incorrect in the meantime

you can't expect me to accept invalid data to a technical MBz limitation...

this is about attribution, not Nbz

yes, but that they are now "Artist A & Artist B", or "Artist B & Artist A" simply as a result of that workaround, how can you claim the order has ANY importance?

MBzz

because all releases make it this specific

Isn't it important, brianfreud?

I mean, even if we associate multiple artists, often there's a primary artist

To me, if it's listed this way it's because this person contributed more to that individual song (or bribed his co-worker, or whatever)

If I have a release "Chris Cornell & Dave Grohl", and another "Dave Grohl & Chris Cornell", you're saying, since we can't just assign both "Dave Grohl" and "Chris Cornell" both, we ought ot have multiple duplicate & artists, just to cover every possible ordering of those artists on different liners?

These are not some loosely related VA comps. They are ALL in house. With the same people managing all of them.

That makes no sense

also, irc'ing on a treo is dumb. but i have to to maintain a sane conversation... stupid comcast

also, that last message was delayed from my desktop client :P

i see some packets managed to sneak through

the ordering is relevant in this case.

these are not loose va listings

You have an A and a B. We can't, right now, put both A and B separately on the same thing. So we temporarily have a third artist, "A & B". When we can, we will get rid of "A & B" and make it "A" and "B". So whether it is "A & B" or "B & A", either gives the same info. However, the specific order of A and B (and C,D,E,F,G,...) in that has no meaning

these are intentional attributions made for a series of games

yes, that A and B both wrote it/performed it.

and either "A & B" or "B & A" gives the same info

but that they list it in one order on one cover, and another order on another cover, doesn't give any justification to our requring one or the other order

Who gets listed first is kind of a big deal isn't it? I mean, if I were B and I got listed second on a track that I was the primary contributor for, it'd kind of irk me :)

not really... often it's just alphabetical, or how the names will fit on the liner, or what works best with that specific artwork, etc

I still think it's messed up to change the intent due to a technical limitation

there is no intent though

that's the point

you know that... how?

I think Jason's proved intent, especially if the game credits list it the same way as the release

To assume that order matters also assumes that order means one did more than the other

i do know that there IS intent in this ordering...

then "A & B" is not a collaboration

it is a specifically named group.

uhhh

collaboration "A & B" is identical to collaboration "B & A".

group "A & B" is however NOT identical to group "B & A".

i really wish i wasn't on this treo right now

typing is so horrendous and i cant make my point without having another one to defend

to assume order matters is to assume that order means one did more than the other: not necessarily did more, more along the lines of one individuals samples/style. but this order did in fact matter

A & B and B & A are both collabs in this case

there are always these edge cases

there was intent here, this is not lazy attribution

that is my case, artist and label intent, on both the games and the osts

none of this attribution has ever been mixed up, either

you're free to respond.

(none has been mixed up in official releases, that is)

ok. I take your point, but it seems you're ignoring one basic here

If "A & B" is an & collaboratioin artist, then when we can multiple-attribute works, "A & B" will devolve to "A" and "B"

If "A & B" is not a collaboration artist, it can only be a group.

a & b is a collab, as is b & a...

it is not black or white

If it is not a group, and therefore is a collab artist, then MB afaik makes no such distinction as you are drawing - there's simply no support for that type of situation

there dstinction in intent...

wow, that got chopped up

ok, so if a&B is a collab, and b&a is a collab, and both will ultimately devolve to a and b... what's the point of keeping them separate until then?

there is* distinction* in this case, due to intent

I'm leaning towards brian's argument, but I kind of wish the "devolving" could still retain order

because if you force it to a & b now, then the recorded data IS WRONG now

only if you interpret it as order mattering

i would rather hack it into being correct NOW and not later

and order does matter *in this case*

if you interpret it as "it would be a and b if we could do a and b", then your point is lost, I think