#musicbrainz

/

      • chrisb joined the channel
      • chrisb joined the channel
      • Clint joined the channel
      • herojoker joined the channel
      • pronik` joined the channel
      • DarkAudit joined the channel
      • STalKer-Y joined the channel
      • dinog joined the channel
      • _Tsk_ joined the channel
      • pronik`` joined the channel
      • _Tsk_ joined the channel
      • pronik``` joined the channel
      • xlotlu joined the channel
      • i_britten joined the channel
      • Sergey_Ivanov joined the channel
      • Sergey_Ivanov joined the channel
      • rexroom joined the channel
      • PasNox joined the channel
      • Sergey_Ivanov joined the channel
      • zazi joined the channel
      • DarkerAudit joined the channel
      • Sergey_Ivanov joined the channel
      • zazi joined the channel
      • Mineo joined the channel
      • Sergey_Ivanov joined the channel
      • zazi_ joined the channel
      • yvesr_ joined the channel
      • caller_6 joined the channel
      • flamingspinach joined the channel
      • hawke_ joined the channel
      • xlotlu
        what music players are really well integrated with musicbrainz? (is there any?)
      • nikki
        what sort of things are you looking for?
      • xlotlu
        something that makes good use of mb data
      • e.g. it can recommend me live performances of the current track
      • or it's a covered of / was covered by..
      • actually, i don't quite expect to find a player that goes this far, but looking for something that's already integrated and hackable
      • hawke_
        I’m reading the discussion on the style mailing list about the Writer AR, and I’m thinking: The AR will apply entirely to Works rather than tracks in the NGS, correct?
      • nikki
        yes
      • it'd be release and work rather than release and track like it would at the moment
      • hawke_
        So that means there’s a lot less potential for incorrect ARs…
      • since there’ll be a lot more cross-checking between releases, and presumably a lot of merging of works
      • nikki
        and you'd be able to just link a work to the recording to get the composer/etc relationships
      • hawke_
        Right.
      • Seems like annotations for ARs would be nice (basically as a list of references) but probably a bit over the top.
      • ianmcorvidae
        text fields for everything!
      • hawke_
        :-)
      • Is it bad form to have duplicate “performed” and “performed [xxx] on” ARs? I’ve been doing that sometimes for things described as an “accordion solo” since just having “performed [accordion] on” would suggest that there might be additional performers.
      • xlotlu
        arrays of text fields for everything!
      • ianmcorvidae
        arbitrary subject/object/predicate triple fields for everything!
      • hawke_
        :-p
      • xlotlu
        yes! and let's put those that share information in a separate table!
      • hawke_: i doubt there's a style guide for that, but it doesn't seem pretty
      • that should probably go into an annotation that says performed solo accordion. at least until there's a database field for that too! :)
      • ianmcorvidae
        a "solo" attribute on the performed AR would not be unreasonable
      • not that I'm gonna write it up for mb-style, but XD
      • xlotlu
        umh. but it's only justifying the other tracks' lack of completeness
      • ianmcorvidae
        oh
      • well, credited as 'solo' doesn't necessarily mean that was the only instrument playing at the time
      • which is complicated, of course
      • but yeah
      • xlotlu
        this could warrant a more fine-grained control of data quality status
      • ianmcorvidae
        heh
      • not that there's *that* much use of the data quality stuff as it stands
      • or maybe I just listen to obscure music where it isn't used, lol, but
      • xlotlu
        e.g. lock performed ARs, because it's certain that i listed all of them
      • ianmcorvidae
        yeah
      • xlotlu
        beaurocracy ftw
      • hawke_
        I have some that are described as “[instrument] solo with orchestra” and some that are simply “[xxx] solo”.
      • Of course, putting the “with orchestra” in there is impossible
      • ianmcorvidae
        well, ostensibly you could have a performed-solo AR plus an orchestra AR
      • but yes :)
      • hawke_
        ianmcorvidae: sure, if I knew what orchestra…
      • ianmcorvidae
        oh, hah
      • well, that's problematic
      • [unknown] :P
      • hawke_
        :-D
      • Not a bad idea, actually.
      • ianmcorvidae
        heh
      • hawke_
        Not terribly useful, but it least it gives some completion without being inaccurate.
      • ianmcorvidae
        yeah :/
      • hawke_
        I would expect it’s some sort of session musician, but obviously no way to know that…
      • or who, even if it were
      • ianmcorvidae
        that seems to fit the definition of [unknown] -- Unknown and Unknowable
      • nikki still wonders how to enter "all instruments" :/
      • hawke_
        True, though some things are more “unknowable” than others.
      • nikki
        I'm not sure how two performed relationships makes it clear that there's not other performers though...
      • nikki is going back home now
      • hawke_
        nikki: It really doesn’t.
      • nikki
        so why do it? :P
      • ianmcorvidae
        yeah, there's really no "all the possible information is here" AR
      • hawke_
        Just having “performed accordion on” sounds more like there’s other stuff.
      • nikki
        does it?
      • hawke_
        Does to me.
      • nikki
        btw hawke, do you read language log or was that someone else I saw commenting?
      • hawke_
        “Well, we know who played the sax on that track, but we don’t know who may or may not have performed other instruments”
      • vs. “We know that track was performed by this person”
      • nikki
        really going... back in a couple of hours
      • hawke_
        nikki: that was me, most likely.
      • gioele joined the channel
      • praest76 joined the channel
      • ruaok joined the channel
      • ruaok joined the channel
      • nikki joined the channel
      • nikki
        hawke_: ah, I saw a comment and was like "hmm... wonder if that's him or not..."
      • hawke_
        nikki: Yup…on the translations thing, presumably.
      • nikki
        yeah
      • you're popping up everywhere I read it seems :P
      • hawke_
        Indeed. :-D
      • common interests ftw
      • nikki
        :D
      • ijabz joined the channel
      • Yllona joined the channel
      • _Tsk_ joined the channel
      • DarkAudit joined the channel
      • Milosz joined the channel
      • Milosz joined the channel
      • zazi_
        which ID3 tag editor writes customized frames with MusicBrainz information, e.g. MusicBrainz album id etc.
      • ianmcorvidae
        zazi_: Picard is a reasonable reference
      • there's also a table of how it maps things to tags on the wiki, if you're interested
      • (since of course mp3/ogg/flac/aac have different tag mechanisms and conventions, it has different things for each)
      • zazi_
        because I'm currently handling the TXXX frame and I found some predefined descriptors for MusicBrainz things at http://www.jthink.net/jaudiotagger/maven/apidoc...
      • chrisb` joined the channel
      • ianmcorvidae
        well, I'd say compare and contrast with http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PicardTagMapping :)
      • zazi_
        okay, thanks for the hint
      • xlotlu joined the channel
      • ruaok joined the channel
      • Milosz_ joined the channel
      • Sergey_Ivanov joined the channel
      • ijabz joined the channel
      • Milosz joined the channel
      • Milosz joined the channel
      • zazi__ joined the channel
      • xlotlu joined the channel
      • Sergey_Ivanov joined the channel
      • PasNox joined the channel
      • Milosz_ joined the channel
      • rexroom has left the channel
      • yvesr_ joined the channel