#musicbrainz

... which, again, I would argue is not a good idea until there's a way to relate the two recordings.

being able to link an audio recording to a video recording that shares the same audio would be a good idea, imo

the criteria for the AR would basically be "if you took only the audio track, would it be the same recording under our normal guidelines"

which means that videos with sufficiently altered audio would not be linked, except possibly as "edits"

kepstin-laptop: hmm, no provisions for dialogue or silence or whatever?

our normal guidelines have provision for silence

dialogue is definitely a new recording, imo

then that's not the AR I'm looking for

well, they're both linked to the same work...

I'm not trying to say "audio is identical". I'm trying to say "music is same mix"

CallerNo6: then if the audio of the video is based on the audio recording, link it with the 'edit' AR

that says that it's the same mix, but with some additional modifications made

fits perfectly.

kepstin-laptop: that would be technically true but doesn't answer a common question that a data user would have. "Is there a video for this song I like?"

CallerNo6: 'a video for this song I like' will often have a different mix.

well, the general way would be via the work

I can't really think of any way to do "is there a video with or without edits to the audio of this mix I like?" :/

that I like, anyways.

there could be a ten or ten thousand recordings related to a work. so that still wouldn't answer a very basic question.

CallerNo6: of those recordings which are videos, they are 'a video for this song I like' :)

CallerNo6: would you link e.g. both the explicit and censored mix of a song to the same video recording if there was only one video that shared the same base mix?

warp, okay, I could reword the question in legalese if that helps :-P

terminology is very important for this sort of thing

CallerNo6: nah, I'm just being annoying. I'll go back to work.

censored vs explicit? hmm. no, I wouldn't link them.

or maybe would link them with a "censored" flag?

maybe there are censored/explicit version of the audio-only *and* the video? dunno.

bottom line. if I was wrong in the edit I linked above, I feel dumb. I want to take out my anger on the streaming video flag.

CallerNo6: I do think that a recording-recording AR would be useful.

If I propose it, I will propose it in anger!

(time to see if the dark side really works)

CallerNo6: Hah, I did my own but used their example: https://twitter.com/hawke42/status/477120591305...

when alexes attack

lol, nice

bleh, stupid old classical style that told everyone to put the full work title in the track name.

The old classical release titles are worse (now that the release artist isn't always/only the composer)

Are they?

Why’s that?

I mean, "The Etudes" isn't such a bad title if you know the performer.

But in the old system, it was too ambiguous so people would use the work titles as the release title.

Under the old system, performer was put in the title though.

True. But still people were doing it that way. Or did I dream it?

Probably.

I'm sure I did. Maybe I was misguided.

I mean, yes people were probably doing it that way; it seems like absolutely every possible option was explored by someone. :-)

Anyway, I’m more complaining about the way the old classical style encouraged creating a custom title from whole cloth for every track on every release.

(since there were no works to unify/normalize/standardize the naming)

Would have been much better if the style of the time were just to copy what’s on the release.

Sure you have so-so tagging but it sure makes it easier to figure out what the hell is on the release.

I think the idea was to make them machine-readable. Silly.

Not a terrible idea in theory…

…a complete failure in practice

Inconsistent interpretation of track titles as printed → inconsistent naming patterns for track titles → complete mess

If there was a title in the CSG standard list, it worked I guess. Just copy-n-paste.

…but not everyone did that, and it wasn’t very findable, and IIRC it wasn’t consistent (or accurate) itself.

right

plus you'd need a standard list for every language, whatever that means.

(the conjunctions are in Swedish!)

what the hell hell damnit hell: http://beta.musicbrainz.org/search?query=Capric...

(first three works)

I don’t even know how to deal with that.

Possibly nuke it from orbit?

Also, who the hell thought it was a good idea to assign the number “33B” to a totally different work from “33b”

it's the only way to be sure

Open to suggestions, btw. ;-)

I don't even understand what's going on in the first one.

heh

Yeah, that’s why I don’t know how to deal with it. :-)

K. 284a from the 6th edition of the Köchel catalogue is “4 preludes for piano” (and is missing from the first edition, indicated by "deest")

Are the preludes that short?

I mean, the track is 4 minutes. That's a lot to cram into 4 minutes.

K. 300g from the 6th edition is “Capriccio in C for Piano” and is K. 395 in the first edition (not sure why they list "deest" for that)

So it *might* be a performance of one of the 4 preludes and the capriccio.

(if someone thought it was a good idea to include every tempo marking and … whatever else, I guess?

I do find several listings like that though, e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-major-K-284a-Capr...

also spotify

“Prelude in C major, K. 284a (Capriccio in C major, K. 395)”

Note that the cover art on that link is 150% wrong.

heh

pls no world cup spoilers, btw

n.b. its not that recording.

I know it's a lot to ask, but given international crowd and time shifting of tv

it would be awesome if ppl could not spoiler :)

derwin: Hey, I hear they kicked (will kick?) a ball around.

and there was some not scoring.

noted (not same recording)

derwin might want to avoid the internet for a while

my phone asked me if I wanted to get score updates, I said no.

CallerNo6: I know :/

Also, a team either won or lost, and another team did likewise.

Or, will have won or lost.

or something

There was sportsball.

I suppose I probably should at some point, but I've already read the books and there's other stuff I want to see more...

kepstin-laptop: the show is worthwhile, even having read the books.

Maybe I'll read the books, but they're certainly not at the top of my to-read pile.

derwin: I also wish people wouldn't give east coast election results. It makes voting in California feel pointless.

(and maybe it is)

well, voting in national elections in california is pointless

and probably state elections in most places as well

but yes, it becomes more pointless than that, even.

interestingly, the way the canadian system works, reporting east coast federal election results doesn't make voting in the west pointless

well, maybe it does once they get past ontario and quebec

hawke: flag it in the annotation, and we an maybe orgainize a classical fixme sprint?

heh

CallerNo6: A good thought.

classical fixme sprint could take a while even with an infinite amount of monkeys :-)

Mineo: not with a well-defined area.

CallerNo6: Sadly, I don’t feel like MB works well with direct collaboration.

And I don’t have any ideas for how that might be improved.

I think people are more likely to take on a project, large or small, if there's at least some hope of seeing progress. So defining the scope is important.

agreed.

But it’s hard enough just trying to work on something by yourself, when you can’t see the progress except as orange 'pending edit' hilights

but then, the last cotm I remember was Bruce Springsteen. Totally uninteresting to me, and the work that needed doing was mostly bootlegs which I know nothing about.

Let alone working with others who might be touching the same thing.

obligatory: #musicbrainz-doc still exists!

don't let the dream die

aside: poop. some days, the g4 powerbook you pulled out of the dumpster simply refuses to boot into lxde.

lawl

it was going to be a triumph of the calerno6 spirit. oh well.

CallerNo6: You think so?

I tend to agree as far as it will lead to better edits in the first place…

Still, 841 pages of recordings is a daunting task at the best of times.

woah. is that for mozart?

Yeah