Hi everyone, my name is harshul jain. I am a pythonist based in India. I will like to contribute to accousticbrainz project using python, flask and postgress. According to https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Development/Summer_o… page, I am in process of setting up my development server and understanding how infrastructure works.
2016-03-04 06425, 2016
harshul1610_
So Am I going right?
2016-03-04 06403, 2016
achadwick joined the channel
2016-03-04 06414, 2016
CallerNo6
harshul1610_, yes, that's a good way to start. (also, you were right to ask in #metabrainz, which is the dev channel)
2016-03-04 06408, 2016
mihaitish has quit
2016-03-04 06412, 2016
harshul1610_ has left the channel
2016-03-04 06454, 2016
mohaa has quit
2016-03-04 06420, 2016
diana_olhovyk has quit
2016-03-04 06440, 2016
krono joined the channel
2016-03-04 06447, 2016
simukis_ joined the channel
2016-03-04 06450, 2016
krono has quit
2016-03-04 06457, 2016
mRokita_ has quit
2016-03-04 06453, 2016
hawke1
CallerNo6: I don't think it means that a release label is not an imprint, but that we feel an obligation to fill in something for a release label because it rarely makes sense for a release to come out without being associated to a label.
2016-03-04 06453, 2016
krono joined the channel
2016-03-04 06457, 2016
hawke1
Especially for a major lable.
2016-03-04 06459, 2016
hawke1
*label
2016-03-04 06428, 2016
hawke1
Obviously self-published stuff is an exception to that.
2016-03-04 06445, 2016
JesseW joined the channel
2016-03-04 06445, 2016
mRokita joined the channel
2016-03-04 06445, 2016
mRokita has quit
2016-03-04 06445, 2016
mRokita joined the channel
2016-03-04 06403, 2016
JesseW has quit
2016-03-04 06427, 2016
krono has quit
2016-03-04 06414, 2016
krono joined the channel
2016-03-04 06404, 2016
murk joined the channel
2016-03-04 06427, 2016
krono has quit
2016-03-04 06428, 2016
CallerNo6
hawke, yeah, that was going to be my punchline. "A 'release label' is our desire to leave no field empty".
2016-03-04 06414, 2016
CallerNo6
But I stand by my assertion, it is at this point essentially meaningless.
2016-03-04 06433, 2016
v6lur joined the channel
2016-03-04 06458, 2016
CallerNo6
(If 'release label' is "whatever the retailer thinks goes in their 'label' field", then we should just say that.
2016-03-04 06459, 2016
gcilou has quit
2016-03-04 06403, 2016
CallerNo6
)
2016-03-04 06417, 2016
gcilou joined the channel
2016-03-04 06437, 2016
hawke1
CallerNo6: eh...Does iTunes even have a label field though?
2016-03-04 06447, 2016
hawke1
CallerNo6: I thought it was more their 'copyright' field?
2016-03-04 06456, 2016
gioele joined the channel
2016-03-04 06417, 2016
hawke1
Not sure it's even that: "℗ 2015 Mercury Records, a Division of UMG Recordings, Inc." / "℗ 2015 XL Recordings Ltd., under exclusive license to Columbia Records, a Division of Sony Music Entertainment" / "℗ 2015 Sony Music Entertainment" / "℗ 2015 Def Jam Recordings, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc."
2016-03-04 06410, 2016
hawke1
CallerNo6: Also I think it's fairly common to guess the imprint based on secondary sources such as copyright holder, catalog number, etc. even on physical releases.
2016-03-04 06444, 2016
CallerNo6
Having a field called 'release label' is a legacy concept that doesn't fit the actual releases we're seeing.
2016-03-04 06436, 2016
hawke1
CallerNo6: only if you drop >100 years of releases.
2016-03-04 06457, 2016
hawke1
and it's still applicable to physical releases, and many digital releases as well.
2016-03-04 06458, 2016
CallerNo6
100 legacy years :-)
2016-03-04 06414, 2016
hawke1
Seems silly to discount those as legacy.
2016-03-04 06423, 2016
krono joined the channel
2016-03-04 06426, 2016
hawke1
Might as well drop discID support as well.
2016-03-04 06428, 2016
CallerNo6
I disagree. If it applies to releases today, then why is this a contentious subject?
2016-03-04 06429, 2016
hawke1
And the vinyl format
2016-03-04 06432, 2016
hawke1
and so forth
2016-03-04 06448, 2016
outsidecontext has quit
2016-03-04 06452, 2016
hawke1
CallerNo6: It's only contentious for releases that don't actually specify a label.
2016-03-04 06416, 2016
CallerNo6
that's meaningless. what does "specify a label" mean?
2016-03-04 06445, 2016
hawke1
er...I'd say have their logo on the packaging, mostly. But you know I consider logo=imprint=label.
2016-03-04 06413, 2016
CallerNo6
Yes, you do. But that formulation only works when it works.
2016-03-04 06441, 2016
hawke1
eh, that's probably 99% of the time.
2016-03-04 06415, 2016
hawke1
maybe more.
2016-03-04 06416, 2016
Somasis has quit
2016-03-04 06442, 2016
CallerNo6 accuses hawke of pulling numbers our of thin air :-)
2016-03-04 06426, 2016
hawke1
I think it's a safe bet, lol
2016-03-04 06435, 2016
hawke1
given that whole >100 years of history thing.
2016-03-04 06404, 2016
hawke1
Anyway, I would have no problem with 'iTunes releases are officially considered to have no label' or something like that, but that doesn't make the label field meaningless for all non-iTunes stuff.
2016-03-04 06434, 2016
CallerNo6
No, it doesn'. What makes the 'release label' field meaningless is that:
2016-03-04 06437, 2016
hawke1
(Do you really think there's any chance that iTunes has has more than 1% of all releases in history?)
2016-03-04 06447, 2016
CallerNo6
1. we don't use it consistently (because there's no consensus)
2016-03-04 06416, 2016
CallerNo6
2. it's an answer with no corresponding question
2016-03-04 06440, 2016
CallerNo6
(no single corresponding question, that is)
2016-03-04 06445, 2016
hawke1
2. "What is the brand associated with this release?" ;-)
2016-03-04 06406, 2016
CallerNo6
associated by whom? itunes? amazon?
2016-03-04 06421, 2016
hawke1
associated by the creator of the release.
2016-03-04 06404, 2016
hawke1
...that particular question *does* validate the use of the (P) info too, for iTunes and otherwise.
2016-03-04 06420, 2016
hawke1
mostly since 'brand' is nicely broad in meaning.
2016-03-04 06427, 2016
CallerNo6
sure, in the sense that "associate" is a loose term.
2016-03-04 06442, 2016
CallerNo6
(and brand :-) )
2016-03-04 06414, 2016
hawke1
I think it would be difficult to find a tighter one that covers everything we want it to.
2016-03-04 06447, 2016
hawke1
Anyway, I still think it's ridiculous to say "oh, this concept has existed forever, and in the last ~5 years one retailer has stopped using it, guess it's all legacy junk now"
2016-03-04 06448, 2016
CallerNo6
That's my point. Why are we trying to force-fit a meaning to 'release label'?
2016-03-04 06401, 2016
dufferzafar has left the channel
2016-03-04 06424, 2016
CallerNo6
If it were one retailer, I'd agree. You know that's not what I'm saying (I hope).
2016-03-04 06435, 2016
krono has quit
2016-03-04 06444, 2016
krono joined the channel
2016-03-04 06405, 2016
CallerNo6
legacy isn't junk. Legacy is "we're stuck with an old mental model for a changing world".
2016-03-04 06423, 2016
CallerNo6
because 1. digital releases mean that there might not be a primary source ( no cover for the imprint to be on)
2016-03-04 06450, 2016
hawke1
(Though PDF cover art is common enough)
2016-03-04 06450, 2016
CallerNo6
2. releases will continue to become a fuzzy subject, since they can be released incrementally
2016-03-04 06408, 2016
JoeMooCow joined the channel
2016-03-04 06429, 2016
hawke1
I definitely agree with both of those, but I think it would be better to adopt/adjust the model only when appropriate rather than dropping the 'legacy' field entirely.
2016-03-04 06402, 2016
hawke1
I mean, I suppose you could have a checkbox 'release has no label' or something, but it seems unnecessary.
2016-03-04 06429, 2016
CallerNo6
"drop"? I guess I am kind of arguing for dropping release label, in the same sense that we "dropped" work artists.
2016-03-04 06407, 2016
CallerNo6
if there's data to store, we can probably come up with ARs that capture it better.
2016-03-04 06451, 2016
hawke1
As long as assigning those ARs works is basically done the same way as we assign release labels I'm OK with that. But I think that puts us back on square one.
2016-03-04 06436, 2016
CallerNo6
I'm sure I've mentioned this before. A "imprints/logos visible on this release" AR would answer a clear question.
2016-03-04 06449, 2016
CallerNo6
As would "part of <label's> catalog".
2016-03-04 06426, 2016
hawke1
Yep.
2016-03-04 06450, 2016
hawke1
The second one kinda confuses the issue again though, because a logo (imprint) doesn't have a catalog
2016-03-04 06436, 2016
CallerNo6
well, however you determine the holder of the "catalog".
2016-03-04 06436, 2016
hawke1
And the first one potentially because of subtle graphical differences.
2016-03-04 06403, 2016
hawke1
But in general, yes.
2016-03-04 06407, 2016
CallerNo6
To summarize, "release label" was once an unabiguous question. As it becomes more ambiguous, we should ask better questions."
2016-03-04 06451, 2016
hawke1
Sounds good; how do we get there from here? ;-)
2016-03-04 06455, 2016
CallerNo6
sidenote: sorry, this is what happens when I have coffee instead of tea.
2016-03-04 06439, 2016
JoeMooCow is now known as JoeLlama
2016-03-04 06458, 2016
CallerNo6
Honestly? I'd like to ask data users what /they/ think the questions are.
2016-03-04 06404, 2016
CallerNo6
(to start)
2016-03-04 06445, 2016
hawke1
We have data users?
2016-03-04 06400, 2016
CallerNo6
We don't? Let's get some!
2016-03-04 06445, 2016
CallerNo6
Okay, approaching it from the other side, I guess we'd want to address your concerns, like how similar do logos need to be?
