#musicbrainz

heh

Well

I wouldn't say add it if it was this "get the album and we'll give you a download code'

But if the stuff is actually on the disc you purchase, it kinda sounds better for it to be part of the release

sure. but we don't support it

Well, depends

I mean, the reasonable thing would probably be just not adding the discID and adding them at the end of the tracklist if that's how the release presents them

except that breaks cd lookups, so I wouldn't call it "supported"

Heh maybe

I guess cd lookups sound always less useful than any other thing to me because meh cds :)

I had somethign similar and marked it as a download medium of the release iirc

(it would also break my tagging if I were trying to tag it :P)

meh. I can't find any useful tickets to point people to

You lost your powers when updating your Opera :(

more likely there are no good tickets about it. I know of the pre-gap track one (which, come to think of it, we could probably fix by allowing position to be zero and then ignoring position = 0 when counting tracks)

kepstin-work: can you reproduce http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3090 any more? it looks like it got fixed at some point to me

hmm. I think it just happens less often, now that most of the absurdly long character artists have been split up

well, I looked for some with long names and they wrapped

and the ticket says it doesn't wrap

oh, they do? hmm, I'll take a look

wow, that's an old ticket, judging from the screenshot :)

yeah, it looks fine now

... strange, the 'relate to...' popup isn't working at all in epiphany now

nvm, just browser caching issues

heh. a youtube video which lists the ISRC at the end. should I be able to add that by editing the recording?

of course not! to add isrcs you have to use the add isrc page :P

(nobody updated it to work like everything else... :/)

oh there.

nikki: I was wondering if we broke something in the server release.

nikki: is there a ticket for it? :)

not that I know of

great. their font doesn't distinguish between I and 1.

warp: that only matters in charaters 3-6

er, 3-5?

3-5

right.

kepstin-work: hopefully 5, because character 6 is then a 1.

it's 2 letters for country code, 3 alphanumeric characters for label code, 2 digits for year, then a bunch more digits for serial number

ok, then I parsed it correctly.

warp: now there is http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5868

nikki: thank you!

I'm adding new recordings for a remaster at http://musicbrainz.org/edit/20971959. This is correct, right?

who knows :P

we haven't finished deciding what happens with recordings

Fair enough. I'll do it and we can decide later. :-P

http://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/20950278 — is that a bug?

seems to be

hah

ListMyCDs: I don’t think it’s a good idea to differentiate the classical vs. non classical performances, regarding that christmas/pop arrangements thing.

It doesn’t hurt anything to have those extra performance ARs.

there's a big difference for classical listeners

If I like to see a list of Sibelius recordings, I don't like to see 200 recordings of pop versions

there's a good reason why libraries for example don't calogue these under classical works

one option would be having "arrangement" attribute for "recording of" relationship

like what we currently have for covers

at least then these would clearly be separated from the original work

But they are recordings of the original work.

I see no need for that separation.

They are not. My example about this christmas song for example. Most of these don't have piano lines written by Sibelius.

You just need to look at the artist.

If you’re looking for orchestral performances, then you want the ones that are by an orchestra…

There's almost no point for adding original arrangements by the composer if it's ok to add whatever recordings to these.

Now all the works by composer are like "catch-all" if all arrangements can be linked to it.

What is the point of even mentioning in the name that something is "violin concerto" if it's ok to link mandolin version to it

this xmas song has 3 versions: 1. for voice and piano, 2. for male choir, 3. for mixed choir. So heave metal version (it really exists) could be linked to any of these 3 versions

if don't have some rules

Well, it’s already (I think) known that we need catchall/unknown/other versions.

No, most of the works already are unknown versions because no one has bothered to create the separate works.

and clean them up.

but like I just described, there's no point to create separate works if it's ok to link heavy metal version with version for voice and piano

hawke_1: I'm not too sure there's any rule that "let's" us clean them up

lets

(as in, if someone was to add it to the main work now, were we to vote no, that'd be "wrong")

Seems simple to me: create the arrangement works you want, plus an unknown version work.

Then move the appropriate recordings to the right works, and any others to the unknown.

Those are all clearly fine.

that's one solution

And then you can no-vote the heavy metal version as “Not a performance of the mixed choir version, use unknown version instead”

(or whatever)

I'm happy with everything making it possible to separate these other versions from original versions

reosarevok: we don’t need a special rule for it. There are no rules against creating works for arrangements, and if one arrangement is clearly wrong (as it would be), we can safely no-vote that.

hawke: there's currently no rule but thanks to this RFC we would soon have "for arrangements made for a specific performance; use the recording - artist arranger AR"

The only real stipulation is that we need to have the works be clear so 1. people linking to them can find them, and 2. we can point to the clean separation of arrangements as a reason to point people to the correct one.

And to some extent that there should be more than one performance of a given arrangement.

And yes, this requires active participation in the moderation process. You can’t just sit back and hope people pick the right arrangement works.

if there's no more than one performance it could then go under some "catch-all" work instead of going to totally wrong work because of this rule

Yes, exactly.

wait

“because of this rule”?

You’re afraid that people will put it on the wrong work because…?

because of this "or arrangements made for a specific performance; use the recording - artist arranger AR"

if clearly gives and optioin to put arrangement to whatever work

No it doesn’t.

You still have to pick the best work for the case

nothing says that

that’s given!

so best pick for mandolin version of violin concerto would still be violin concerto

it still doesn't make any sense to use it

I can think of two reasons someone would pick the wrong work: 1. because they can’t find the right work (i.e. disambiguations are missing) or 2. because the right work doesn’t exist

or I guess 3. because the search fails, but that’s a different problem.

I agree with those 3

but if MB has 3 versions: 1. for voice and piano, 2. for male choir, 3. for mixed choir. Which one to pick for heavy metal version?

I have instumentation on disambiguations

So in the first case, the works need fixing (which is the responsibility of someone who wants to keep e.g. Sibelius’s works associations clean) or the works need adding (same), or the search system needs to be fixed (bug report)

ListMyCDs: There should also be an “unknown/other” version.

Like we have here: http://beta.musicbrainz.org/work/f39c7c6c-b554-...

exactly, if there's unknown version there's no problems

hawke_1: but what do you do?

hawke: and this could be mentioned instead of just saying "or arrangements made for a specific performance; use the recording - artist arranger AR"

Do you create one of those for every work, in case someone comes with a diff arrangement?

reosarevok: what do I do? Mostly I note that the works aren’t at all clean anyway, so who cares

Or do you ask people "if none fit, create an unknown/other work"?

ListMyCDs: But you would still need to use the recording-artist arranger AR.

(I'd say b and we should probably write that in the guideline)

hawke: true

reosarevok: But in a perfect world, the editors who care about a particular classical artist would have created the works for that artist.

and sorted the recordings accordingly.

Well, yeah - but that takes _ages_

I mean, I try :

:p