#musicbrainz

is this legit? http://musicbrainz.org/artist/e3574a18-c09f-45e...

what what?

(about [language instruction])

About the n/a band... who knows

CatCat: language instruction should probably all be audiobook, not spokenword. Is that what you were whating about?

erh perhpas that too ,but mostly that "artist" should not exsist

why?

dude

it should at the very least be [unknown]

It's not unknown, you could check who wrote each one, but nobody really cares - I'd say [language instruction] is a pretty decent way of having all of those, which are a clear set of things different from any other stuff on the DB, together

what

ofcourse peopel care

*I* care

Who is even the artist, anyway

The person who wrote the book they go with?

The guy who speaks?

the guy behind the book ,with AR to the speaker

i thoguht this was common

Hmm, I thought most language instruction was not just reading a book?

I've never seen it done in other way than [language instruction]... except the few things that get added as either a company, or the title again

therefore not audio book

(and are later merged into [language instruction]

)

but the n/a artist?

I'd prefer to credit this to the production company as well. e.g. pimsleur language courses are known by that name, I'd prefer to have pimsleur as the release artist unless something more specific is known.

warp: me too

CatCat: That I have no idea. For all I know, someone actually made that band

Who knows

reosarevok: i was wonderign if it was legit yes

warp: Likewise, but certain people explode if you put a company in the artist field

hawke_: and we ignore/vote against those people

:)

I am not sure if it makes sense... since that's (or should be) already in the label, it feels more useful to have this as a place to find all the stuff

I mean, talking about an "artist" for a French course is kinda absurd anyway

indeed

so [no artist] then rather

if you want "only these" merge into [unknown] but with AC

That would be reasonable, but shouldn't [language instruction] be considered just a subset of [no artist]?

yea, probably

uh

I meant

hawke_: maybe. again, it is a case of ideality vs. ease of use

[16:38] CatCatif you want "only these" merge into [no artist] but with AC

This is a pretty specific subset with pretty specific characteristics, and it probably means keeping them isolated is not a bad idea

The benefit of having it like that is that it keeps all language courses together and separate from other stuff which has nothing to do with them

What's the benefit of having it in other way?

Say, what's the benefit of having it merged into [no artist]?

people who don't like special purpose artists get the satisfaction of having gotten rid of one.

that's about it, really.

hawke_ :)

we could always call them "Other"

I mean, it's not like they're musical stuff that we're really interested in - it's just some identifying info for people who want tracknames when they put their language cd into a computer, right?

Yeah

I'm OK with other

But we should probably tell people not to use "spokenword" or "audiobook" then...

what's with the sortname here http://musicbrainz.org/artist/82f954e5-a5fe-47e...

spokenword is probably ok for those

CatCat: i'd say that the sort name is wrong, and you should fix it.

CatCat: no idea what's with it. But it comes from someone who says "50/60th" for "50s/60s" so I'd expect it to be wrong :p

kepstin-work: which leads me to Q2, shouldn't it be split?

CatCat: hard to tell; that could be the full name of a band.

need to do research to find that out

what's with the disambiguation comment here? http://musicbrainz.org/artist/3f77449d-48e4-4ce...

CatCat: IT'S AWESOME.

it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S JAPANESE.

but yeah, it doesn't make sense.

NUHUH, disambiguation comments are for MUSICBRAINZ

too many "offical homepage"'s too

indeed

CatCat: they... all seem to be legit official homepages, looking at the URLs

(not sure if they all work)

(and indeed, it's a mad amount)

huuh.... http://musicbrainz.org/artist/71dbb602-c693-43e...

(note the discogs link too)

heh

Too direct of an import

there's http://musicbrainz.org/artist/9163be14-b4b5-428... too but that doesn't have a discoglink

cool kepstin-work

ah it is "self-description of the band"? heh

Someone write me a batch recording-artist-editing script so I can follow our classical guidelines...

As much as I like them ideally, I'm not going to manually edit these 18 recordings in the same way, one by one, to follow them

reosarevok: Copyable artist credits don’t help?

Yes

:p

hum I have a doubt. if we have a single and a single remixed, they both can go in the same RG, right?

tri_marianaaf: is it a new release that's just remixes of the single, or an alternate version of the single that also includes remixes?

actually in this case it's three releases. the first single. the single remixed (track 1 the same recording) and another one that only cvontains one track that is another remix unpreviously remixed

if you say to someone "do you have the XXX single by YYY", would they say yes no matter whether which one you have?

which one they have*

if you're actually asking about the XXX single you're asking about one in particular

well but even so I'm asking that because of one thing in specific. if I put all of them in the same RG I cannot make use of the multiple types, because I will choose only Single so that it fits all

if the different releases aren't all known by the same name, and you wouldn't identify them as alternate version of the same release, they shouldn't be in the same release group

but to see how it's done I went to madonna's page

Give Me All Your Luvin'

everything is on the same RG

sorry, i'm busy now.

brb

oh never mind. I was correcting this http://musicbrainz.org/artist/5ac141b2-cbb7-42e... which is a mess. I merged the RG so if anyone has something against I will get a negative vote and then I'll cancel it

so I will no ;)

It's telling that Release Group Style doesn't mention singles. I gather there's no consensus.

do "CSG for Recording Artists" and "Theatre Style" have any broader implications? i.e. that the Recording artist is a relatively factual field with performers, rather than reflecting the credits on the back cover?

What do you mean?

Whether Milli Vanilli should get recording credit or something?

(e.g. a compilation might credit Miles Davis, when in fact the performance is by the Miles Davis Quintet)

Oh

In that case the recording AC should definitely be the quintet

Maybe even the track AC

with “quintet, credited as miles davis”

There's an album I was looking at pre-NGS where previously unreleased material from the MD Quintet/Sextets were release as "Miles Davis and John Coltrane".

Since it's previously unreleased (iirc), I'm thinking about setting the track artist as "MD and JC".

Or, as you say, MDQ credited as "MD and JC".

I was just wondering about the bigger picture, and if those two guidelines have implications for Recording Artists in general.

You mean beyond classical and theatre?

yes

I think most cases outside of those are already credited to performer anyway.

Aside from things like you mentioned, anyway (groups credited as a highlighted solo artist)

Do we need to choose “this person is deceased” if we have a death date?

I think it's automatic

If it's not, it's a bug

just checked, it works properly

Well, I mean if I enter a death date it doesn’t check “this person is deceased”

I’m sure it still looks the same if you just enter a death date.

if you save it, then edit it again, it should be checked; at least that's what I saw happen

ah, OK

Ick, copyable artist credits doesn’t seem to get the mbid of an artist if you use direct search. :-(

hawke_1: complain at bitmap, he can probably fix that :)