monxton: IMO: same artist, use artist credits to mark it as “New” or not
2012-01-11 01128, 2012
reosarevok
I'd agree, but we can't use artist credits in relationships
2012-01-11 01145, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: Do we need to?
2012-01-11 01145, 2012
reosarevok
(which I can see as a reason for some people to want to keep them separated until we can)
2012-01-11 01151, 2012
reosarevok
IMO, probably not
2012-01-11 01152, 2012
reosarevok
For this
2012-01-11 01156, 2012
reosarevok
But YMMV
2012-01-11 01109, 2012
hawke_
the Artist Credits (on recordings and tracks) should reflect how they were credited
2012-01-11 01128, 2012
hawke_
ARs should reflect the actual entity. Shit, I contradicted my opinion on Björk.
2012-01-11 01136, 2012
reosarevok
:p
2012-01-11 01159, 2012
reosarevok
So should we start using legal names for stuff like vocal relationships instead of performance names?
2012-01-11 01116, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: IMO, they should be equivalent. Just like it doesn’t matter if the guy was credited as “Stéphane Grappelli” or “Stephane Grappelly”, the legal name refers to the same person.
2012-01-11 01131, 2012
hawke_
as the performance name
2012-01-11 01105, 2012
kovacsur
That's exactly why we need ACs for them, so we can credit the same entity
2012-01-11 01129, 2012
voiceinsideyou joined the channel
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
CallerNo6
But if some works are listed under the performance name and some under the legal name? Would you split up the works list?
2012-01-11 01132, 2012
reosarevok
Not if we had ACs for it :p
2012-01-11 01138, 2012
reosarevok
(without it, I don't know)
2012-01-11 01113, 2012
reosarevok
(the Spanish works DB tends to use a pretty verbose NAME [NAME2 NAME3] SURNAME1 SURNAME2 anyway)
2012-01-11 01120, 2012
reosarevok
(extra names if applicable)
2012-01-11 01147, 2012
hawke_
kovacsur: IMO the thing to do is merge. You can’t do artist credits on recordings anyway, because they’re often credited slightly differently in different places
2012-01-11 01149, 2012
kovacsur
hawke_, in those cases it may be okay to merge. I'm talking about cases where the same person has used different pseudonyms and was credited under those names
2012-01-11 01105, 2012
kovacsur
so people looking at the credits on an album cover would find that pseudonym
2012-01-11 01105, 2012
hawke_
kovacsur: Right, so am I.
2012-01-11 01121, 2012
kovacsur
oh, okay, I thought you were talking about minor spelling differences
2012-01-11 01135, 2012
hawke_
kovacsur: If one disc has a “vocals by Björk” and one has "vocals: Björk Guaoiejfoawiejfdottir”
2012-01-11 01139, 2012
CatCat
--> --> --> [20:04] reosarevok I'd agree, but we can't use artist credits in relationships <-- <-- <--
2012-01-11 01158, 2012
CatCat
!!!! [20:15] kovacsur That's exactly why we need ACs for them, so we can credit the same entity !!!!
2012-01-11 01100, 2012
hawke_
you can’t AC the “vocals” AR correctly without splitting the recording
2012-01-11 01103, 2012
kovacsur
That's not a big problem, because people would still recognize the Bj�rk bit.
2012-01-11 01103, 2012
CatCat
;)
2012-01-11 01105, 2012
CatCat
also
2012-01-11 01109, 2012
hawke_
and that’s a stupid reason to split the recording
2012-01-11 01112, 2012
CatCat
Now grooving to: Baz Luhrmann ~ The Pitch (Spectacular Spectacular) (2:51) (from Moulin Rouge 2) (2001)
2012-01-11 01123, 2012
hawke_
kovacsur: Right, but it’s the same for any performance name vs. legal name
2012-01-11 01103, 2012
kovacsur
absolutely not, pseudonyms stored as performance names can be completely different from legal names, therefore unrecognizable
It doesn’t matter whether they’re recognizable, I’m saying that you can’t sanely use artist credits in ARs
2012-01-11 01102, 2012
reosarevok
First is the name used for all production (beatmaking, whatever) credits
2012-01-11 01106, 2012
reosarevok
Second for rapping
2012-01-11 01112, 2012
reosarevok
Usually in the same recording
2012-01-11 01124, 2012
reosarevok
It'd be nice not to need two artists for them :p
2012-01-11 01110, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: And it’s not possible, without bringing back tracks as first-class entities that we can AR to
2012-01-11 01132, 2012
ijabz joined the channel
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
kovacsur
hawke_, it's not a bigger problem than normalizing recording titles. If different releases have contradicting aliases in the credits, we can pick the most common one or the one we find most "correct"
With the rels set, can I remove those UGLY credits from titles?
2012-01-11 01139, 2012
reosarevok is not sure where we stood on this
2012-01-11 01102, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: You definitely should
2012-01-11 01121, 2012
hawke_
At most those credits should be in the release title
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
hawke_
Not on every track
2012-01-11 01108, 2012
hawke_
IMO the release should be credited to the performers anyway, but that’s contradicting CSG
2012-01-11 01124, 2012
hawke_
Also, the recordings should be credited to the performers
2012-01-11 01130, 2012
zarlino joined the channel
2012-01-11 01153, 2012
reosarevok
:p
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
reosarevok
Yes, that's pretty much contradicting CSG
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
hawke_
the latter isn’t
2012-01-11 01152, 2012
hawke_
(recordings to performers)
2012-01-11 01107, 2012
CallerNo6
+1 (but you knew that)
2012-01-11 01145, 2012
hawke_
I love CSG. “Hey, the release itself puts the composer in the title and credits the release to the performers — clearly the proper solution is to swap that around! HERP!”
2012-01-11 01140, 2012
reosarevok
While I want to agree, the more I imagine a track / recording credit for performers, the less I like it :(
2012-01-11 01143, 2012
CallerNo6
oh, I meant recording->artist . I'd leave tracks/releases under composer.
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
CallerNo6
(or maybe some sort of AC)
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
hawke_
track, no. Recording, yes.
2012-01-11 01111, 2012
reosarevok
I mean, crediting it like that is much much cleaner than crediting it to "Symphony Orchestra Whatever, conductor: LongNameFooBar, piano: FooBarliciousLongName"
Fortunately we have a convenient system for displaying it: artist credits. :-p
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
KeLopez joined the channel
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
reosarevok
Except when it stops being convenient
2012-01-11 01108, 2012
reosarevok
(see my previous example... I'm not too sure that's convenient)
2012-01-11 01108, 2012
CallerNo6
convenient for editors who live on MB
2012-01-11 01109, 2012
KeLopez
O HEY
2012-01-11 01102, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: Why is it any worse than putting it in the title, though?
2012-01-11 01114, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, putting it in the title is equally bad
2012-01-11 01125, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: IMO, putting it in the title is worse for many reasons
2012-01-11 01128, 2012
reosarevok
But at least it's in just one title :p
2012-01-11 01131, 2012
hawke_
1. doesn’t appear on the artist’s page
2012-01-11 01134, 2012
reosarevok
(not in every recording)
2012-01-11 01144, 2012
hawke_
2. doesn’t get displayed appropriately on the works page
2012-01-11 01150, 2012
reosarevok
(except in ugly, ugly cases like this one)
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
hawke_
3. doesn’t link to the relevant artist MBIDs
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
reosarevok
Indeed
2012-01-11 01105, 2012
reosarevok
I do agree there's an issue
2012-01-11 01116, 2012
reosarevok
ACs are one way of solving it (not too good IMO)
2012-01-11 01121, 2012
reosarevok
Titles are another (even worse)
2012-01-11 01136, 2012
reosarevok
I can't believe there's no practical way to leverage relationships for it
2012-01-11 01109, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: Two problems with relationships: 1. you have to flag it as “classical” which is pretty arbitrary and has a lot of grey area
2012-01-11 01126, 2012
hawke_
2. you have to somehow get it to display how you want it to.
2012-01-11 01147, 2012
hawke_
(As I say, we already have a system for getting a list of artists to display like you want, and it’s called “Artist Credits”)
2012-01-11 01119, 2012
CallerNo6
but take for example Kronos Quartet. there'd likely be ARs for the individuals, but not an AR saying "Kronos Quartet peformed Foo Sonata"
2012-01-11 01137, 2012
reosarevok
That's also a good point
2012-01-11 01139, 2012
CallerNo6
(of course, that could be added)
2012-01-11 01142, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: Some argue that the group should also be credited with a “performed” ar
2012-01-11 01114, 2012
CallerNo6
hawke_: yeah, I wouldn't mind if that were codified formally
2012-01-11 01127, 2012
reosarevok
I would, I think
2012-01-11 01136, 2012
CallerNo6
er, "guideline-ified"
2012-01-11 01145, 2012
CallerNo6
oh?
2012-01-11 01151, 2012
reosarevok
I wouldn't mind a 3-part relationship, though, "X performed instrument on Y as part of Z"
2012-01-11 01134, 2012
CallerNo6
why not simply [ensemble] performed [work]?
2012-01-11 01158, 2012
CallerNo6
(simplest case)
2012-01-11 01153, 2012
CallerNo6 is probably missing somethin obvious
2012-01-11 01140, 2012
hawke_
Anyway, this doesn’t solve the problem of getting classical credits displayed sanely
2012-01-11 01147, 2012
reosarevok
How isn't that data duplication?
2012-01-11 01157, 2012
reosarevok
(if the members are also linked independently)
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: Because you don’t know if all the current members of the group performed it, nor if the set of people performed it together but not as a part of the group
2012-01-11 01159, 2012
hawke_
e.g. maybe someone was sick that day
2012-01-11 01113, 2012
hawke_
or maybe they just played together without considering it “the group”
2012-01-11 01150, 2012
hawke_
What’s *practically* wrong with just moving what’s in the title over to the artist credit, anyway?
2012-01-11 01120, 2012
hawke_
Other than contradicting CSG, I can’t think of anything
2012-01-11 01127, 2012
hawke_
The end result is the same length
2012-01-11 01158, 2012
reosarevok
You mean as Composer (Lenghty Performer Info)?
2012-01-11 01116, 2012
hawke_
I mean as Composer (Exactly What’s In The Title Now Only Linked To the People)
2012-01-11 01131, 2012
reosarevok
Yeah, we mean the same :p
2012-01-11 01136, 2012
reosarevok
I wouldn't oppose that for the RG
2012-01-11 01148, 2012
reosarevok
So it shows everywhere
2012-01-11 01155, 2012
reosarevok
But I guess other people might
2012-01-11 01101, 2012
reosarevok
You're welcome to try
2012-01-11 01120, 2012
reosarevok
For release / tracks / recordings... I don't like it, but I think that's obvious
2012-01-11 01128, 2012
reosarevok
For *release* though I could be convinced
2012-01-11 01129, 2012
hawke_
Too many people following the rules because they’re The Rules… :-/
2012-01-11 01136, 2012
hawke_
I mostly only care about it for recordings
2012-01-11 01140, 2012
reosarevok
:p
2012-01-11 01157, 2012
hawke_
(To make the works page useful)
2012-01-11 01157, 2012
reosarevok
That would give us a better work page
2012-01-11 01105, 2012
reosarevok
But give us a disastrous release page
2012-01-11 01111, 2012
hawke_
How so?
2012-01-11 01112, 2012
gioele joined the channel
2012-01-11 01122, 2012
gioele
hi
2012-01-11 01123, 2012
hawke_
Remember tracks != recordings
2012-01-11 01137, 2012
reosarevok
hi gioele
2012-01-11 01141, 2012
CallerNo6
hmmm. When I brought up something similar (ACs that looked something like (feat. xxx), the main objection (iirc) was that it would be too language specific.
