#musicbrainz

nikki: heh yes

I know I'm late to the conversation, but... what is this list of works /for/? If it's for making me identify which of these categories something I edit is in, I will go completely barking. (To the extent that I do any editing these days... there's a fantastic stack of "do metadata" CDs towering over my desk)

you know that both , greenland, iceland, færøeyene AND shetland used to bel ong to norway?

It's for trying to somehow document the list of work types/forms we already have ( http://musicbrainz.org/work/create ) but with no documentation at all

grenland is workign no it

gomand those g's and n's

god damn those g's and n's

anyway i have iskrem

<33

As well as "not classical" (what you currently have by "none") you might want a "none of the above" so that an editor can feel OK about saying "I have thought about this and a Bach prelude and fugue is definitely none of these categories"

documenting current practice is of course completely different from codifying future practice

the danger is that current ad-hoc practice is used to strait-jacket future practice. Having a "none of the above" at least provides an escape route

Kryztof: I don't think that's a good idea. How do you do the migration if someone adds a new type?

Although that's admittedly harder maybe

"unset" means "no-one has looked at this". "none of the above" means "I thought about it on this date and none of the categories fit"

I usually support such a distinction, but I'm not sure how useful it is here

if someone adds a new type, all the "none of the above" set before that date can be inspected to see if they match the new category; all the "none of the above" set after that date can be left as-is

Although yeah, I guess "other" wouldn't necessarily hurt

I think other is needed

We don't have "spoken word piece" or something like it, and nothing else now fits. So I had to leave it empty, where it looks unset, rather than setting something suboptimal (ie other) until better can be set.

brianfreud: My point is that if I set a work to be "other" and someone adds a new category, then the data is *wrong* not just uninformative. "Checking all others" won't work when there are 10000 of them...

Meh, 500 / 502 :(

HAPPY NEW YEAY MB FOLKS !

CatCat: "denmakr" looks like some cool old norse word :P

also, why didn't anyone return good wishes to jesus? :P

i mean... there was like whole two seconds for it

yea that's it! I'm not misspelling! I'm talking old norse!

:D

reosarevok (or anyone else who uses my "relate works to artists" userscript), can you look at http://mbuserscript.tempopage.com/008/ and tell me if the modified UI is an improvement over the current one?

kovacsur: isn't "publishing" a label thing?

In general, though, longer fields = good thing

not only, and it was requested here http://userscripts.org/topics/96320

yeah, but the checkboxes changing their relative positions if the page is resized can be confusing, can't it

I mean, you get used to "top right checkbox" meaning "lyricist"

True

Maybe you can combine the two things?

After all, the checkboxes resizing are not that useful

Just the fields

I kinda doubt a lot of people resize the page often

you see, the main reason I started to make the modifications was the checkboxes taking up too much space with "publishing" added

Well, you could probably make two 3-box lines

Which don't need to move

How useful that is, I don't know, I tend to edit fullscreened anyway

one more solution I considered was adding a switch to toggle between "classical music mode" and "simple mode"

with classical music mode showing everything but lyricist

and simple mode showing composer and lyricist only

er, and publishing now, I gues.

s

Classical has lyricists

(songs and song cycles for example)

aww.

I still see no problem on adding that though

I guess I'll go with your 2x3 checkboxes suggestion then

make it so people can pick which they want to use?

(that being a "simpler" mode)

and you're missing "writer" :P

Heh

nikki: I'm missing a lot of things I thought people didn't use often :)

Funny that I just noticed

kovacsur: "writer" is very common for popular music

kovacsur: well for artist-work, writer is the third most common :)

(very rare for classical - that could be hidden by a classical mode :P)

it's for cases when the credits don't specify who did what, right?

my stats page says 263k composer, 89k lyricist, 14k writer, 3.5k orchestrated, 3.3k librettist, 805 misc, 399 arranged, 327 instrumentation, 133 published, 15 arranged instrument, 7 arranged vocal

err, 339 arranged :P

Heh, I'm not sure. "Writer" seems to me like an easy way out, if someone is too lazy to look up the actual credits

I understand that there are genuine cases when it's needed

but I don't think adding it to a batch relationship creator script is a good idea

I don't use it much 'cause japanese credits are usually more detailed than that, but the western music I've seen tends to suck

yeah, few western credits i've seen - or stuff listed in western works databases - is more accurate than 'writer' :/

Spanish works DB lists only writers

Doesn't really specify composer/lyricist/arranger

And pop vinyl usually gives that info as Title (Writer1/Writer2/etc)

Lame. :|

There's also the fact that many electronic music specifically gets credited as "written by" because it is felt that "composed by" doesn't really apply

I have two issues with adding "writer", one of them being I don't want to encourage people to check "writer" when the actual credits should be both composer and lyricist (or only composer in the case of electronic music), and the other being... it would mean yet another damn checkbox, so the 2x3 setup wouldn't cut it anymore >_<

(that also annoys people randomly choosing writer, because, it's slightly harder)

True

I'd also argue that if the record says writer, there's nothing wrong with entering that

If someone with better sources and more time can improve it later, perfect - if not, still true

Fine, I think I'll just make the "advanced" stuff hidden by default

Thanks for your help. :)

"The Steam servers are currently too busy blah blah"

Meh

People, stop buying games

(until I can start downloading my copy of Orcs Must Die! at least :( )

this just in

musicbrainz editor supports piracy

"stop buying games"

what? no mass effect on encore deals? that's not cool

derwin: this just in, "Spanish person pays for games" is better :p

my music was recently pirated on arussian rapidshare forum

(I suspect it's less common)

I got 1/10th of my soundcloud plays

as a result of the pirates embedding my soubndcloud link

(and I don't know how they got those links? which was extra weird)

The soundcloud links?

Were they private?

yeah

like, the official release of it, I don't think includes them

and they did an embed link

so a lot of the plays were logged out etc

most of the plays are from "russian federation" according to soundcloud, lol

39483 tracks takes quite some time to acoustid :)

How soon after submitting would picard used them? Does the 0.16 release even use them? What is the process they go through after submission? Is there a doc/wiki about it? (Loads of questions) :)

PeepoAWAY: have you read luks blog?

a) within a couple of minutes normally, b) yes if you set it up, c) uhh..., d) http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Acoustid ?

Quick question: can one do any sort of clever formatting in annotations?

I'd like to link to two other works in the one I'm writing.

Yes

[URL Text]

Cool, thanks!

I am not sure if it accepts the kind of [[work:MBID|Text]] the wiki does

But the URL thing works

Hmm, it might be [URL|Text], can't remember right now

Just preview before sending :)

rswarbrick: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Annotation#Wiki_for...

Looks like it's the pipe format.

and vote on http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-2808

Ah, thanks.

Can anyone comment on how I've split up performances of http://musicbrainz.org/work/c912e891-de3e-4864-... ? Basically, Khachaturian released a suite from the ballet, which is probably what everyone performs. But since I didn't know, I purposefully made a "general purpose" work. Does this seem reasonable?

(this is without getting into the problem that there are actually two significantly different versions of the ballet. Eugh)

Hmm

Does the dance really have a lyricist?

!! Where's that

?