Freso, put it (the cooling thingy) in the back pocket of a cycling jersey?
2012-11-01 30651, 2012
MJ joined the channel
2012-11-01 30651, 2012
KingJ joined the channel
2012-11-01 30655, 2012
drsaunde joined the channel
2012-11-01 30622, 2012
kepstin-laptop joined the channel
2012-11-01 30638, 2012
Lomaxx joined the channel
2012-11-01 30634, 2012
Lomaxx
hm server-problems? I'm about to loose another relationship-edit-session :oP
2012-11-01 30610, 2012
TheLastProject joined the channel
2012-11-01 30632, 2012
Lomaxx
I only get white pages for any MBz-url
2012-11-01 30643, 2012
Freso
Cycling jersey?
2012-11-01 30644, 2012
_Dave_ joined the channel
2012-11-01 30650, 2012
_Dave_ has left the channel
2012-11-01 30607, 2012
Lomaxx
Freso, in case you mean me: Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
2012-11-01 30628, 2012
Freso
Lomaxx: I didn't. :)
2012-11-01 30635, 2012
Lomaxx
good =)
2012-11-01 30620, 2012
v6lur joined the channel
2012-11-01 30619, 2012
KingJ joined the channel
2012-11-01 30646, 2012
vinci joined the channel
2012-11-01 30627, 2012
drsaunde joined the channel
2012-11-01 30612, 2012
JoeLlama joined the channel
2012-11-01 30613, 2012
JoeLlama joined the channel
2012-11-01 30602, 2012
Lomaxx
I'm still only getting an empty page when accessing musicbrainz.org. Are you experiencing the same problem?
2012-11-01 30642, 2012
derwin
nope
2012-11-01 30627, 2012
reosarevok joined the channel
2012-11-01 30616, 2012
Lomaxx
Then I don't get what it is. Other internet-sites work well.
2012-11-01 30621, 2012
Freso
Lomaxx: Clear cache?
2012-11-01 30657, 2012
kepstin-laptop joined the channel
2012-11-01 30639, 2012
Freso remembers when he was doing LiveJournal support way back, how "clear cache and see if issue is still there" was the far most common answer...
2012-11-01 30603, 2012
dekarl joined the channel
2012-11-01 30617, 2012
Freso also muses a bit than even in his years doing Drupal development, "clear cache" is still often the first thing one should do when seeing weird stuff
2012-11-01 30622, 2012
Freso
*that
2012-11-01 30613, 2012
CallerNo6
... and yet it's still a hidden and obscure command (at least in ff).
2012-11-01 30658, 2012
hawke_
shift+reload is obscure?
2012-11-01 30643, 2012
Lomaxx
Freso, thanks, clearing the cache solved it. It was filled up to the maximum. shift+reload didn't help.
2012-11-01 30632, 2012
CallerNo6
hawke_: is thinking like an engineer. Yes. That's obscure.
2012-11-01 30656, 2012
hawke_
CallerNo6: Yes, but less obscure that options→advanced→whateverthefuck→clear cache
2012-11-01 30659, 2012
hawke_
*than
2012-11-01 30612, 2012
hawke_
(less discoverable though)
2012-11-01 30615, 2012
CallerNo6
true, true
2012-11-01 30651, 2012
nikki
Freso: one by one is the only way anything will get added, imo
2012-11-01 30612, 2012
CallerNo6
nikki, really? I'd always rather see the big picture. Incremental change never gives enough context.
2012-11-01 30631, 2012
nikki
the problem is getting everyone to agree
2012-11-01 30645, 2012
derwin
no it's not
2012-11-01 30602, 2012
CallerNo6
shut up. jerk.
2012-11-01 30608, 2012
derwin
(hehehe)
2012-11-01 30653, 2012
watsonalgas joined the channel
2012-11-01 30630, 2012
Freso
Actually, Firefox also has "Functions -> Clear recent history... (Ctrl+Shift+Delete)" now (or something like that - I'm using the Danish language pack).
2012-11-01 30650, 2012
Freso
That that is the way to clear the cache might be somewhat obscure too, though. :)
2012-11-01 30615, 2012
Freso
hawke_ CallerNo6: ^
2012-11-01 30620, 2012
CallerNo6
nikki, then let's fix the style process :-)
2012-11-01 30644, 2012
reosarevok reads chatlogs
2012-11-01 30600, 2012
reosarevok
Freso: rap, specifically, was rejected at some point
2012-11-01 30630, 2012
Freso
reosarevok: But I wanted to use "(human) beatboxing"...
2012-11-01 30649, 2012
reosarevok
Because of the unclear limit between rapping and singing (what does T.I. do?)
2012-11-01 30649, 2012
nikki
CallerNo6: if all you want to do is add new types to the vocal list, then it doesn't make sense to do them as a batch anyway, since they don't depend on each other
2012-11-01 30601, 2012
reosarevok
Freso: Yeah, I know - that one should be safe I guess :)
2012-11-01 30615, 2012
reosarevok
Just said the other thing because I saw it also turned into rap
2012-11-01 30624, 2012
reosarevok
But maybe that was just Lotheric
2012-11-01 30644, 2012
nikki has a load of credits waiting for someone to convince other people that we should add 'rap' :/
2012-11-01 30659, 2012
nikki
well, maybe not "load", but at least several
2012-11-01 30608, 2012
Freso
I'd want "rap" too.
2012-11-01 30617, 2012
Freso
Sometimes it *isn't* hard to tell apart.
2012-11-01 30620, 2012
Freso
Most of the time, really.
2012-11-01 30635, 2012
Freso
And when in doubt, choose rap's and singing's common ancestor.
2012-11-01 30656, 2012
Freso
(Or choose both rap *and* singing - performance ARs support that!)
2012-11-01 30605, 2012
vinci joined the channel
2012-11-01 30657, 2012
CallerNo6
That's what I mean by "context". When I hear that somebody is trying to add "rap" I immediately wonder what 50 other things will be added using the same argument, once a precedent is set.
Honestly, the recording thread is gettin' me down. I mean, this isn't a minor style detail. Entities should be easily grokked.
2012-11-01 30605, 2012
bitmap
but I don't have any access to IE 8 to test...
2012-11-01 30610, 2012
robmorrissey joined the channel
2012-11-01 30654, 2012
hawke_
warp says “any difference is significant”, kepstin says “any difference is significant, and this is what we already do, but gain doesn’t matter and all remasters are lying”, reosarevok says “it’s impossible to identify different recordings, we should just merge similar things”, Sheamus Patt says “I don’t care if there are differences, it’s more convenient and easier to merge different recordings”
2012-11-01 30659, 2012
hawke_
Do I have that all right?
2012-11-01 30634, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_: not exactly
2012-11-01 30646, 2012
reosarevok
I mean, I don't think it's impossible to identify different recordings
2012-11-01 30654, 2012
Freso is with warp in that not-exactly-right summary
2012-11-01 30629, 2012
kovacsur
as I see it, this RFC is mostly just spelling things out, things that many felt more comfortable ignoring until now
2012-11-01 30631, 2012
reosarevok
I just think it's too harsh to expect the average user to be able to differentiate analog and digital recordings and whether something is on vinyl but from the digital master or not or what
2012-11-01 30644, 2012
Freso
Merging is "easy", un-merging is "hard".
2012-11-01 30632, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: Sorry, that’s what I got out of “it seems so unfeasible for everyone except the most dedicated editors to grasp that mostly everyone will probably ignore it”
2012-11-01 30658, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_: the full extent of what he wants, yes
2012-11-01 30623, 2012
reosarevok
I don't expect people to merge, say, all recordings by the same performers of the same work :p
2012-11-01 30640, 2012
reosarevok
But I expect people would see the vinyl and CD version of them as the same thing
2012-11-01 30602, 2012
hawke_
I don’t understand how that could be.
2012-11-01 30622, 2012
reosarevok
And if it was "vinyl is always a different recording" that might even work, but what I read there is stuff like "vinyl is sometimes a new recording, sometimes it's not because it's the digital master pressed to vinyl"
2012-11-01 30626, 2012
hawke_
It seems completely impractical to see vinyl as the same as shellac.
(or in the cases I’m thinking of, shellac the same as digital, but…)
2012-11-01 30606, 2012
reosarevok
Hmm, actually, wouldn't that digital version most likely be a direct digitisation of the shellac since original recording stuff is likely to have been lost?
2012-11-01 30623, 2012
CallerNo6
It sounds like everybody is more interested in tracking what makes these things different, and less interested in tracking what makes them similar.
2012-11-01 30633, 2012
CallerNo6
(recordings, I mean)
2012-11-01 30615, 2012
reosarevok
I wouldn't have a problem with making recordings more meaningful for the average user and then having sub-recording stuff for digital / analog / remasters
2012-11-01 30625, 2012
reosarevok
(kinda like works / arrangements)
2012-11-01 30631, 2012
reosarevok
But if we can only have one level...
2012-11-01 30647, 2012
jacobbrett
My vague idea is that if two recordings have significant differences, let them be unique in the DB. Significant being mixes, masters that mess with the dynamic compression, overdubs, radio edits, etc.
2012-11-01 30658, 2012
Freso
Yeah, I want "super" recordings/recording groups too. :|
2012-11-01 30610, 2012
hawke_
reosarevok: I’m more referring to multiple different digitizations.
2012-11-01 30645, 2012
reosarevok
jacobbrett: yeah, that's my view too, but what "significant" means seems to be different for everyone :p
no one in their right mind would want to merge those, they're different edits, not only different masters
2012-11-01 30646, 2012
warp
CallerNo6: yes, because merged recordings which I consider to be seperate recordings on my local collection cause me a LOT more trouble than seperate recordings which I consider the same.
2012-11-01 30647, 2012
hawke_
Freso: It doesn’t seem that anyone wants to merge those two.
2012-11-01 30649, 2012
jacobbrett
Freso: Definately separate, IMO.
2012-11-01 30650, 2012
Freso
To me, they're "significantly" different enough to not warrant a merge.
2012-11-01 30626, 2012
Freso
But they're both from the same "master" from the studio. The fade-out is just different. (Ie., the fade out is made 8 seconds "faster"/shorter on one.)
2012-11-01 30612, 2012
hawke_
Freso: So the issue is the “a new recording should only be used when the difference in length is greater than 10 seconds.”?
2012-11-01 30608, 2012
hawke_
(Which, together with the ISRC being the same, would suggest that they should be merged, under the proposed guidelines — right?)
2012-11-01 30619, 2012
kovacsur
does anyone agree with that? I was about to reply to that on the mailing list but I saw warp already did
2012-11-01 30619, 2012
jacobbrett
Freso: For me as a consumer, I might prefer to listen to the one with extra fade-out and not have them confused in the MBDB, which is used as a data source by many applications and organisations that I may associate with.
2012-11-01 30636, 2012
Freso
hawke_: The issue is that they're not the same audio yet they have the same source, just mastered/mixed differently for the two compilations - thus there's no good solution without super/master recordings/recording groups. :)
2012-11-01 30636, 2012
kovacsur
the 10 second rule, that is
2012-11-01 30601, 2012
hawke_
kovacsur: I believe that was taken from the ISRC guidelines.
2012-11-01 30602, 2012
Freso
jacobbrett: Exactly.
2012-11-01 30613, 2012
kovacsur
hawke, I know, but it clearly doesn't apply to us
2012-11-01 30623, 2012
kovacsur
ISRCs are much more limited, more likely to run out than MBIDs
2012-11-01 30625, 2012
hawke_
as in “that looks like a good idea, maybe we should follow the same thing”
2012-11-01 30648, 2012
hawke_
I would be in favor of removing that 10-second rule
2012-11-01 30606, 2012
hawke_
So no exception for fade length at all?
2012-11-01 30614, 2012
hawke_
Does that mean that any change to the fading = new recording?
2012-11-01 30622, 2012
hawke_
Some people don’t want that, I understand
2012-11-01 30623, 2012
kovacsur
I would say yes
2012-11-01 30658, 2012
kovacsur
it's the same problem as the countless different masters, really -- we need another abstraction layer
2012-11-01 30623, 2012
CallerNo6
warp: I understand why collectors and audiophiles would want that. That level of granularity is great, but if it can't be hidden by moving up one level of abstraction, then it's just noise after a while.
2012-11-01 30654, 2012
CatCat
how you clar cache in chrome?
2012-11-01 30610, 2012
CatCat
hawke: cat cat says " it's easier to just merge all the recordings, and then sort out the ones we *know* to be different"
