#musicbrainz

nikki: You around?

hi

nikki, reosarevok, ocharles: Thanks, yes it was a DJ-mix AR that I was trying to replicate.

ugh i am SICK of these excessive "special purpose artists" we have now

wtf "nature sounds" it all used ot be on no-artist

Actually, now it might make sense to merge them back, as it can be [no artist] as [nature sounds]

LOL

I'm completely serious

I think it is useful

reosarevok: and when someone wants to credit specific types of birds? :P

idk

nikki, add them as an artist :p

Nah, dunno

That could work too

they can use No artist" and use whatever the fuck they want as artist credit

[no artist] as Type of bird

the fuck if anyone did that i'd go beserk

it1's wrong

it's not all te same bird!

Well

might as well add a "human" artist and let it be EVERYBODY

ffs

Sure

But we don't have the name of the bird! They asked, but the bird didn't reply

:p

you betta be palyin' reo

Nah, an artist credit for [no artist] for that could work

After all, not all the [no artist] are the same either

One is a bell, other is a bird and other is a sea wave

HAH http://musicbrainz.org/edit/3708650

So, I agree with them that ultimately it should be [no artist]

But I would wait until we can filter by artist credit :)

to late! http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15029932

CatCat, it is not so simple

there is no reconing for that all those NS artists really had "nature sounds" as a credit, some probably just omit it, other just use "sounds for mbirds" and other agian are like "from bluetit with love"

honestly, it is

Some documentation should be added about how to use artist credits for SPAs

use one of a VA, no artist, unknown/anon/trad (merge anon and trad?) and use artist credit as on release

if it's "nature sounds" use a agodman tag

No way merge anon and trad

lol CatCat, a bluebird and some camels

It was bad enough the first time

reosarevok: yea

They're not the same

but now i can fianlly ahve "anon." as an artist credit

did somebody say "trad"?

spa rediorects to another page loi

loi. NOT

CallerNo6, someone did indeed

CatCat: I'm just too lazy to type the whole thing

the FUCK can I *please * merge this into anon now? http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ae636985-40e8-401...

Mineo: fixed

in my release it's even wrong, one track is set to it instead of anon when it's anon ON THE RELEASE

CatCat, it's supposed to be a subset of unknown: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Special_Purpose_Artist

(but if the release says anon, I guess you should use anon!)

what anon?

nikki: thanks. if you want, please also make http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles/Feature... not say "this hasn't been reviewed" anymore :)

yea

i just merge that thing into anon. yes

No

why the fuck not?

It says it there

it shoudl not have been separated

A subset of unknown

If you want to merge it do it into unknown

but it's a wrong thing made uop by soembody

And seeing that's a guideline

but that is WRONG

Needs to go through style first anyway

ffs

Mineo: oh damn, it took me ages to transclude all those pages properly (had to do it twice 'cause of a bug...)

CatCat: all the SPAs are technically wrong things made up by somebody

listen reo, it was split out originally as "[gregorian]"

i argued for merging it bac to anon.

it was merged.

CallerNo6, I imagine it was retained as a way of separating those for easier cleanup

Of course, I wonder if anyone ever tried to clean them up at all)

but then (once i was on my sabbatical or whatever from musicbrainz) it was apperantly made a new thing

hmm. it would probably be a good idea to propose merging the subsets of unknown and no artist back in, and allowing the use of artist credits to distinguish them... once we have the ability to search by artist credit.

reosarevok: good point

nikki: eww :(

rel music should be under anon, not unknown

kepstin-laptop, I said that before

take a look at the music there

CatCat, not all religious music is anonymous

i don't care what someone wrote on a outdated wikipage

(most is, admittedly)

certyanly not

but most on http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ae636985-40e8-401... is

CatCat, if you know something there is anon, move it to anon!

CatCat: then feel free to move the tracks/recordings on that release to anon

arguably [spiritual] also

After all, if it is a subset of unknown

It is there to be fixed

IT ISN§T A SUBSET OF UKNOWN

asome one made this "subset" stuff up

It is. That's what the guidelines say it is. If it passed, it was probably because someone approved it

And it can't be just merged into anon because we don't know if all of it is anon!

(and because we don't know, it's under unknown)

I think BF wanted less SPAs, although maybe it wasn't the case with this one

it wasn't supposed ot be sequined from anon in the first palce, thne it eas merged with spiritual and soem islamic and world music crap (not that that msuic is crap)

Well, that sounds like religious music too :p

peopel were originally arguinf for merging anon into unknown you know

I'm not saying it is *correct*

reosarevok: whos composer is.. anonymus?

CatCat, 'known' unknown vs. 'unknown' unknown

?

Same as we have [unknown] vs [untitled]

For tracks / recordings / works

jsut look at the mess this thing is now http://musicbrainz.org/release/4ca58fd4-761f-4f...

anon and unknown, which is what now?

heh

and what in rel mus isn definitly unknow nand not anon, mostly i'd go with movign whatever's not anon to unknown and mergign relmus into anon

CatCat, if you know it is not anon, then you probably know who it is and you can move it to the right artist

The problem is knowing it is not anon

"anonymous" is basically a statement of artist intent - that the artist/composer didn't want to be credited.

That's why I propose moving what is anon to anon

but then artist credts wont happen... or don't you care?

(which is its rightful place(

go do a search for [religious music]

CatCat, there's nothing preventing you from moving all those that you know are anon into anon

I.. I .. it's not

Actually

for ma glance. i'd say they all are

Not only nothing prevents you

That's what it's supposed to be done

But only the ones you know are anon

Not just the ones that look like it

and if all of them are anon

Can you prove it?

If you can prove all of them are anon then make them anon, people will vote yes!

tthey were in "anon" initially all of thme

But I doubt it is that easy

who composed gregorain music

Gregorian music is likely to be anon, yeah

But Arvo Part makes religious music and he's not anon

Palestrina made religious music and he's not anon

but those are all under either anon, selmus OR unknown

those who aren'rt credited right

But it is perfectly possible that someone could have put those into [religious music]

sure fix up anon to not say the ones that are actall known