#musicbrainz

'(12:21:29 PM) hawke1: A new name on the door does not make it a whole new place / (12:25:50 PM) CallerNo6: It doesn't make it a new "location". It does make it a new "establishment".'

I think you're reading too much into that comment. I know that that's not what he meant.

Unless I misinterpreted that, and he may have not meant it that broadly.

Re: "names are incidental[/secondary]."

Okay, I should have said "It often makes it a new 'establishment'."

If the place was sold on eBay and the new owners of the Place decided to take it into a completely new direction, I think it would make sense to consider it a new MB:Place.

Freso: yeah, agreed.

I wouldn't say "a name change *never* means a new place" either. but I don't think a name change on its own is a new place.

I don't think anyone is claiming that, that I've seen. :)

That whole lake*(side? view? whatever?) church thing is ... a bit weird.

But anyway, it's all irrelevant to how we display the place in an AR. :-)

Rachel's comments in that thread was mostly that the MB:Places had undergone significant changes from the point in time they were relevant to any added MB entities.

(As I understood it - I didn't investigate much, if any, admittedly.)

It sounded to me like it was 'this is no longer a venue, the venue ended when the church bought the place' (which was my initial impression as well when I first read about it)

That's one reason I prefer to keep the places as-is -- most of the time they could still easily be used as a music venue, if they ever were one.

A sports arena is still just as suitable for music after you nail a cross to the wall. :-)

That applies until they knock the building down, I think.

I think it makes sense to make a new Place if it can be considered a new Place. For some people, that means that the building has to be levelled and rebuilt, for others it just means change of ownership/purpose.

As long as we're able to link Places together, I'm happy to accommodate the latter ones.

Freso: I'd really like better presentation if we want to make it normal to split them.

Granted, the real world doesn't really fit into schemas cleanly, but it'd be nice if we could say 'An mb-place is generally a location' or 'An mb-place is generally an establishment'.

I guess right now the defintion leans towards 'location'.

argh, windows is refusing to recognize this CD completely.. i wonder if it ever worked.

no disc id for you :[

CallerNo6: 'establishment' feels really too fuzzy to me though.

There's a place nearby (now entirely closed) -- formerly the Mission Coffeehouse, which had live music for a longish time. Then eventually that closed and reopened shortly after as 'the afterdark', still with the same kind of live music, basically the same place but with new owners, better lighting and a fresh coat of paint.

more fuzzy than "an artist is a project"?

New establishment? technically, sure...but for the patrons, nothing really changed.

We'd make a new release because of much smaller differences.

Even though to the listener it's pretty much the same thing.

Yeah, but releases are actually different *things*

So are establishements.

If someone (this seems like it might be a neat art project)...if someone were to take a single CD as the only instance of a release and reprint the artwork over it repeatedly....

or have a digital release with a single piece of artwork that changes over time, procedurally generated with the current timestamp as a seed...

I want that!

I mean, I agree that some changes to a venue are purely cosmetic, and some name changes are really more like "name variations".

3-Com Park will always be Candlestick to some people. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport will always be "National".

Yep.

For your coffee place, that doesn't feel like a mere "name variation" to me. (even though I still call Cole Coffee by it's old name 9 years later).

the current Place definition doesn't sound to me like "we thought this through carefully, and a Place is usually a location". It sounds more like "Duh, everybody knows that a Place is a place.".

CallerNo6: yeah, but I have no problem with multiple 'establishments' being the same 'place'.

In general?

For the most part; I could see a few exceptions for that.

Also in a few cases I could see one 'place' with multiple 'locations'

Sure. If McDonalds moves to the building nextdoor, it's still McDonalds.

So for a release, a new itunes ID and copyright holder is sufficient to make a new release? But for a place, not?

Maybe the analogy doesn't exactly work. Oh well.

CallerNo6: If the place gets a new copyright holder, it's a new release. ;-)

#placesarereleasestoo

CallerNo6: But more seriously, I think there's a distinction in that releases are all separate artifacts. We're not talking about the same actual physical object changing.

or I should say that with physical releases, they're all separate artifacts. The question of whether a digital release is an artifact is a little fuzzier I suppose

this looks like a job for Freso

example: https://musicbrainz.org/release/b6db061e-40b9-4... the last part of the names inside the parens are traditional dances from France and Europe

heh dancebrainz

yes :D

I dunno that that requires an entire *brainz system but I support the idea of connecting dances to songs.

+1

in this example track 1 and 12 would have the same DBID (DanceBrainz ID) since they are "bourrées à 3 temps"

well we have places and areas, why the hell not dances anyway?

it's a good gsoc project honestly

AllMusic now has an annoying anti-adblocker script. Seems like I will add links to them even more rarely than I did already …

I stopped doing it when their pages started "bleeding" (literally breaksing whne i scroll)

bourrées are great dances which I should teach to anyone

anywayi must eat and sleep, talk to you guys tomorrow :D

see you!

adding dances to mb sounds totally reasonable

FergusL: this has been proposed before; problems IIRC have been that some songs aren't created with a dance in mind, and in theory any dance can be performed to any song.

So that kinda leans towards 'only if noted as such on the release' as a style item or something like that.

Some think it’s a property of the work, but it mostly isn’t.

chirlu: I think it could be if described properly.

chirlu: 'intended dance' or something.

but yeah, certainly not always and not clearly.

OK. Then it has no practical relevance because works intended for a certain dance are very rare (mostly limited to classical music).

tango?

yes, makes sense, it's either on the release or on the title itself, "Mazurka de...", "Bourrée à..." meaning mazurka of something... or bourrée to... someone

all traditional music from France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Germany etc...

if this is fuzzy or subjective in the way that genre is, then would it be enough to use folksonomy tags?

but that's not much still, sure

honestly, I'm suggesting all this because I have personal interest in this music, and I can tell it's really not subjective

actually, a good dancer can tell what dance it is from just listening to a tune, because the tune is composed in a way that adheres to the dance moves

CallerNo6: It is fuzzy, but not to the degree of "genre"

also, there are a lot of small differences, sometimes dances are named after the person who invented it

and might be known just to a few thousand people who had a band play them for them

And a polka in Ireland is not exactly the same as a polka in Denmark is not exactly the same as a polka in Finland.

and there are numerous derivatives of polkas!

jeez, you two. if you love dance so much, why don't you marry it?

oh, wait.

I would like a DanceBrainz though, but more for choreographies, dance crews, tournament/battle results, etc.

is that still in the field of traditional dances?

No.

Well, I know of some trad. dance troupes.

And there are competitions/tournaments for trad. dancing.

I'd love to have my library being sortable "by dance" and for example throw a playlist of only scottishes

But a *Brainz site should not be genre specific.

or just finding out how many of those dances I have

(oh, tricky part : some songs have several dances of the same type, some several of differenty types etc...)

I think the best solution right now is to use tags. Something like "dance: schottish" or some such.

that's right, indeed

yes I thought about that first

ha you mean adding a "dance" tag?

more tags!

and more namespaces!

also, regarding dance, there is the recorded repertoire, and the existing one! so a dance might apply to either tracks or recordings BUT some funny musicians will arrange a tune with the same name and play it as a different dance from the original!

hahaha

CallerNo6: are you into these things about new musical instruments?

Bela has been very interesting to me from the start!

FergusL: I mean, quite literally, to use a tag "dance: schottish" for an Recording, Work, ... that would be danced schottisch to.

Not just "dance", but "dance: schottisch"

Freso ok, just like there is "Album" tag, there will be a "dance" one with value "scottish"? just want to make sure I get it well

FergusL: No.

Like https://musicbrainz.org/tag/traditional:%20denmark

Or https://musicbrainz.org/tag/time:%206%2F8

Or https://musicbrainz.org/tag/schottisch