#musicbrainz

Most of the artists Killinstinct works with fall into this category

It's fairly safe to assume he knows the pattern

Some people pick up patterns easier than others.

It's fairly safe to assume that it's not fairly safe to assume anything.

To reiterate what CatQuest told you just yesterday: give other editors the benefit of the doubt.

I actually prefer lazy evaluation…

Lazy evaluation?

simukis_: :)

return explanations only when proplems arise or I am asked for them.

HibiscusKazeneko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_evaluation

ah

(That's a Haskell happy author of that article, anyway.)

that's the case for most articles related to functional programming in wikipedia

(and please don't apply that principle to edit notes, you're making life harder for everyone :P)

Mineo++

simukis_: Keep in mind that people may ask about your edits in 1, 5, 10 years. At which point it isn't certain you're still around to answer them.

(You don't bother with MB anymore, you've changed your e-mail and didn't reflect it in your MB settings, you were hit by a bus, you are on a 3 year long trip to Mars, etc.)

AFAIK trips to Mars are only one-way nowadays…

simukis_: I'm talking in 1 or 5 or 10 years. :)

On a release: "Mastered by [person] except "Turn It Up" mastered by [someone else]"

Hi! I want to understand how to use the "writer" vs. "composer"/"lyricist" relationships. The doc says I could use the former when it's unclear if their individual roles were unclear (http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Relationships#...). Can ISWC help? When a person is credited "CA", is this a reliable source for "composer"/"lyricist" relationships?

Not really

Well, depends

If the credits are *right*, then yes

But fairly often they just credit everyone as CA anyway since that determines how royalties are paid

I see.

If you don't have any clear statement of who did what, you can just go for writer

Does this paragraph mean that I can always use composer/lyricist relationships if only one artist is credited (and the work has both music and text)?

ISWC doesn't have the equivalent to our writer

Normally, yes :)

so when they don't know they credit both

(I guess there might be some case where it is using uncredited public domain lyrics or something, but that sounds like an edge case)

Ok. What do you use as a reference for these relationships (other than the release itself)?

Generally, just the release - if not, unless I know someone from ISWC is obviously the lyricist and someone obviously the composer (say, because one is a producer and one a rapper, in a rap song), I'd probably just go with writer

Well, for classical music it's different, of course :)

of course. everything is different for classical music *rollseyes*

also keep in mind that almost every instrumental recording has a lyrics credit in ISWC, so you can't use them to determine if there's lyrics or not

I would accept a primary source (the writer) in an interview or blog post or something like that if you can find one.

Yeah, I would be ok with that as a reference I imagine :) I don't generally *use it* because it sounds like too much effort for the sake of one work to try to find that when there are hundreds of thousands missing, but if you have it at hand, why not I guess

ok, so except for the release and individual research there is no definitive (or at lease generally helpful) resource? No silver bullet, guys?

heh

Not really, no

If there was, we wouldn't need MB! ;)

ok, thanks for the information

Someone wrote to us as well

Oh, that's us, lol

I personally would not, but not for any legal reasons, it just feels pointless in most cases

I mean, how do you add it? As a series? A release?

I wouldn't object to a new entity for that purpose (though I'm not sure enough people would care that we should bother implementing it).

reosarevok: I'd go for release (they studied it for a why, they the released it to their public), medium is hard...

I don't agree it's a release

And I doubt our customers and data users would either - it would be funny for Spotify to get their own playlists as releases, but I don't think they'd be particularly happy about it :p

I agree with reo's disagreement

I would also be OK with it being some new entity, but I know I'm not interested enough to actually implement it myself

Dunno if someone else would be

what would a playlist hold? recordings or works depending on the context?

recordings

Yeah, I guess you can't really play works, so that'd be just a list with no play :D

(so, a dull list)

I guess I was thinking more of a setlist when I asked.

haha

Setlists will initially hold text, in our events implementation, because mostly we had no idea how to answer that question for them

(well, and because building them to be more fancy than that would take a lot of effort, but :p)

i'm also against playlists

in theory I'd be against playlists as well, but now I have thought of it, I fail to see the difference between an internet release (list of titles, link to MP3, click to listen, right click to download) and an internet playlist with videos (list of titles, link to Video, click to listen, something more complicated to download)

It's pretty rare to have digital releases which are really like that anymore, I'd say - but even those usually have the *presentation* of a release