#musicbrainz

/

      • Erin
        and compilers, whenever the fuck, depending on which
      • but also, to whatever degree of quality or agreement, for a while
      • lw
        pre-C++98 templates were still useful though, that's what the STL was written against
      • which ended up being integrated into C++98 because it was so useful
      • Erin
        it sounds like templates of any actual seriousness came in c++ 11
      • from what i can find
      • lw
        no, completely false
      • if you want to argue useful templates first appeared in C++98 i'd accept that
      • but C++11's templates were just a refinement of what was in C++98
      • (i don't actually agree that useful templates first appeared in C++98, but the 98 standard *did* make such huge changes to templates that i could accept pre-98 templates weren't the same thing)
      • the only thing C++98 fucked up was the 'export' keyword, which was finally fixed in C++20 with modules
      • Erin
        that seems like a long time
      • but then apparently amazon is still selling a book on the subject from 2002
      • lw
        well no, what actually happened is 'export' was defined in C++98, no one implemented it, then in like C++11 or maybe C++03 they removed the wording for the keyword on the basis that no one implemented it
      • but that was a niche feature that had no impact on how people actually used templates
      • Erin
        fun
      • meanwhile i'm currently whining that c# doesn't have higher kind stuff
      • cause i want to write something that adds on to/wraps the Action/Func stuff for .... reasons
      • but those are defined with 17 variants each, because generics
      • 0 params, 1 param, 2 param ... etc
      • T.T
      • why can't i just be lazy
      • lw
        i don't see why C# couldn't add variadic generics, they just decided not to for some reason. it is weird.
      • similar to how F# doesn't have typeclasses which makes it much less useful than it should be
      • Erin
        yeahhhh
      • basically i just want something that works syntactically, like LINQ, but manages stuff like retry logic, success and failure info, errors, etc
      • so that i can just say "run this until it works, or <max> times"
      • or something like var x = new Thingy((int x) => { blah }).Retry().Times(5).Run();
      • but because that wraps them i have to define everything based on the varying numbers of generic params and returns
      • lw
        can't you just add new extensions methods if you want to do that?
      • Erin
        nope =^.^=
      • i tried
      • they're sealed
      • T.T
      • and evne then, you're doing less, but y ou're still kind of doing it
      • an extension version with variants for each type
      • plus the record keeping
      • like, what if you want to know how many failures happened before the success? what if you want to do extra stuff
      • so you need to fully inherit the class
      • and that is also no bueno
      • so i'm stuck writing a class that simply has a variable of type Func or of type Action
      • and then i have to do the interface based language stuff
      • which is a whole thing
      • oh and interfaces have to agree with classes, so they have all the variations again ... yayyyy
      • but symantic interfaces are nice so ... worth it maybe?
      • er, semantic
      • anyway, it is bed time now o/
      • G0d joined the channel
      • vzctr8 joined the channel
      • discordbrainz
        <11muxxer.exe> Anyway, if anyone's interested in starting a GamesBrainz, that'd be great.
      • <11muxxer.exe> A TabletopBrainz would also be cool tbh lol
      • <11muxxer.exe> InstrumentsBrainz, too.
      • <11muxxer.exe> Hell, fucking CarsBrainz, or even RadioBrainz
      • SupUser joined the channel
      • ahvalmissaamine has quit
      • ahvalmissaamine joined the channel
      • Hobbyboy|BNC joined the channel
      • Hobbyboy has quit
      • Eirik__ has quit
      • Eirik joined the channel
      • genius3000 has quit
      • genius3000 joined the channel
      • function1 joined the channel
      • Hobbyboy|BNC is now known as Hobbyboy
      • function1 has quit
      • function1 joined the channel
      • anonn joined the channel
      • SupUser has quit
      • function1 has quit
      • function1 joined the channel
      • mll joined the channel
      • mll_ has quit
      • ahvalmissaamine
        lw> i actually think MB should say "Gibson Les Paul 1958" if that's what the credits say or there's a realiable source for it indded, instruments havecredits just for this
      • discordbrainz> <muxxer.exe> InstrumentsBrainz, too. 😤 we havethat!!!!!!
      • *I'm* that!
      • function1 has quit
      • beanbrain has quit
      • d4rk-ph0enix has quit
      • d4rkie joined the channel
      • discordbrainz
        <05rustynova> What about brainz? - the zombies
      • lw
        i'm sure this edit is correct but how did we end up with 37 tracks on one CD? https://musicbrainz.org/collection/d91878fa-08b...
      • didn't original sumitter consider this and think, hmm, this does not seem likely
      • kellnerd[m] joined the channel
      • kellnerd[m]
        > Forbidden request: The page you requested is private.
      • function1 joined the channel
      • function1 has quit
      • JetpackJackson joined the channel
      • lw
        weird that https://musicbrainz.org/release/bfd70d61-e7ee-3... has Joss Whedon as the recording artist on every track, when he didn't sing on any of the tracks
      • function1 joined the channel
      • can i "fix" this or this is some kind of standard practice for MB?
      • on https://musicbrainz.org/release/8d3cc974-3f04-4... for example the artist is listed as whoever sang on that particular track, which makes a lot more sense to me
      • ok actually no, i see the 'recording artist' is set correctly, but it still shows Joss Whedon as the artist for every track? where is it taking that from?
      • even more confusing: https://musicbrainz.org/recording/a5410d05-1a91... - half the appearances of this recording are Joss Whedon and the other half are Sarah Michelle Gellar
      • i feel like trying to make this consistent is going to annoy one side or the other so perhaps i should just ignore it
      • actually i might ask about this on the forum
      • derwin
        "half the appearances of this recording are Joss Whedon and the other half are Sarah Michelle Gellar" -- peak #musicbrainz
      • lw
        derwin: does #musicbrainz have a particular obsession with those people?
      • function1 has quit
      • function1 joined the channel
      • derwin
        no, just they're so NOT MUSICIANS and so INTERNET and we care about whether they're being properly attributed
      • lw
        ah
      • i mean, they wrote and recorded songs, and then sung them, that doesn't make them musicians?
      • (i mostly care about this because i own this release on CD, i don't know if it's like 'very internet' or w/e)
      • derwin
        you do know who they are, tho, in the greater like, memeverse?
      • lw
        not really? i mean obviously i know who Joss Whedon is and i know stuff came out about him being a shitty person
      • function1 has quit
      • crism
        Musicals are usually treated like Classical; the credited artist is the composer or creator. Once More with Feeling is essentially a musical.
      • iconoclasthero joined the channel
      • lw
        crism: would you not list the 'artist' on a classical album as the musician(s) though?
      • like a Hillary Hahn release of Bach music would have Hillary Hahn as the artist, not Bach
      • hmm, apparently MB doesn't do it like this though: https://musicbrainz.org/release/77e7ec69-1247-4...
      • this makes no sense to me. if Tanya Tucker or Chuck Berry sings a song that someone else wrote, we list Tanya or Chuck as the artist.
      • why would it be different for classical vs pop?
      • function1 joined the channel
      • the example i linked from 'Crazy Ex-Girlfriend' seems a lot more sensible to me
      • following the classical model, most of those tracks should be credited to Adam Schlesinger which makes no sense, and is not how either the CDs or digital downloads are credited
      • crism: wouldn't this mean that the artist on any Altan or Dubliners album should be "[traditional]" for almost every track?
      • that doesn't make sense! this is a bad way of doing a thing
      • discordbrainz
        <12lazybookwyrm> Those wouldn't be considered classical releases
      • lw
        no, but why is it different for classical releases?
      • MeatPupp3t has quit
      • well, i guess i don't really care about classical music so if people want to list JS Bach as the recording artist on every track of a Hilary Hahn album i guess that's fine :-)
      • but we should really not do this for musical theatre, no one credits musical albums like this
      • MeatPupp3t joined the channel
      • discordbrainz
        <12lazybookwyrm> If you look at almost any classical album's cover art, you'll find the composer's name is usually just as or most prominent. E.g. https://musicbrainz.org/release/e028c506-cb0d-4... https://musicbrainz.org/release/3a077578-cb47-4... https://musicbrainz.org/release/49a17114-05c6-4... Some don't even list the performing artists on the cover:
      • lw
        "vienna master series" is a bad example since, according to discogs, the entire series is a fraud
      • there are very few classical music albums that don't like the performer in the album art
      • discordbrainz
        <12lazybookwyrm> And if you have a classical release with multiple composers you'll normally find the composers credited for each track. E.g. https://musicbrainz.org/release/bf2bdc53-03d8-4...
      • lw
        s/like/list
      • but as i said, i don't really care about classical music releases and i think a lot of stuff there is stupid so i just ignore it
      • but these releases are musical theatre and in that genre there is a clear trend of crediting the artists who sing on each track, not the songwriter
      • discordbrainz
        <12lazybookwyrm> I mean we still do credit the perform on classical releases, it's just structured as "composer; performer" at release level, composer at track level, performer at recording level.
      • <12lazybookwyrm> Musical theatre I don't really have an argument for, haven't done much with that. Mainly just done a ton of classical entries
      • <03metadataismydrug> @muxxer.exe You might find this interesting https://community.metabrainz.org/t/brainz-fanta...
      • <12lazybookwyrm> Also, the fake series/Alfred Scholz release is super common lol, so many budget classical releases back in the day
      • lw
        i have to say the few classical albums i own clearly list the performing artists on the cover, e.g. the Academy of Ancient Music recordings of Vivaldi, where the artist is *incredibly* important to the releases
      • SupUser joined the channel
      • or Hilary Hahn's album of Bach, which is frankly terrible and i would never pay money for that, so having her name on the album art (which it is) is also important
      • like, who goes into a record store and says "hey, i want a recording of the Bach double violin concerto and i don't care who recorded it"? literally no one does that.
      • this is stupid. :-(
      • function1 has quit
      • function1 joined the channel
      • discordbrainz
        <05rustynova> Is there any way to search for a deleted MBID? Someone deleted an MBID that got mapped to a listen and now I'm wondering what it is
      • <05rustynova> BTW it's 3d2485b1-5e31-4169-87b9-8be830498428
      • lojik has quit
      • lojik joined the channel
      • SupUser has quit
      • minimal joined the channel
      • function1 has quit