IRC log of musicbrainz on 2012-11-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:00:22 [Freso]
Wait, half way through RFC-RFC 159?
00:00:27 [Freso]
Or MB-RFC?
00:01:54 [reosarevok]
I'd bet for the existing one
00:02:48 [Freso]
RFC-RFC exists.
00:02:53 [Freso]
"RFC 159 was never issued.
00:02:55 [Freso]
"
00:03:23 [Freso]
My point was that if #6 was only half-way through that... well.
00:03:26 [kovacsur]
and I think he meant STYLE-159 (ie. the recording merge one)
00:04:03 [CallerNo6]
STYLE-159, yes. The style thread /should/ have been RFC-159. Or did we stop doing that?
00:04:32 [CallerNo6]
Wow. How many different ways can my lame joke fall flat? I hope it's at least funny when I fall.
00:05:18 [kovacsur]
hey, it was funny in at least two entirely different ways
00:09:32 [kovacsur]
hm, it would be useful if you could create artists in the relationship editor, just like works
00:11:13 [Freso]
kovacsur: I'm pretty sure there's a ticket for that.
00:11:21 [Freso]
(And I agree.)
00:11:55 [kovacsur]
that would save me writing a userscript :)
00:15:29 [Freso]
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5515
00:16:23 [kovacsur]
thanks, voted
00:20:52 [Lotheric]
voted too
01:04:28 [Prophet5]
Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
01:16:05 [jacobbrett]
jacobbrett has joined #musicbrainz
01:20:57 [kurtjx]
kurtjx has joined #musicbrainz
01:34:06 [Prophet5]
Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
02:26:33 [JoeLlama]
JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
02:26:35 [JoeLlama]
JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
02:32:49 [JoeMooCow]
JoeMooCow has joined #musicbrainz
03:00:48 [robmorrissey]
robmorrissey has joined #musicbrainz
03:27:31 [JoeLlama]
JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
03:36:18 [ehrgeiz]
ehrgeiz has joined #musicbrainz
03:40:37 [uptown]
uptown has joined #musicbrainz
03:48:53 [ianmcorvidae]
folks who use beta: I've just merged a very large patch to it; nothing that *should* be user-visible (changed the way the server configuration system works), but if anything looks funky please be sure to tell me :)
03:49:12 [ianmcorvidae]
(and hey, worst case it's just a different bug we need to fix, right? :P)
04:37:31 [STalKer-X_n]
STalKer-X_n has joined #musicbrainz
05:08:41 [g-ram]
g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
05:14:27 [Prophet5]
Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
05:44:19 [JoeLlama]
JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
05:44:21 [JoeLlama]
JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
05:53:10 [g-ram]
g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
06:00:03 [Diaoul]
Diaoul has joined #musicbrainz
06:06:57 [derwin]
jeeze
06:07:03 [derwin]
searching for this artist's name is.. fail..
06:07:03 [derwin]
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d2a54937-fd0d-4586-85c3-235a405019cf
06:07:37 [ianmcorvidae]
it is?
06:07:41 [ianmcorvidae]
I get them as the top result
06:23:24 [derwin]
well.. say you know their name is the decibels
06:23:54 [derwin]
1) search for decibels
06:23:59 [derwin]
2) search for dbs
06:24:03 [derwin]
3) search for db
06:33:55 [ianmcorvidae]
they appear as the third result on the second search?
07:08:58 [Transfusion]
Transfusion has joined #musicbrainz
07:13:14 [andreypopp]
andreypopp has joined #musicbrainz
07:48:55 [dwg]
dwg has joined #musicbrainz
07:53:31 [uptown]
uptown has joined #musicbrainz
08:13:34 [dwg]
dwg has joined #musicbrainz
08:30:23 [v6lur]
v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
08:38:46 [ruaok]
ruaok has joined #musicbrainz
08:48:57 [Prophet5]
Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
08:51:27 [dwg]
dwg has joined #musicbrainz
09:30:06 [yvesr]
yvesr has joined #musicbrainz
09:40:49 [CatCat]
Freso: when I read about that https://musicbrainz.org/work/b0d43efe-ce93-482b-b806-3f2ffc011fb3 on wikipedia, I automatically thought about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_the_Wild_Roses_Grow and sure enough, it is mentioned in the page .. heh
09:41:26 [CatCat]
they have a common "down in the willow garden
09:41:28 [CatCat]
yea
09:41:44 [CatCat]
* CatCat likes that sort of thing
09:53:07 [robmorrissey]
robmorrissey has joined #musicbrainz
09:58:39 [CatCat]
should this be Various artists? or DBS / R4 ?
09:58:40 [CatCat]
http://musicbrainz.org/release/1cd088b2-0b33-4bb3-9a91-370fa30f44d4
10:01:47 [Freso]
CatCat: :)
10:13:49 [JoeLlama]
JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
10:23:44 [Bakura]
Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
10:28:13 [ijabz]
ijabz has joined #musicbrainz
10:34:20 [reosarevok]
reosarevok has joined #musicbrainz
10:42:55 [jmvanel]
jmvanel has joined #musicbrainz
10:45:22 [kovacsur]
kovacsur has joined #musicbrainz
10:54:38 [Bakura]
Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
11:11:35 [Freso]
"Why are we trying to do those two things in the same place?
11:11:37 [Freso]
"
11:11:42 [Freso]
+1000000
11:12:37 [reosarevok]
Save me the effort of reading chatlogs, which things?
11:13:24 [Freso]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2012-November/016634.html
11:13:40 [Freso]
(Hint: Not a chat log. :p)
11:18:10 [reosarevok]
heh
11:20:38 [reosarevok]
Not a bad question, no
11:20:51 [reosarevok]
Mostly "to avoid adding even more places for doing things" I guess
11:25:25 [voiceinsideyou]
voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
11:28:26 [reels]
reels has joined #musicbrainz
11:53:50 [warp]
* warp responded.
11:58:31 [Freso]
warp: +1
11:59:00 [Freso]
But I think I already +1'd you a few times during the IRC discussion(s) already, so... :p
12:31:24 [krusty_ar]
krusty_ar has joined #musicbrainz
12:32:06 [kurtjx]
kurtjx has joined #musicbrainz
12:38:12 [Jormangeud]
Jormangeud has joined #musicbrainz
12:50:10 [LordSputnik]
LordSputnik has joined #musicbrainz
13:42:39 [kurtjx]
kurtjx has joined #musicbrainz
13:52:48 [MJ]
MJ has joined #musicbrainz
14:05:55 [hawke_1]
hawke_1 has joined #musicbrainz
14:06:59 [hawke]
hawke has joined #musicbrainz
14:11:38 [robmorrissey]
robmorrissey has joined #musicbrainz
14:22:39 [soehest]
soehest has joined #musicbrainz
14:27:44 [v6lur]
v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
14:42:05 [ehrgeiz]
ehrgeiz has joined #musicbrainz
14:42:22 [lidel]
lidel has joined #musicbrainz
14:53:11 [LordSputnik]
Recording style proposal updated :)
15:04:34 [CallerNo6]
CallerNo6 has joined #musicbrainz
15:05:53 [hawke_1]
hawke_1 has left #musicbrainz
15:06:23 [hawke_1]
hawke_1 has joined #musicbrainz
15:14:25 [pickles444]
pickles444 has joined #musicbrainz
15:21:30 [Bakura]
Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
15:51:17 [function1]
function1 has joined #musicbrainz
15:53:05 [CatCat]
is it possible that the recording-merge thing will become sane like the classical recording-track-work thing was made?
15:53:10 [CatCat]
is it possible?!
15:53:14 [CatCat]
* CatCat can only dream
15:53:20 [CatCat]
and hope
15:53:24 [CatCat]
and maybe one day...
15:53:27 [CatCat]
soon
15:53:32 [CatCat]
that will hapen
15:57:32 [hawke_1]
CatCat: No, it’s not possible.
15:57:44 [hawke_1]
Is the new proposal more sane in your opinion though?
15:59:19 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: IMO you should change that “one or both of the recordings” to “both of the recordings”
15:59:27 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Otherwise they’re liable to be merged anyway
16:01:32 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: but that would require adding disambiguations like "original audio"
16:01:51 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Example?
16:02:09 [LordSputnik]
all of those super-recordings that are on about 50 tracks
16:02:16 [Freso]
* Freso thinks everyone should just sober up and agree with warp >_>
16:02:27 [LordSputnik]
as soon as a remaster comes out, you'd have to call one "xxxx remaster" and one "original audio"
16:02:41 [LordSputnik]
with one or both, you'd only have to disambiguate the remaster
16:02:54 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: And anyway, you pretty much should have three cases: “original audio” (whatever that means), “xxx remaster”, or “unknown/unclassified”
16:03:34 [hawke_1]
Otherwise how do you tell the one true “original audio” (though usually that’s meaningless) from some random recording from a compilation.
16:03:54 [hawke_1]
Freso: Yeah, if we want to differentiate between mp3 and flac :-/
16:03:55 [LordSputnik]
currently, you don't
16:04:02 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: …and that’s bad.
16:04:09 [Freso]
hawke_1: That's not what warp is saying.
16:04:21 [LordSputnik]
because all compilations generally get put on the recording which has the nearest duration
16:04:30 [LordSputnik]
or the first one that comes up in the search
16:04:40 [hawke_1]
Freso: Last I heard from warp was “I want it differentiated down to the bitstream level”
16:04:42 [LordSputnik]
or a new recording
16:04:58 [Freso]
hawke_1: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2012-November/016637.html
16:05:32 [Freso]
hawke_1: AFAICT, he doesn't want the MB db to include the item representation, only down to manifestation representation.
16:05:56 [hawke_1]
Freso: that would suggest splitting every recording on every release
16:06:00 [LordSputnik]
Freso: that's why we need to add more entities, either by using my track groups idea or kep's master recordings/sub recordings idea (which are basically the same but with different names)
16:06:10 [Freso]
LordSputnik: yep.
16:06:22 [hawke_1]
which kind of defeats the purpose of recordings, and loses a lot of interesting information.
16:06:35 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: recordings have no clear purpose
16:06:38 [hawke_1]
(and would also add a *lot* of AR work)
16:06:44 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: only to replace tracks, as far as I can tell :P
16:07:01 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: I would say that the purpose of recordings is to find/identify commonalities between tracks.
16:07:14 [Freso]
hawke_1: On the contrary. It's exactly what's been suggested with various names by now - some way to have "super recordings" which would store all the performance etc. relationships.
16:07:18 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: the only issue is how much commonness is important
16:07:26 [Freso]
Like "works" do now for composition ARs.
16:08:48 [hawke_1]
Freso: I didn’t say such a thing wouldn’t be useful.
16:08:54 [hawke_1]
I think it would be useful and great.
16:09:06 [LordSputnik]
Freso: I think he was talking about warp's idea
16:09:11 [hawke_1]
but manifestation as track is not.
16:09:14 [Freso]
LordSputnik: So am I.
16:09:22 [hawke_1]
I’m confused.
16:09:25 [Freso]
hawke_1: I don't agree.
16:09:42 [Freso]
:)
16:09:57 [hawke_1]
You don’t think I’m confused? ;-)
16:10:02 [Freso]
Nope. :p
16:10:24 [hawke_1]
Freso: Warp says “So I would prefer to just give tracks proper MBIDs again (and disable re-use of tracklists by different releases) …for individual tracks I think we should also try to keep this mapping: manifestation = track”
16:10:27 [Freso]
I don't agree with "manifestation as track is not (a great and useful idea)".
16:10:49 [hawke_1]
Freso: That means that every single instance of a track would need to have all the ARs added to it
16:10:54 [Freso]
No.
16:11:12 [hawke_1]
and it would be impossible to find where one track appeared across different releases.
16:11:24 [Freso]
Because the track would be related to expression/recording, which would contain all the performance ARs.
16:11:27 [hawke_1]
It would be back to pre-NGS, but with multi-disc releases.
16:11:40 [LordSputnik]
No, because recordings would still exist
16:11:48 [Freso]
Like works contain composition ARs.
16:12:31 [hawke_1]
Well, then we still have the same problem of identifying individual recordings.
16:12:35 [hawke_1]
and when to merge and all that.
16:12:36 [CatCat]
hawke: way to let a cat down, man :(
16:12:55 [Freso]
We don't have to add all "lyricist/composer/writer" ARs to all recordings currently, so I don't see why we would have to add perfomer/recording engineer/etc. to all tracks if the ARs are already on the track's related recording.
16:13:04 [Freso]
hawke_1: No, we don't. :)
16:13:17 [Freso]
hawke_1: Not to the same degree anyway.
16:13:18 [hawke_1]
Freso: You pretty much have track-MBIDs now: Just use release-MBID+disc#+track#
16:13:32 [hawke_1]
I’m not sure how it helps though
16:14:07 [Freso]
hawke_1: The expression-recording wouldn't care if it's analog, a remaster, a digital mix, a 8 second or a 16 second fade-out - they'd all be the same expression-recording.
16:14:21 [hawke_1]
Freso: OK, we can do that now.
16:14:25 [Freso]
hawke_1: The difference between those types would be in their manifestation-track.
16:14:32 [hawke_1]
Just merge everything.
16:14:48 [hawke_1]
(and it does care if it’s a remaster because the mastering engineer AR will be different)
16:14:52 [Freso]
hawke_1: Which is a bad idea, as AcoustIDs etc. will also then be merged.
16:15:01 [hawke_1]
Freso: No they won’t.
16:15:08 [Freso]
If you merge all recordings?
16:15:15 [hawke_1]
A recording-track will just have multiple AcoustIDs.
16:15:17 [CatCat]
god my comments has spawned a huge debate about whatever :(
16:15:19 [CatCat]
:/
16:15:22 [LordSputnik]
But they won't be tied to release tracks any more
16:15:31 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: They’re not now.
16:15:41 [LordSputnik]
because release tracks use the AcoustID attached to their recording
16:15:46 [hawke_1]
They’re tied to *recordings*
16:15:47 [CatCat]
well any debate is a good debate, it mans that we can at least get anywhere
16:15:48 [Freso]
hawke_1: Exactly. So you don't know which manifestation-track your AcoustID belongs to, only the expression-recording.
16:15:49 [LordSputnik]
and if we merge all the rec
16:15:51 [LordSputnik]
...
16:15:54 [CatCat]
though i hope that we end with a sane result
16:16:00 [hawke_1]
Freso: Yeah.
16:16:04 [hawke_1]
Freso: This is already true.
16:16:10 [Freso]
hawke_1: No, it isn't. :)
16:16:23 [CatCat]
right now it sounds insane :P
16:16:23 [Freso]
Well, it is to some degree, for some recordings.
16:16:38 [Freso]
But right now, we have distinction between manifestation and expression.
16:16:46 [Freso]
Some people merge based on one, some on the other.
16:17:06 [Freso]
And even LordSputnik's revised proposal doesn't fix this.
16:17:11 [hawke_1]
Freso: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/1ebfca60-df29-4035-9d09-e0385d84ff55/fingerprints
16:17:13 [hawke_1]
You were saying?
16:17:14 [Freso]
As it can't be fixed without a new entity.
16:17:40 [LordSputnik]
my proposal is just a stepping stone to new and greater things :P
16:18:06 [LordSputnik]
(i hope)
16:18:30 [Freso]
hawke_1: "to some degree, for some recordings."
16:18:36 [Freso]
hawke_1: is what I was saying.
16:18:42 [Freso]
hawke_1: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2012-October/016588.html
16:18:50 [hawke_1]
Freso: I would say “to no degree”
16:18:59 [Freso]
hawke_1: Read that mail ^
16:19:08 [hawke_1]
Freso: Yep.
16:19:14 [hawke_1]
Read it before
16:19:54 [Freso]
Those are both the same expression, but not the same manifestation.
16:20:10 [hawke_1]
Yes.
16:20:13 [Freso]
Which is why I'm not merging them, though next to all ARs are identical between the two.
16:20:22 [hawke_1]
Freso: “next to all”?
16:20:47 [Freso]
Mastering engineer. (Which is applied on the release level though.)
16:21:35 [hawke_1]
Freso: Right…pretty much every manifestation is different.
16:21:50 [hawke_1]
To some degree.
16:22:09 [Freso]
And so we shouldn't claim they're the same.
16:23:11 [hawke_1]
OK, so what we should do then, is treat our recording-level as expression…and merge away happily, right?
16:23:16 [hawke_1]
I’m OK with that.
16:24:05 [Freso]
Yes, and make tracks proper entities again (MBID or not) so they can have AcoustIDs and possibly other identifiers attached to them.
16:24:08 [LordSputnik]
We should rename recording to performance, and have work->performance->track.
16:24:24 [hawke_1]
That would be just fine by me.
16:24:30 [Freso]
I'm sure some ARs should also be applicable on a track level.
16:24:32 [hawke_1]
Not everyone agrees witht hat though
16:24:45 [hawke_1]
luks: You around?
16:24:50 [Freso]
(E.g, mastering. :))
16:24:50 [luks]
more or less
16:25:10 [hawke_1]
luks: I know I asked this before, but do any of the submission tools submit the release ID of a file?
16:25:11 [function1]
if i add a discid, will the track durations from the cd toc replace any manually entered track numbers? i saw this http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/How_to_Add_Disc_IDs but it doesnt mention manually entered track numbers, from a freedb import. i want to use my cd toc durations only
16:25:15 [Freso]
Possibly (re)mix.
16:25:17 [hawke_1]
or is it just the recording ID
16:25:31 [luks]
hawke_1: no, they don't submit release IDs
16:25:34 [luks]
just recording IDs
16:25:39 [hawke_1]
luks: k
16:25:48 [dekarl]
dekarl has joined #musicbrainz
16:25:51 [Freso]
function1: Not automatically.
16:26:19 [LordSputnik]
function1: you have to go to the disc id and say "Set release track times from id"
16:26:20 [Freso]
function1: But you can set the times for the release using the CD TOC.
16:26:22 [voiceinsideyou]
voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
16:26:45 [function1]
Freso: but i have to do this manually, enter each duration by hand?
16:26:58 [function1]
LordSputnik: ah ok
16:26:58 [Freso]
function1: No. Just do what LordSputnik said.
16:27:14 [Freso]
hawke_1: Sounds like you're not disagreeing with warp then. :)
16:27:14 [hawke_1]
Freso: releaseMBID+medium#+track# = track MBID. Also, changing the thing that AcoustIDs are attached to would pretty much mean wiping the acoustID database. Which would be a Bad Thing, I think.
16:27:37 [hawke_1]
Freso: No, I’m not.
16:27:57 [hawke_1]
Freso: as long as we treat tracks as unmergeable.
16:28:13 [LordSputnik]
function1: no, it's a single click, if you click the disc id, in the "Attached to releases" section, you'll see buttons on the right- "Set track durations", "Remove and "Move". "Set track durations" will do what you want
16:28:14 [luks]
wiping the acoustid database is doable if there is a good enough reason to do it
16:28:32 [luks]
the fact still is, most recordings/fingerprints have only one release
16:29:02 [luks]
so those are not affected by these changes
16:29:14 [Freso]
Also, it should be possibly to move/copy AcoustIDs from parent expression-recording to child manifestation-track.
16:29:24 [Freso]
(Probably not easily, but...)
16:29:37 [hawke_1]
Freso: I’m not sure how reliable that would be.
16:29:53 [Freso]
hawke_1: It wouldn't be reliable. A lot of AcoustIDs would need unlinking.
16:30:00 [hawke_1]
Freso: That’s already true.
16:30:06 [Freso]
Exactly.
16:30:39 [hawke_1]
But it would mean that any given manifestation-track would have a much smaller number of canonical AcoustIDs.
16:31:38 [Freso]
Yes! :D
16:31:48 [hawke_1]
It would clearly help on the acoustID end.
16:31:55 [hawke_1]
But I’m not sure that it would help on the recording end.
16:32:10 [hawke_1]
Freso: different recording devices at a live concert: different expression? different edits: different expression? remasters: different expression?
16:32:16 [hawke_1]
Isn’t it still all the same questions?
16:33:20 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: different recording devices = different manifestation, different edits: different expression (if the edit is significant), remasters: different manifestation
16:33:28 [Freso]
hawke_1: I'm pretty sure all of those are the same expression, but different manifestations. warp knows the FRBR better than I do though.
16:33:51 [hawke_1]
If that’s the case, and expression=~performance, then that seems fine to me.
16:34:03 [LordSputnik]
what is the FRBR?
16:34:14 [Freso]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records
16:34:25 [Freso]
LordSputnik: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2012-November/016637.html
16:34:29 [voiceinsideyou]
voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
16:34:37 [hawke_1]
Or even if we go so far as “If you want to split an expression, you need to have an AR differentiating them”.
16:34:58 [Freso]
+1
16:35:04 [hawke_1]
Would there be *any* track-level ARs?
16:35:12 [LordSputnik]
remasters
16:35:29 [Freso]
mastering, (re)mix possibly, possibly other production ARs
16:35:48 [LordSputnik]
would this system allow track merges?
16:35:57 [Freso]
I'm undecided on that.
16:36:00 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: I believe we were saying “no”.
16:36:12 [LordSputnik]
otherwise we would have to ad production ARs to every track
16:36:17 [LordSputnik]
*add
16:36:18 [hawke_1]
* hawke_1 facepalms.
16:36:34 [hawke_1]
Freso: Weren’t you saying those were release-level?
16:36:41 [LordSputnik]
Freso: mastering, (re)mix possibly, possibly other production ARs
16:36:51 [LordSputnik]
were all apparently track level
16:37:02 [Freso]
I'm leaning towards no (merge the releases, if they're the same - but we need other tickets before that can happen), but there might be good arguments for yes too.
16:37:17 [g-ram]
g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
16:37:20 [Freso]
hawke_1: For the two BSB Christmas Time recordings, yes.
16:37:29 [Freso]
hawke_1: And possibly for most other cases.
16:37:30 [hawke_1]
Freso: And is that not the case in general?
16:37:56 [Freso]
hawke_1: But I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a few cases where it isn't so.
16:38:14 [CallerNo6]
* CallerNo6 hopes this will be remembered as the Great BSB Debate of 2012.
16:38:27 [Freso]
Haha.
16:38:32 [Freso]
Hi Alex. :p
16:38:37 [hawke_1]
Hi Freso.
16:38:44 [Freso]
XD
16:38:58 [hawke_1]
;-)
16:39:14 [Freso]
Hi Alex#6. :p
16:39:28 [hawke_1]
Anyway, isn’t this idea basically the status quo but with more permissive merging rules?
16:39:31 [CallerNo6]
* CallerNo6 waves
16:39:36 [Freso]
And also hi Alex_1. ;)
16:39:42 [hawke_1]
(plus changes to acoustID to track release ID+medium/track#?
16:40:10 [Freso]
hawke_1: Possibly. :)
16:40:53 [Freso]
* Freso would personally love to merge more recordings to loosen up on the multi-AR adding, but doesn't want to associate AcoustIDs and such with the wrong releases. :(
16:41:35 [Freso]
* Freso would also personally love some ice cream, but ah well
16:42:06 [hawke_1]
Freso: Given how many acoustIDs are now associated with the wrong release, I’m not too worried about it.
16:42:14 [hawke_1]
also how flexible acoustID is.
16:43:32 [Freso]
Well, I am. :D I also don't want two different audios using the same representation MBID in my tags. It irks me the wrong way. :)
16:45:23 [LordSputnik]
I think we should have track groups as well as recordings. Never merge tracks, just group them. Associate AcoustIDs with tracks, producer ARs and remaster info with track groups, performance ARs with recordings/performances. Attach both tracks and recordings/performances to works
16:46:23 [LordSputnik]
to me it makes no sense to merge tracks, because they represent different physical things. it make sense to group them though, like releases are grouped into release groups
16:46:36 [hawke_1]
Freso: $set(musicbrainz_real_trackid,$musicbrainz_albumid+$discnumber+$tracknumber)
16:46:57 [Freso]
hawke_1: :p
16:47:17 [Freso]
LordSputnik: +1
16:47:23 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: That’s pretty much what recordings are though…
16:47:30 [Freso]
hawke_1: Only it's not.
16:47:34 [LordSputnik]
no, recordings are performances
16:47:40 [Freso]
It's part of what they are, but not all of it.
16:47:42 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: not right now they’re not
16:47:48 [luks]
they are simply track groups
16:47:54 [LordSputnik]
"recording" is ambiguous and is possible the worst entity name in mb
16:47:55 [Freso]
Like was said earlier, "recordings aren't well defined."
16:47:57 [hawke_1]
luks: +1
16:48:05 [LordSputnik]
recording can mean anything
16:48:19 [CallerNo6]
and probably will?
16:48:48 [LordSputnik]
by splitting track groups and performances we have two clearer entities instead of one confused one
16:49:03 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: we’ll have two confused entities!
16:49:18 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: what's confusing about "track group" and "performance"
16:49:24 [luks]
what's a track group?
16:49:33 [LordSputnik]
a performance is a performance of a work, a track group is a group of tracks?
16:50:01 [luks]
is it the same audio, remasters, etc? you have the same problem as with recordings
16:50:46 [LordSputnik]
performance is the expression of a work, a track embodies of a performance, and track groups group tracks
16:50:59 [luks]
but which tracks?
16:51:37 [LordSputnik]
tracks which from different releases in a release group
16:52:02 [LordSputnik]
and tracks which are identical to those tracks
16:52:20 [luks]
so it's basically what we currently have as recording
16:52:22 [LordSputnik]
tracks that would be merged if merging tracks was allowed
16:52:36 [LordSputnik]
no, because the current recording requires unique audio
16:52:40 [LordSputnik]
whereas track groups don't
16:52:51 [luks]
then I still don't know what track groups are
16:53:05 [jozo]
jozo has joined #musicbrainz
16:53:35 [LordSputnik]
neither do I fully, I have a vague idea but it's not fully formed
16:53:35 [jozo]
... i found
16:53:54 [LordSputnik]
I did know, but then the discussion today changed that
16:54:01 [warp]
:)
16:54:22 [LordSputnik]
https://moqups.com/kepstin/1yWeVoBO
16:54:39 [LordSputnik]
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Random_Stuff
16:54:43 [LordSputnik]
were from a few days ago
16:55:06 [luks]
I'd vote for getting rid of shared tracklists, make *some* track IDs publicly available
16:55:29 [warp]
some?
16:55:37 [LordSputnik]
^
16:55:45 [luks]
yes, I don't know how would the track IDs look like
16:55:52 [luks]
or how would they be managed
16:56:03 [warp]
luks: UUIDs, like our other identifiers
16:56:12 [luks]
but the only reason why people are against merging recordings is that they are the only thing with public IDs
16:56:12 [warp]
luks: I don't understand what you mean with managed
16:56:29 [luks]
warp: if you switch a track to a different recording, is it the same track?
16:56:32 [LordSputnik]
are there enough ids to cover all the tracks in all releases?
16:56:36 [luks]
is it the same track if you reorder the tracklist?
16:56:46 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: There are plenty of IDs.
16:57:05 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: it’s a 128-bit number.
16:57:07 [warp]
luks: ah, like that.
16:57:11 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: ah ok
16:57:12 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier
16:57:29 [luks]
releaseid+discno+trackno doesn't really work because of reordering
16:57:42 [hawke_1]
luks: Oh, good point.
16:57:50 [luks]
and arbitrarily discarding track ids after they are modified doesn't work either
16:57:54 [hawke_1]
luks: Though it works as well as anything else. :-)
16:58:20 [warp]
luks: those are good questions, though they don't seem inherently difficult to answer.
16:58:21 [kepstin-laptop]
kepstin-laptop has joined #musicbrainz
16:58:46 [luks]
warp: well, I can't answer them :)
16:58:52 [luks]
assuming I want the track IDs to be useful
16:59:04 [LordSputnik]
why should track ids be useful? :P
16:59:13 [luks]
we might as well use sha1(fingerprint) as track IDs
16:59:25 [luks]
LordSputnik: because then people will cry about recording IDs again :)
16:59:54 [warp]
luks: there is more to a track than the audio data.
16:59:56 [LordSputnik]
well, why not give them random ids like we do with all other entities? (afaik)
17:00:12 [luks]
LordSputnik: but then does the ID change?
17:00:22 [LordSputnik]
when you reorder tracks?
17:00:32 [LordSputnik]
the id should stay with the track when it moves
17:00:33 [luks]
if you reorder two tracks, if you change one tracks slightly (typo), or completely (different recording)
17:00:39 [LordSputnik]
if the track is deleted, delete the id
17:00:43 [warp]
luks: with reordering, I'd prefer the track MBID to travel with the track title, not the track position.
17:01:13 [luks]
releaseid+recordingid almost works
17:01:23 [Freso]
But not always.
17:01:25 [luks]
except for the cases with the same recording multiple times on one album
17:01:29 [hawke_1]
luks: Except when the same recording appears on the same release…yep.
17:01:32 [luks]
yep
17:01:41 [hawke_1]
luks: And that would be worse if we treated recordings as performances
17:01:57 [hawke_1]
(worse → “more true”)
17:02:35 [warp]
luks: moving a track to a new recording it should keep the ID (it is similar to moving a release to a different release group).
17:02:43 [warp]
s/new/different/
17:03:00 [luks]
I think I'd disagree with that
17:03:37 [hawke_1]
I think that with the way the release editor works now, it’s not feasible
17:03:47 [warp]
hawke_1: sure
17:03:52 [hawke_1]
due to all the guessing it has to do about renaming/moving tracks
17:04:09 [hawke_1]
or rather, the guessing it *does* — not sure if that’s strictly necessary
17:04:21 [warp]
the track <-> recording matching stuff in the release editor is dodgy (and I should know, I wrote it :)
17:05:29 [warp]
most of that was written when our idea of a release editor was having the tracklist in a textarea and parsing that.
17:05:50 [luks]
I'm starting to think that releaseid+discno+trackno is really the best option
17:05:51 [Freso]
Heh.
17:05:52 [warp]
that didn't work out so great. so a lot of the guessing can probably be simplified or removed now.
17:06:05 [hawke_1]
warp: Yep…it only really gets nasty when you mix in the track parser with it. Other than that you could add drag/drop handles and pretty much get away with it.
17:06:19 [hawke_1]
(the track parser is very very handy for some things though)
17:08:28 [warp]
luks: in which case the track id stays the same when the track is moved to a different recording
17:08:34 [hawke_1]
(Not saying it’s *easy* to “just add drag/drop handles” — but from the UI perspective I think that would do it.)
17:08:45 [warp]
luks: which you just said you would disagree with. what was your objection there?
17:09:02 [hawke_1]
warp: The AcoustID association would then be wrong/invalidated.
17:09:11 [luks]
warp: there is no good solution
17:09:14 [hawke_1]
Not sure if that’s luks’ objection, but…
17:09:17 [luks]
so this seems like the least bad one :)
17:09:43 [luks]
my objection is that the trackid should represent music on that release
17:09:58 [luks]
if you move it to a different recording, it's obviously not the same song
17:10:05 [warp]
hawke_1: we already have buttons for moving a track up/down. drag&drop would be a more convenient interface, but doesn't change the semantics of the interface.
17:10:22 [luks]
but the same thing happens when you reorder tracks, so neither method works perfectly
17:10:40 [warp]
luks: isn't that the same thing with moving a release to a different release group?
17:10:48 [hawke_1]
warp: What about reordering by typing in new track numbers? Is that not doable with “vinyl style track numbering”?
17:10:59 [luks]
warp: that doesn't happen very often
17:11:09 [luks]
but track-recording association is a common problem
17:11:52 [warp]
luks: ok, I didn't consider the frequency of these edits. that makes sense.
17:12:20 [hawke_1]
luks: That’ll be less true if recording[track group] =~ performance though, because it will be harder for it to be wrong.
17:12:35 [hawke_1]
There’ll be a lot of merges, but that’s about it.
17:12:36 [luks]
that's true
17:12:37 [Freso]
reo: In case you read logs; if no other comments come along for STYLE-160, should I just continue with it as RFV on Thursday?
17:12:54 [hawke_1]
Freso: do you have a +1 on it?
17:12:59 [Freso]
hawke_1: Yep.
17:13:11 [Freso]
reo: Oh, right. RFV as "other database".
17:14:07 [hawke_1]
Freso: then yes, RFV.
17:14:16 [hawke_1]
There aren’t any objections that I see.
17:14:29 [Freso]
hawke_1: Part of the RFC is a question regarding "other database" || "has score at".
17:14:41 [Freso]
hawke_1: And there are no clear comments pointing either way.
17:15:23 [Freso]
hawke_1: So the question wasn't so much as whether to move to RFV "as normal", but whether to use "other db" or "score".
17:15:50 [hawke_1]
Freso: i suppose per the rules you’re supposed to re-RFC and specify which one you want.
17:16:00 [Freso]
Guest52888 / smgoller: Identify with nickserv. :p
17:16:40 [Freso]
hawke_1: Per the rules (as I read them), I can move to RFV if I state what has been changed since the proposed RFC.
17:17:19 [Freso]
I'm not nikki or reo though, so I may have read it wrong. :)
17:18:05 [hawke_1]
Freso: “Any changes to the text of the RFC prior to sending an RFV clear that +1 and reset this requirement.”
17:18:15 [reoafk]
reoafk has joined #musicbrainz
17:18:53 [warp]
Freso: you should re-RFC before the RFV if you changed the proposal.
17:19:06 [hawke_1]
Freso: I’m sure you can get a pretty quick +1 on it
17:19:21 [warp]
Freso: if your changes are non-controversial or very minor, I don't think you have to wait the entire RFC period again though.
17:19:41 [Freso]
Either way, I still don't know what to change it to. DB or score.
17:19:51 [warp]
Freso: pick one.
17:19:59 [nikki]
I agree with warp
17:20:06 [hawke_1]
+1
17:20:11 [warp]
it doesn't matter which one you pick if no-one cares ;)
17:20:12 [hawke_1]
Either would be acceptable.
17:20:17 [jozo]
Is it difficult to get more instruments?
17:20:32 [hawke_1]
Freso: Which do you think people would look for it under?
17:20:47 [nikki]
jozo: see http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Instrument_Tree
17:21:03 [hawke_1]
If you think people who want to add the links will think “it’s a score database” then score — otherwise other.
17:21:03 [Freso]
jozo: No. Not if they're used often enough.
17:21:08 [hawke_1]
jozo: You need to have the instrument appear on 5 releases.
17:21:26 [Freso]
nikki: :p
17:21:37 [nikki]
* nikki is reminded how much she hates that page
17:21:39 [hawke_1]
nikki: Wasn’t there an idea to add the instrument tree to part of style on tickets.mb.org?
17:21:41 [jozo]
nikki: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Instrument_Tree/Requests isn'ts so promising
17:21:54 [hawke_1]
jozo: There are a *lot* of one-off instruments.
17:22:09 [nikki]
hawke_1: yes. but I don't know whether to go ahead with it or not
17:22:24 [Freso]
nikki warp hawke_1: If I make a revised RFC and remove the "score" stuff (e.g., so it's "other db" for both), can I set the RFC expiration to, say, Sunday?
17:22:28 [hawke_1]
nikki: Is there a downside, other than transferring the data?
17:22:49 [jozo]
nikki: For one more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_guitar
17:22:51 [Freso]
(I had planned to send out the RFV before leaving for the summit - but it's a good thing to come back to and send off, I guess.)
17:22:57 [nikki]
well, we don't know if it will work. but it's clear the current system is not working either, the only way it can get any slower is if it stops entirely
17:23:07 [hawke_1]
Freso: I wouldn’t see a problem with that.
17:23:29 [nikki]
transferring the data isn't a problem, I already made a script to parse the page (because yes, writing scripts to parse the page is more fun than actually doing anything about the content of the page :( )
17:23:35 [jozo]
nikki: And I've seen many moore
17:23:39 [hawke_1]
nikki: Is it slow because no one cares, or because no one knows about it, or because there just aren’t many releases for a lot of these instruments?
17:24:12 [Freso]
hawke_1: ... or because the instruments are a bit of a mess?
17:24:19 [hawke_1]
Freso: Are they?
17:24:27 [Freso]
I recall it so.
17:24:31 [nikki]
hawke_1: for me it's largely because every time I load the page, I lose all motivation and go do something else
17:24:39 [jozo]
nikki: One what I want is linking instruments to wikipedia
17:24:41 [Freso]
* Freso used to be a rel. editor at one point, for adding instruments
17:25:14 [hawke_1]
* hawke_1 notes that 5-string banjo should be added. Yay!
17:25:26 [hawke_1]
and Baroque trumpet
17:25:28 [nikki]
that's why tickets would work a lot better for me, I could have one or two open and work on them without feeling like I'm drowning in the contents of hte page
17:25:43 [jozo]
nikki: Ok, shoud I add tickets?
17:25:49 [nikki]
jozo: no, add them to that page
17:26:10 [Freso]
jozo: The current process is through the WikiPage.
17:26:13 [jozo]
nikki: thats confusing
17:26:21 [hawke_1]
nikki: I can’t see a problem with changing to a ticket systme.
17:26:29 [drsaunde]
drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
17:26:46 [jozo]
nikki: "5-string violin" is in page for years...
17:27:17 [nikki]
jozo: it would be confusing to use both at the same time. right now the process is to use the wiki page. if we decide to switch, then everything there will get moved to tickets
17:27:25 [hawke_1]
jozo: No one has found or bothered to add the other two releases that need it.
17:27:40 [hawke_1]
jozo: I add to it when I find a release with a “new” instrument.
17:27:41 [Freso]
* Freso could probably find a few...
17:27:41 [DremoraLV]
DremoraLV has joined #musicbrainz
17:27:47 [nikki]
and regarding wikipedia links, I do add them to the descriptions (which we helpfully don't display), but see http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3674 too
17:28:28 [jozo]
hawke_1: .... and other relations
17:28:51 [Freso]
Does SubOptimalCredits still exist?
17:28:58 [hawke_1]
Freso: Yes
17:29:04 [Freso]
\o/
17:29:41 [nikki]
does anyone other than hawke_1 have an opinion on tickets versus wiki page? :P
17:30:01 [hawke_1]
does anyone at all feel like doing the work of migrating? ;-)
17:30:04 [jozo]
hawke_1: ""new"" instuments?
17:30:11 [nikki]
Freso: btw I think sunday would be fine
17:30:16 [hawke_1]
jozo: Ones that are not in the instrument tree.
17:30:25 [hawke_1]
but may or may not be proposed yet.
17:30:30 [nikki]
hawke_1: I'm sure I can figure out how to submit the create ticket form :P
17:30:31 [jozo]
hawke_1: Is that some relation about it?
17:31:11 [jozo]
I wanta see some guidelines to add new instruments
17:31:24 [hawke_1]
jozo: I mean, if I have a release with a credit that has an instrument that’s not in the tree, I always add it to the requests list.
17:31:40 [jozo]
hawke_1: I have many :)
17:31:48 [Freso]
nikki: +1 for tickets
17:32:23 [Freso]
jozo: Go add!
17:32:33 [jozo]
hawke_1: How I say to yoou?
17:32:41 [hawke_1]
jozo: As for guidelines, it’s discussed on a case by case basis: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Instrument_Tree/Requests#Failed.2C_and_why
17:33:18 [jozo]
hawke_1: add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_guitar
17:33:29 [hawke_1]
jozo: Go for it. :-)
17:33:50 [jozo]
hawke_1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromoog
17:34:07 [hawke_1]
jozo: You can feel free to add these, and the releases that they appear on.
17:34:07 [Freso]
Isn't that already in the list?
17:34:11 [Freso]
The moog.
17:34:16 [Freso]
*request list
17:34:20 [hawke_1]
Freso: Memorymoog
17:34:21 [nikki]
moog has been added
17:34:24 [jozo]
Freso: the moog. but there is minimoog or something
17:34:33 [nikki]
minimoog is there too iirc
17:34:45 [hawke_1]
no minimoog
17:35:29 [nikki]
minimoog is in the tree, I mean
17:35:44 [hawke_1]
oh
17:36:14 [hawke_1]
Yep, it is.
17:36:17 [hawke_1]
moog and minimoog.
17:36:56 [jozo]
hawke_1: octave violin (dont about hat)
17:37:01 [jozo]
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/8dfd4eb1-69d7-400a-bbf5-3f1e91579edf/edits
17:37:10 [hawke_1]
jozo: …yeah, you can edit the wiki.
17:37:17 [hawke_1]
You don’t need to tell me.
17:37:51 [jozo]
hawke_1: Editing wiki doesn't go anywhere
17:38:00 [hawke_1]
jozo: What do you mean?
17:38:30 [LordSputnik]
LordSputnik has joined #musicbrainz
17:38:49 [jozo]
hawke_1: jozo> nikki: "5-string violin" is in page for years...
17:39:13 [reosarevok]
jozo: they're only added when they get to 5 releases
17:39:25 [hawke_1]
jozo: I can’t do anything more about that than you can: Edit the wiki and wait for someone to add it, once it has 5 releases.
17:39:27 [reosarevok]
But if nobody adds any to the page, they'll never get to 5! :)
17:40:18 [hawke_1]
I do wonder about all those that already have 5 releases and haven’t been added though. ;-)
17:40:42 [hawke_1]
* hawke_1 wonders how long he will have to wait for “Computer hard drive ‘triangle’” to get 5 releases.
17:41:13 [jozo]
reosarevok: And that goind to happen ever
17:41:18 [nikki]
jozo: telling hawke_1 definitely won't get you anywhere, since he can't add them :P
17:41:26 [hawke_1]
nikki: I can add them to the wiki!
17:41:31 [hawke_1]
but I won’t since anyone can
17:41:51 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: some of the ones which have 5 are "not sure where to put these in the tree"
17:42:03 [jozo]
nikki: Adding new instruments harm anything
17:42:14 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: So that’d be “decision required” essentially?
17:42:16 [reosarevok]
And one or two are "isn't this the same thing as something we have already? :/"
17:42:38 [jozo]
nikki: And is there some insturements used none or just ons?
17:42:42 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: My favorite: just mark it as decision required and hope it goes away, because no one can make the decision.
17:43:00 [Freso]
jozo: You have two choices.
17:43:11 [Freso]
jozo: 1) You do nothing and the instruments won't get added.
17:43:16 [jozo]
Freso: Go away and?
17:43:33 [Freso]
jozo: 2) You add the instruments to the WikiPage and wait for them to have five releases so that they're added.
17:43:39 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Five-string Banjo
17:43:47 [Freso]
Anything else is just wasting time and energy.
17:43:49 [jozo]
Freso: Then I do nothing
17:43:54 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Baroque Trumpet
17:43:54 [Freso]
jozo: I figured.
17:44:10 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Cavaquinho
17:44:23 [kepstin-laptop]
bah, I really should get a new laptop or laptop battery.
17:44:27 [kepstin-laptop]
* kepstin-laptop disappears
17:44:28 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: ooh, baroque trumpet has loads
17:44:32 [jozo]
Freso: take to look at page.... and when there is some instrument atted?
17:44:33 [reosarevok]
Didn't see it :p
17:44:35 [Freso]
* Freso needs to add more folk stuff again - it's been a while since I encounted an instrument not in the tree :/
17:44:44 [reosarevok]
jozo: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Instrument_Tree/Recently_Added
17:44:53 [Freso]
jozo: Take a look at that page - do any of the instruments appear of 5+ releases?
17:44:54 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: I think that’s a relatively new one, I added it when I started going through Naxos.
17:45:06 [reosarevok]
Freso: a few do! I'll look into adding them :p
17:45:20 [Freso]
jozo: ^ There you go! Stuff is happening and being added!
17:45:22 [jozo]
reosarevok: Ok, I stand correcfted
17:45:43 [jozo]
still wiki is wrong place (imho)
17:46:00 [hawke_1]
jozo: We are agreeing with that, but the process hasn’t been changed yet.
17:46:02 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Kudüm
17:46:02 [reosarevok]
Well, several of us want instruments to become actual entities
17:46:10 [reosarevok]
But that needs coding time from devs
17:46:15 [demosdemon]
demosdemon has joined #musicbrainz
17:46:19 [reosarevok]
And so do other thousand things, so...
17:46:26 [jozo]
reosarevok: Really coding?
17:46:34 [Freso]
reosarevok: And a schema change, most likely.
17:46:42 [reosarevok]
Freso: that certainly, yes
17:46:58 [Freso]
reosarevok: Which means it's not happening before May at the very earliest. :)
17:47:10 [reosarevok]
Oh, hawke_1: now I know
17:47:30 [reosarevok]
I didn't add baroque trumpet because trumpet is under Valved brass, but baroque trumpets don't have valves, right?
17:47:34 [jozo]
oh, rally i have to read more your code =)
17:47:40 [Freso]
Why are some "Release 1" or "Release 2" etc. gone?
17:47:47 [reosarevok]
Freso: in Recently added'
17:47:48 [Freso]
Shouldn't they sort from 1 to 5?
17:47:52 [reosarevok]
?
17:47:55 [Freso]
Ah, right.
17:47:59 [Freso]
Yeah.
17:48:05 [Freso]
* Freso goes to look at the proper page :p
17:48:08 [reosarevok]
If so, because we leave the ones that doesn't have the actual info
17:48:15 [reosarevok]
(and add rels to the ones we can)
17:48:20 [reosarevok]
*that don't have
17:48:30 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: I kind of question the usefulness of “valved brass”
17:48:42 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: I kind of question the usefulness of the whole tree structure
17:48:44 [reosarevok]
But it's what we have
17:48:45 [reosarevok]
:p
17:48:49 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: +1
17:49:00 [reosarevok]
Guess it's "natural brass"?
17:49:07 [hawke_1]
I would just put it with trumpet
17:49:07 [reosarevok]
Since it's called "natural trumpet" too...
17:49:15 [hawke_1]
but hey that’s me
17:49:46 [jozo]
I figured today that i can abuse using 'other instruments' :)
17:49:58 [reosarevok]
"The trumpet was a natural brass instrument prior to about 1795"
17:50:06 [reosarevok]
Fine then, natural brass
17:50:17 [hawke_1]
Sounds good to me.
17:50:30 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: thankfully the new search in the rel editor pretty much ignores the tree :)
17:50:35 [hawke_1]
Yep.
17:50:37 [jozo]
meaning 'all other instruments'
17:50:41 [hawke_1]
Too bad it also ignores ordering.
17:51:07 [Freso]
jozo: Yep. Or just plain "performed". Feel free to fill in sub-optimal credits on https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Sub_Optimal_Credits
17:51:17 [hawke_1]
* hawke_1 curses the Hmong flute and the piano accordion.
17:51:18 [jozo]
And you can'd add esmes procuder and exuecutive producer for same person
17:51:32 [reosarevok]
Tsk Freso: In these cases, you should add a "Sub Optimal Credits" section to the annotation for the entity
17:51:44 [jozo]
Freso: "performed" sound too wrong
17:51:53 [hawke_1]
Freso: That wiki says to put it in the annotation.
17:51:55 [reosarevok]
(yes, that's changed, because ugh wiki )
17:52:15 [Freso]
* Freso goes to actually read the page :D
17:52:30 [nikki]
* nikki doesn't like misusing 'other instruments' like that
17:52:34 [hawke_1]
Freso: The process works a lot better now. Except for the part where no one ever reads the annotation.
17:53:09 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: annotations are searchable though
17:53:25 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Yeah, but does anyone ever go back to find/fix the sub optimal credits?
17:53:31 [Freso]
jozo: If someone's credited with "Portuguese guitar" and it doesn't exist in the tree yet, use "guitar" instead until it does.
17:53:31 [nikki]
I actually wish we could just use the performed instrument relationship without being forced to select an instrument :/
17:53:33 [Freso]
Etc.
17:53:37 [jozo]
I've complety lost today about [unkonw],m [cristmas music] and so on
17:53:43 [Freso]
nikki: +1
17:53:52 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: I have done it at some point when trying to find stuff to fill them up to five
17:54:17 [jozo]
http://musicbrainz.org/release/5ed0b15a-dd8c-41f7-b508-f7e01754c0bf
17:54:26 [jozo]
thats micsture abouat all
17:54:29 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: yet another thing for a mb dashboard…
17:54:49 [hawke_1]
“suboptimal credits for your releases” (where ‘your’ = in your collection)
17:55:11 [jozo]
nikki: I acree
17:56:45 [jozo]
reosarevok: and 'horn' is wind instruments (i learned that last week)
17:57:14 [reosarevok]
jozo: depends - "horn" is sometimes used for all the brass section, sometimes for cor anglais, sometimes for French horn :/
17:57:17 [reosarevok]
That one's a pain
17:57:21 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: can you add the baroque trumpet rels?
17:57:40 [jozo]
reosarevok: 'torvet' in finnish... (someone transalated that to horns)
17:58:11 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: I’d rather not, working on other stuff at the moment. But if nothing else I’ll get to it on the naxos releases when I do my second pass
17:58:40 [reosarevok]
jozo: yeah. brass instruments. In jazz and stuff like that they sometimes call it "horn section"
17:58:53 [jozo]
reosarevok: whit clarinet?
17:59:01 [reosarevok]
hah, weird
17:59:06 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Or do you mean just for those releases in the instrument requests?
17:59:16 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: I meant that, but I can look into it, np
17:59:37 [hawke_1]
kk
17:59:46 [reosarevok]
jozo: what is usually called horn in classical releases for example is "käyrätorvi
17:59:46 [reosarevok]
" apparently
18:00:04 [reosarevok]
But yeah, it depends :(
18:00:23 [jozo]
reosarevok: i know... i try ficure what its means in popular music
18:00:52 [jozo]
reosarevok: I've have three or something releases saying "horn arrangemnt" or so....
18:02:00 [Freso]
Clarinets and horns would all file under "blæsere" in Danish.
18:02:15 [Freso]
I don't know if there's an equivalent term in English.
18:02:25 [Freso]
"Blowers" doesn't seem applicable. :p
18:02:27 [hawke_1]
nikki: BTW, I didn’t mean to imply that it was difficult to enter tickets for an instrument request, just that entering 250 tickets all at once is a daunting task and/or a bunch of busywork.
18:02:46 [hawke_1]
Freso: “wind instruments”
18:03:12 [hawke_1]
(I think)
18:03:16 [nikki]
hawke_1: https://xkcd.com/208/ <- my approach
18:03:51 [hawke_1]
nikki: i.e. script it?
18:03:53 [nikki]
yes
18:04:08 [hawke_1]
nikki: Hey, if it works for you, it works for me. :-)
18:04:09 [Freso]
hawke_1: Yeah. :)
18:04:12 [reosarevok]
... so we have "cornett" and "cornet"?
18:04:14 [jozo]
Freso: That's somethings similar.
18:04:45 [reosarevok]
"Cornett (not to be confused with Cornet"
18:05:00 [reosarevok]
Great, that might help if we showed the description
18:05:00 [Freso]
nikki: :D
18:05:04 [reosarevok]
Actually, it probably wouldn't
18:05:10 [jozo]
basssooon.... no no no
18:05:38 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: If only we had some kind of way to add an annotation to the instruments… ;-)
18:05:55 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: we do have descriptions for them
18:05:58 [reosarevok]
But we don't show them
18:06:02 [hawke_1]
Also, if we could vote on them as a community, instead of all this bureaucracy.
18:06:29 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: I know, just pointing out that entities are obviously the way to go, as we all know
18:06:32 [Freso]
Bureaucrazy!
18:06:44 [Freso]
*Bureaucray
18:07:12 [jozo]
Something what I want... You have to vote more
18:07:22 [jozo]
(and do not point me)
18:07:48 [robmorrissey]
robmorrissey has joined #musicbrainz
18:07:52 [reosarevok]
I'd love to. But I don't have more hours in my day.
18:08:06 [jozo]
I have done about 10% about last open edits... and votes....
18:08:33 [jozo]
We needs more editors
18:08:54 [hawke_1]
jozo: We need a better edit system. That’s coming in a few years, I think.
18:08:58 [Freso]
We need more voters.
18:09:07 [Freso]
Or that ^
18:09:13 [Freso]
*And/or
18:09:17 [jozo]
hawke_1: three or more...
18:09:23 [hawke_1]
Freso: We need to make voting less necessary and/or daunting
18:09:38 [jozo]
We need more editors
18:10:17 [jozo]
Voting is side issue
18:11:07 [hawke_1]
Agreed.
18:11:40 [hawke_1]
843 open edits for my subscribed entities? LordSputnik must be editing Abba.
18:11:49 [jozo]
I wait day when my edits is less than my subscibed aritst...
18:11:57 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: :)
18:12:02 [reosarevok]
Yeah, but editors don't grow on trees. I don't really know how to go and find more :p
18:12:14 [reosarevok]
We're now indexed in google, which is a small step
18:12:16 [reosarevok]
But...
18:12:17 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: it'll be beatles next week ;)
18:12:25 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Make editing easier.
18:12:30 [jozo]
reosarevok: Someting is wrong... if disc..... has
18:12:39 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: I’m not subscribed to the Beatles.
18:12:49 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: that helps people stay, but first they need to come :p
18:12:55 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: oh, you're missing out there :P
18:13:08 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: though I think I've done more Abba than beatles
18:13:24 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: They have one release I care about: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.
18:13:35 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: ahh it's not that good :P
18:13:39 [hawke_1]
:-p
18:13:44 [LordSputnik]
abbey road is better
18:14:06 [LordSputnik]
* LordSputnik listens to Sgt. Pepper
18:15:37 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: I don’t know that we have much trouble with new people, but more with people willing to stay and learn how things work.
18:15:52 [Freso]
soehest++
18:16:03 [LordSputnik]
^
18:16:14 [reosarevok]
Maybe - not a lot of new editors coming in my range of editing, but then, not that many people in Estonia :p
18:17:00 [jozo]
hawke_1: Guidelines is...
18:17:23 [LordSputnik]
We could reduce the voting period?
18:17:37 [jozo]
I guiqt when I've done about 70000 edits ;)
18:18:16 [jozo]
LordSputnik: That something to think
18:18:20 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: That would just make it so fewer edits are looked at.
18:18:34 [reosarevok]
LordSputnik: if we're going to keep a voting period, this is OK
18:18:40 [nikki]
we actually increased the voting period
18:18:43 [nikki]
it used to be just one week
18:18:44 [reosarevok]
I doubt people would be happier to wait 7 days rather than 14
18:18:58 [hawke_1]
We could make it so that edits are auto-applied but can still be voted on after they are applied
18:19:02 [hawke_1]
maybe even a period for each
18:19:07 [jozo]
LordSputnik: Tha's too much to edit some release. Edit, whaita 14 days, and Oh, you make wrong, edit....
18:19:07 [LordSputnik]
or maybe add another editor type below auto-editor but above normal?
18:19:30 [hawke_1]
maybe 3 days to provisionally apply, and then 30 days to apply “permanently”?
18:19:32 [hawke_1]
or something
18:19:44 [hawke_1]
jozo: You’re right on that one.
18:19:55 [hawke_1]
Most of it depends on NES though
18:20:20 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: then you'd need to fail all provisional edits that rely on an edit that failed before it became permanent
18:20:37 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Yes.
18:20:45 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Just like any other dependency.
18:21:08 [LordSputnik]
hmm, it's frustrating enough as it is when edits fail due to dependencies
18:21:22 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: It wouldn’t make any effective difference.
18:21:53 [jozo]
LordSputnik: It's bigger borbelm
18:21:56 [hawke_1]
The only difference would be for tagging, and how it appeared on the site.
18:22:08 [hawke_1]
The “failed for dependency” would happen the same as it does now.
18:22:16 [LordSputnik]
mm ok
18:22:17 [nikki]
I don't think it would work quite the same as it does now
18:22:22 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: it wouldn't
18:22:27 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: No?
18:22:32 [reosarevok]
It would make it much more likely for edits to happen on top of other edits
18:22:43 [reosarevok]
Now if two people edit the same, and one fails, the other passes
18:22:59 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: But also more likely for them to be applied in order, no?
18:23:20 [reosarevok]
Maybe - I just say it wouldn't happen in the same way
18:23:24 [reosarevok]
It's possible it would even out
18:23:25 [jozo]
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19403688 and http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19403687
18:23:28 [LordSputnik]
we could add a "trusted editor" type, who would be able to auto-edit certain areas, but less than an auto-editor
18:23:48 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: No thank you. Fewer user classes please. Down with auto-editors!
18:23:55 [hawke_1]
down with elitism!
18:24:00 [reosarevok]
down with up!
18:24:28 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: could be based on some sort of reputation system?
18:24:46 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Maybe.
18:24:56 [jozo]
I don'nts want to be autoeditor.... maybe then i've 100k edits so
18:25:01 [Freso]
Off with their heads!
18:26:00 [hawke_1]
Musicbrainz: Elitist, but not insular. ;-)
18:26:50 [jozo]
I want popular
18:27:56 [CatCat]
:/
18:28:14 [CatCat]
i assure you hawke, that mb auto editors are not elitists
18:28:30 [CatCat]
i get no-voted to oblivion all the time, being na uto doe notihng
18:28:31 [jozo]
You're lusers ;)
18:28:32 [hawke_1]
CatCat: I mean that in the nicest way, and not of the people of musicbrainz.
18:29:07 [CatCat]
* CatCat still thinks his minty photon joke was funny
18:29:43 [CatCat]
hey should make some after dinner months called that, shaped like flat uh photons?
18:29:48 [CatCat]
ol make a laff
18:29:49 [hawke_1]
musicbrainz as a system works such that some people “deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority”.
18:30:04 [CatCat]
nope
18:30:14 [CallerNo6]
* CallerNo6 disagrees
18:30:22 [CatCat]
more like "make em aug iso we don't have to vote on all these edits the are correct anyway"
18:30:39 [hawke_1]
CallerNo6: I would say that the existence of the autoeditor system makes that true.
18:30:50 [CatCat]
* CatCat also disagrees
18:30:59 [hawke_1]
However, the *people* of musicbrainz do not have a sense of entitlement, and are very very open to outside input.
18:31:01 [hawke_1]
Anyway.
18:31:49 [CallerNo6]
hawke_1: that's one way to look at it. I prefer to think of it as a trust thing.
18:32:07 [LordSputnik]
More auto-editors -> less edits that need voting on
18:32:14 [hawke_1]
← sidetracking the conversation.
18:32:22 [CatCat]
* CatCat with LordSputnik
18:32:53 [jozo]
LordSputnik: Then look all my edits ;)
18:32:59 [LordSputnik]
however the proportion of auto-editors to normal editors is rather small
18:33:25 [hawke_1]
Sure, less edits that need voting — but how do you know the edits are right? You assume the people making them know what they are doing, and will use their power wisely.
18:33:34 [hawke_1]
(this is almost always correct)
18:33:45 [LordSputnik]
but most people will use it correctly
18:33:56 [jozo]
I've cage almost none votes
18:34:01 [CatCat]
or get yelled at
18:34:03 [CatCat]
(me)
18:34:10 [LordSputnik]
perhaps we could have a random quality control system
18:34:17 [CatCat]
we do
18:34:23 [CatCat]
i get caught in it enough times
18:34:35 [jozo]
I dring more :(
18:34:47 [CatCat]
uh...
18:34:54 [CatCat]
also in three-four days time, there'll be a weird person speaking as Zaphodbeeblebrox in the chat, that's the woman that's looking after my cats.
18:34:54 [jozo]
;)
18:35:13 [CatCat]
just to be OT
18:35:19 [CatCat]
* CatCat goes off now
18:35:26 [jozo]
but somethin I want is 5 days period or somethging
18:35:36 [jozo]
14 days is way more
18:36:25 [jozo]
I can't touch to tracklist....
18:36:57 [jozo]
... cos i acn find more poroblemes...
18:37:33 [hawke_1]
Yep…I think we all hate that.
18:38:14 [nikki]
* nikki thinks the problem is something that can't really be solved by having more/fewer auto-editors nor by having a longer/shorter open edit period
18:38:14 [LordSputnik]
Perhaps
18:38:21 [nikki]
and presumably that's partly what NES is about
18:38:27 [LordSputnik]
we could scale the voting period based on editor reputation?
18:38:27 [hawke_1]
+1
18:38:39 [hawke_1]
(to nikki)
18:38:45 [jozo]
nikki: So?
18:38:47 [LordSputnik]
haha :P
18:38:50 [CatCat]
nikki <3
18:39:05 [hawke_1]
* hawke_1 gets a 502 loading http://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/e2e16acc-18c7-3a1a-93d7-c7f60e928902
18:39:11 [hawke_1]
Anyone else able to load it?
18:39:17 [CatCat]
lemme see
18:39:21 [hawke_1]
it’s only a 15-disc release…
18:39:48 [CatCat]
oh cock
18:39:48 [LordSputnik]
it has tons of annotation?
18:40:02 [jozo]
502 Bad Gateway
18:40:03 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Dunno, I can’t load it.
18:40:07 [CatCat]
hawke: bad form in not saying it was 15 disc
18:40:09 [jozo]
it's so normal
18:40:12 [CatCat]
i woulda never laded it if i knew that
18:40:18 [hawke_1]
hehe
18:40:18 [CatCat]
well it also 502 Bad Gateway for me
18:40:20 [hawke_1]
CatCat: Sorry
18:40:23 [LordSputnik]
It loads in non-beta
18:40:38 [CatCat]
* CatCat is not trying, godamn 15 disks
18:40:47 [jmvanel]
jmvanel has joined #musicbrainz
18:40:56 [LordSputnik]
deleted the annotation, anyway, might work slightly better now? :P
18:41:07 [CatCat]
* CatCat not reloading
18:41:09 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Was the annotation anything important? :-p
18:41:24 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: if you consider horizontal lines important, then yes
18:41:27 [LordSputnik]
:P
18:41:30 [CatCat]
* CatCat finds that usually when it's HUGE it isnt
18:41:42 [kovacsur]
beta still times out
18:41:48 [LordSputnik]
yeah
18:41:48 [nikki]
jozo: I think it needs to be easier to review things (i.e. more information displayed in fewer edits) while still being possible to selectively vote yes/no, and it needs to be easier to progressively edit something
18:42:03 [CatCat]
+ on progressive edits
18:42:07 [CatCat]
(whatever hat measn)
18:42:14 [CatCat]
* CatCat rolls nikki in chco
18:42:18 [CatCat]
choco
18:42:23 [warp]
hawke_1: yes, the server beta is on is a bit overloaded atm
18:42:29 [nikki]
enter a release, notice a mistake and fix it, notice another mistake and fix it
18:42:32 [hawke_1]
warp: kk
18:42:34 [nikki]
right now you have to get it all right the first time
18:42:40 [CatCat]
nikki: i like that
18:42:43 [CatCat]
i really do
18:42:54 [nikki]
that's something NES is apparently going to fix
18:42:57 [hawke_1]
+1 nikki.
18:42:57 [CatCat]
no more edits failing because of a space or a n extra "&"
18:43:09 [hawke_1]
* hawke_1 afk
18:43:10 [nikki]
although NES seems to have become the new NGS (will fix everything and give everyone a sparkly pony!)
18:43:16 [CatCat]
XD
18:43:19 [warp]
nikki: well, with NES we _can_ make such a system.
18:43:30 [warp]
nikki: the first roll-out of NES will likely not do stuff like that.
18:43:51 [CatCat]
can i have a cat with wings that can act as a transportation device instead of a sparkly horse?
18:44:26 [warp]
the first production version of NES will have as much as possible the same interface as now, to avoid us trying to do too many things at once.
18:44:33 [kovacsur]
CatCat, that will only be implemented in SNES.
18:44:48 [CatCat]
zombiemusicbrainz
18:45:01 [CatCat]
snes?
18:45:12 [CatCat]
super next generation exist system?
18:45:15 [nikki]
SNES is clearly what comes after NES :P
18:45:16 [nikki]
yes
18:45:16 [CatCat]
edit*
18:45:22 [nikki]
well
18:45:27 [nikki]
super new edit system, I guess
18:45:42 [CatCat]
aha
18:45:49 [CatCat]
well ok
18:45:54 [CatCat]
* CatCat roll
18:46:36 [LordSputnik]
maybe it should be possible to edit edits :P
18:46:47 [nikki]
that's another thing that'll apparently be possible
18:46:53 [kepstin-work]
LordSputnik: that's pretty much the point of what NES will allow
18:47:00 [CatCat]
well thats incremental edits no?
18:47:09 [LordSputnik]
kepstin-work: where's all this info about NES? :P
18:47:13 [kepstin-work]
not editing edits directly, but stacking more edits into a merge request to be applied.
18:47:16 [nikki]
in people's heads, mostly
18:47:34 [CatCat]
i'm sure there is some "wiki page" or some such
18:47:37 [CatCat]
tomfoolery
18:47:45 [nikki]
yeah but since when were we any good at documentation? :P
18:47:50 [CatCat]
:D
18:47:51 [CatCat]
true
18:48:02 [CatCat]
henche, "tomfoolery"
18:48:19 [LordSputnik]
I'm not sure anyone's noticed my proposal update :/
18:48:28 [kepstin-work]
mostly in ocharles' head, really.
18:48:39 [kovacsur]
LordSputnik, I seriously doubt it will pass, whatever you do to it now :|
18:48:46 [LordSputnik]
kovacsur: why?
18:48:46 [CatCat]
you dawn, we know you like proposals, so we put a proposal in your propsal
18:49:02 [kovacsur]
people want conflicting things, you can't please them all
18:49:18 [LordSputnik]
have you seen how much i changed it?
18:50:05 [LordSputnik]
there's really next to nothing controversial in there now
18:50:24 [kepstin-work]
LordSputnik: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Recording_Style_Guidelines is the current version?
18:50:29 [LordSputnik]
yes
18:51:15 [kepstin-work]
hmm. you're right, nothing really controversial in there.
18:51:59 [LordSputnik]
I sent an email out saying it was updated, but I don't know whether it got sent to everyone, I sent it in reply to my first message...
18:52:01 [CatCat]
internet, thank you http://memegenerator.net/instance/22860155
18:52:26 [drsaunde]
drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
18:53:22 [LordSputnik]
kepstin-work: I'm leaving the controversial stuff to you in https://moqups.com/kepstin/1yWeVoBO
18:53:25 [LordSputnik]
:P
18:53:29 [kepstin-work]
LordSputnik: heh.
18:54:04 [LordSputnik]
although https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Track_System_Redesign is also a work in progress
18:54:36 [kepstin-work]
hmm. not sure whether it would be good to leave in the note about isrcs from the original
18:55:01 [CatCat]
now i keep racing kepstin as "capsaicin" (as in that stuff inside pepper.)
18:55:13 [CatCat]
reading not racing
18:55:19 [CatCat]
fuck you spell check
18:55:20 [jozo]
I've done hundred of edits what is relyign of edits... and so on
18:55:45 [kepstin-work]
LordSputnik: do note that there are cases of recordings being done by a different "artist" which aren't considered covers.
18:56:10 [kepstin-work]
and then the really fun case of self-covers ;)
18:56:14 [jozo]
what is "cover"?
18:56:39 [jozo]
self-covers and...
18:57:01 [kepstin-work]
jozo: the term originates from an old practise in the US of having a white artist record a song done originally by a black artist, to cover/hide the original artist.
18:57:07 [jozo]
is recording of translated sutff cover?
18:57:09 [LordSputnik]
kepstin-work: what sort of recordings by other artists aren't covers? :P
18:57:23 [CatCat]
david coverdale doing a version of a deep purple song he wrote
18:57:26 [kepstin-work]
LordSputnik: when the two different artists are kind of the same.
18:57:27 [CatCat]
while in deep purple
18:57:34 [jozo]
kepstin-work: I've read somehing on wikipedia
18:57:37 [kepstin-work]
solo vs. group is common, yeah
18:57:37 [dixoncx]
dixoncx has joined #musicbrainz
18:57:49 [LordSputnik]
kepstin-work: what, like an person writes a song, performs it as part of a group, then later does a solo recording?
18:57:55 [kepstin-work]
jozo: the term means, in general, any time a song is played by an artist other than the original.
18:57:59 [kepstin-work]
LordSputnik: or the other way :)
18:58:19 [LordSputnik]
kepstin-work: ok, good point, i'll take that into consideration :P
18:58:25 [jozo]
kepstin-work: Is translated version cover?
18:58:37 [g-ram]
g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
18:58:40 [dixoncx]
Hi all... How to add multiple artists to a track ?
18:58:43 [LordSputnik]
kepstin-work: we can probably trace the original artist's "member of..." relationships and use that to correct that case
18:58:45 [kepstin-work]
jozo: only if its sung by a different artist. if it's the same artist, then not a cover.
18:59:01 [kepstin-work]
LordSputnik: don't make it that hard. this stuff cannot be correctly inferred.
18:59:12 [kepstin-work]
just let people say "this is a cover" "this is not a cover"
18:59:17 [CatCat]
wow it's like i'm not even talking.
18:59:21 [LordSputnik]
kepstin-work: but it's not automated :(
18:59:22 [jozo]
kepstin-work: Say in English again
18:59:23 [kepstin-work]
what about the case when the original isn't in mbz?
18:59:24 [LordSputnik]
kepstin-work: :P
18:59:42 [LordSputnik]
dixoncx: you'll need to use artist credits
18:59:53 [kepstin-work]
LordSputnik: automated will inevitably be wrong.
18:59:57 [kepstin-work]
we let people edit for a reason
19:00:19 [CatCat]
wait who said automated? that's a bad idea
19:01:06 [LordSputnik]
dixoncx: if you go to the tracklist tab, then click the "credits" link next to the artist, you'll be able to add two artists to one track that way
19:01:21 [jozo]
kepstin-work: I've some Finniish artist song Beatles in finnish, is it cover cos it Beatles, or it not song it first ing Finnish?
19:01:24 [jozo]
ah
19:01:37 [LordSputnik]
jozo: it's a cover, because the beatles didn't record it
19:01:37 [g-ram]
g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
19:01:38 [dixoncx]
LordSputnik: i will try..:)
19:01:46 [LordSputnik]
dixoncx: let me know if you get stuck :)
19:02:08 [jozo]
LordSputnik: Then I've have to change many many...
19:02:47 [LordSputnik]
jozo: yup, how many?
19:02:55 [jozo]
LordSputnik: >100
19:03:15 [LordSputnik]
jozo: what do you have to change? relationships to works?
19:03:17 [Freso]
STYLE-160 is updated.
19:03:30 [nitrate__]
nitrate__ has joined #musicbrainz
19:03:54 [jozo]
LordSputnik: I dont like ther 'cover'
19:04:13 [reosarevok]
It also depends
19:04:24 [reosarevok]
Is it a *version* in Finnish of the Beatles song?
19:04:35 [reosarevok]
Or a song with the same music and different lyrics in Finnish?
19:04:35 [jozo]
yeah
19:04:41 [LordSputnik]
Freso: +1'd
19:04:51 [reosarevok]
(it seems Estonians at least liked to take Western music and sing something completely different on top)
19:05:26 [kepstin-work]
* kepstin-work notes that for a translated version, you should always make a new work.
19:05:41 [reosarevok]
Yes, he's doing it from what I've seen
19:05:47 [jozo]
kepstin-work: And its cover?
19:05:52 [reosarevok]
But it's not a terrible question, actually, yes
19:06:10 [reosarevok]
Is the first version of that actually a cover?
19:06:25 [reosarevok]
* reosarevok solves that by editing classical and rap where that doesn't happen :)
19:06:26 [kepstin-work]
man, tricky question :)
19:06:41 [kepstin-work]
what, people don't cover rap songs? ;)
19:06:43 [jozo]
I just found estonian song..... that is covered many finnish
19:06:57 [Freso]
LordSputnik: :)
19:07:01 [reosarevok]
kepstin-work: I've seen some people do it, but... it's kinda sad :p
19:07:23 [jozo]
actually original lyrics is estonian, then translated to russian, and then to finnish
19:07:30 [Vorpal]
Vorpal has joined #musicbrainz
19:07:45 [reosarevok]
wow
19:07:47 [reosarevok]
Nice
19:07:56 [Freso]
reosarevok: I'm just waiting for someone to upload a video of MC Clemens live-covering Rockers by Choice's "Ama'r er nr. 1".
19:08:08 [Freso]
reosarevok: Don't say it doesn't happen. ;)
19:10:05 [reosarevok]
It *does*, it's just very uncommon
19:10:11 [reosarevok]
(I do have a couple examples)
19:10:48 [Freso]
:)
19:11:02 [Freso]
I think trad. and classical are pretty safe though.
19:11:17 [Freso]
"Cover" in those genre contexts doesn't really make sense.
19:11:46 [jozo]
?
19:11:51 [jozo]
What is cover?
19:12:22 [Freso]
jozo: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/What_Is_A_Cover
19:12:27 [reosarevok]
A very silly concept
19:12:33 [reosarevok]
But people seem to like it :(
19:12:33 [jozo]
Freso: again
19:13:14 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: natural horn and baroque trumpet are in
19:13:16 [jozo]
Freso: refer wikipedia
19:13:28 [Freso]
jozo: If you want to know what a cover is in the context of MusicBrainz, read that page.
19:14:12 [Freso]
jozo: Eh? If you want to know what a cover is by Wikipedia's definition, go look it up. Don't expect me to do it for you.
19:14:27 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Excellent.
19:15:38 [jozo]
Freso: 20:57 < jozo> is recording of translated sutff cover?
19:16:04 [Freso]
jozo: I don't know. What do you think?
19:16:21 [Freso]
* Freso would be fine with dropping the notion of covers all together
19:16:43 [CatCat]
nja
19:16:46 [Freso]
Esp. with recordings and work-relationships, we can trace the lineage of songs quite nicely.
19:16:55 [CatCat]
it's pretty necessary with pop/rock/rap/foo music
19:17:02 [Freso]
CatCat: ^
19:17:06 [jozo]
Freso: 21:01 < jozo> kepstin-work: I've some Finniish artist song Beatles in finnish, is it cover cos it Beatles, or it not song it first ing Finnish?
19:17:08 [hawke_1]
Freso: +1
19:17:09 [CatCat]
in trad and jazz and such it's pointless
19:17:35 [Freso]
hawke_1: Yay! You agree with me on something! :D
19:17:41 [Freso]
* Freso celebrates
19:17:47 [hawke_1]
Freso: We agree on a lot, I think. :-)
19:17:52 [Freso]
Probably. :)
19:17:55 [reosarevok]
I really don't have an answer for jozo's question - I doubt we have ever defined covers well enough for that :p
19:18:10 [kepstin-work]
jozo: a cover version is when a song is performed by a different artist than the original. Usually.
19:18:10 [Freso]
jozo: "Freso | jozo: I don't know. What do you think?"
19:18:18 [LordSputnik]
jozo: can you link me to the recordings?
19:18:18 [hawke_1]
jozo: The argument could be made for either side.
19:18:23 [murk]
murk has joined #musicbrainz
19:18:39 [hawke_1]
personally I hate the cover attribute so I would say it is not a cover.
19:19:35 [jozo]
LordSputnik: I can... Do you really want?
19:19:45 [LordSputnik]
jozo: yeah, show me :)
19:20:26 [CatCat]
god stop being interesting in 3 channels people , i'm trying to go to bed
19:20:54 [hawke_1]
Hmm, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19523248
19:20:59 [jozo]
LordSputnik: http://musicbrainz.org/work/b6cc9c35-da67-4086-9179-244d691b0c97
19:21:08 [jozo]
LordSputnik: http://musicbrainz.org/work/18e137c6-6360-47ad-839a-9fedd17b8a9e
19:21:33 [Freso]
CatCat: Just go to bed and read the backlog in the morrow.
19:21:50 [jozo]
LordSputnik: http://musicbrainz.org/work/e1077b89-90d5-4050-84c3-72f83ad2b2a3
19:21:58 [jozo]
LordSputnik: http://musicbrainz.org/work/b06e1d3f-9632-438e-89ee-4caf0fc8c085
19:22:07 [jozo]
LordSputnik: and so on
19:22:16 [krusty_ar_]
krusty_ar_ has joined #musicbrainz
19:22:27 [LordSputnik]
I wouldn't use cover
19:22:39 [LordSputnik]
if they were the first artist to record the finnish translation
19:23:01 [Freso]
hawke_1: I'm tempted to make a style proposal to drop "cover". I'm not sure if I'm thick skinned enough to handle the cross fire though. :p
19:23:23 [hawke_1]
Freso: It would definitely be a hard one to get through.
19:23:45 [hawke_1]
Freso: I think the last time I remember it being discussed, there was some weird corner case that people brought up
19:23:56 [hawke_1]
Where you couldn’t determine cover from the first performance or something
19:24:07 [jozo]
LordSputnik: That is what is use for covering...
19:24:29 [jozo]
LordSputnik: http://aanitearkisto.fi/ is good start of ficuring it :)
19:24:31 [kepstin-work]
hawke_1: well, trivial thing to consider is the case when the original version isn't in mbz; all we have are cover versions.
19:24:52 [LordSputnik]
jozo: I can't read it :P
19:24:59 [hawke_1]
kepstin-work: Then someone who cares about the cover attribute should add the original version. :-p
19:25:12 [kepstin-work]
hawke_1: what if the original was never recorded?
19:25:20 [jozo]
LordSputnik: It's finnish... but if you want you can read it ;)
19:25:28 [hawke_1]
kepstin-work: Then it can’t be a cover version, can it?
19:25:33 [mat_]
hum, when editing a work, hitting enter in any field seems to remove/add the iswc field, for me, is it doing it too for someone else ?
19:25:35 [hawke_1]
There are no cover versions in that case.
19:25:38 [kepstin-work]
hmm, I suppose :)
19:25:59 [hawke_1]
But I mean, some people even consider re-recordings to be cover versions
19:26:00 [Freso]
mat_: There's a ticket for that!
19:26:02 [hawke_1]
even by the same artist.
19:26:15 [kepstin-work]
hawke_1: well, the special case of 'self-covers'
19:26:23 [LordSputnik]
jozo: in each case, the artist who originally recorded the finnish version should be non-cover, and all other artists to record the finnish version should have cover recordings
19:26:23 [hawke_1]
Anyone care to opine and/or comment on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19523248 ?
19:26:32 [mat_]
Freso, ah, ok, good :-)
19:26:46 [kepstin-work]
hawke_1: I already did.
19:26:46 [hawke_1]
kepstin-work: I meant even the exact same artist — not a new recording by the composer or something.
19:26:52 [jozo]
LordSputnik: You hit my point :)
19:27:21 [hawke_1]
kepstin-work: Oh, so you did. And LordSputnik voted.
19:27:28 [jozo]
LordSputnik: And for tihs I dry my best
19:28:10 [hawke_1]
jozo: All you can ever do is try your best. If it’s wrong, someone else will eventually fix it.
19:28:18 [jozo]
CAn someone sink mi?
19:28:28 [Freso]
mat_: Huh. Or perhaps there's not. nikki?
19:29:06 [Freso]
nikki: "mat_ | hum, when editing a work, hitting enter in any field seems to remove/add the iswc field, for me," - I thought I saw this in a ticket, but I can't find that ticket now. Did I imagine this?
19:29:23 [mat_]
Freso, nikki, neither can I :-)
19:29:28 [jozo]
hawke_1: I said week ago or so).... I dint do that then someone fix after then years
19:29:37 [jozo]
íf
19:30:30 [jozo]
iswc-net is so wrong
19:31:16 [Freso]
Oh, a music database being wrong??
19:31:23 [v6lur]
v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
19:31:23 [Freso]
Who would've thought...
19:31:26 [jozo]
yeah
19:31:31 [kepstin-work]
I've seen a few cases when translated versions of songs don't get new ISWCs - that's annoying :/
19:32:03 [kepstin-work]
particularly since in the JASRAC db, they might put the translator credit on the ISWC for the original song :/
19:32:10 [Freso]
Someone noted the same ISWC being applied to different works the other day - but also different ISWCs for the same work.
19:32:13 [Freso]
\o/
19:32:44 [kepstin-work]
different iswcs is easier to explain - accidental re-registration due to different regions being out of sync
19:32:47 [jozo]
okey, i've seen composer, writer, lyricist, arraerr, meeeseed
19:35:40 [jozo]
And you did's want referense?
19:36:18 [jozo]
(ha, I did't remeber)
19:37:48 [jozo]
kepstin-work: i dont rust iwrc either
19:38:22 [dixoncx]
In http://musicbrainz.org/release/add, What is Release information - Script: ?
19:38:54 [kepstin-work]
dixoncx: the type of writing used for the titles on the release.
19:39:06 [kepstin-work]
e.g. English, French, etc. use "Latin" script.
19:39:09 [CallerNo6]
dixoncx: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Release#Language_and_script
19:39:35 [jozo]
haha
19:39:38 [dixoncx]
<kepstin-work>, Got it..
19:39:54 [dixoncx]
<CallerNo6>, i will look through it :)
19:40:21 [jozo]
If vyou assk something like that... you are moron
19:40:47 [jozo]
about 99% dont know
19:40:51 [CallerNo6]
hm, that wiki page actually isn't as helpful as it could be.
19:41:32 [kepstin-work]
jozo: please don't insult other people in the channel. We try to help new users understand our terminology, particularly if English isn't their native language.
19:41:33 [CallerNo6]
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/release#Script is a little better
19:44:22 [jozo]
kepstin-work: Sorry
19:45:01 [noobie]
hy
19:45:36 [LordSputnik]
jozo: it's dixoncx you should say sorry to
19:45:41 [LordSputnik]
noobie: hey :)
19:45:48 [noobie]
:)
19:45:59 [jozo]
dixoncx: Sorry
19:46:09 [hawke_1]
CallerNo6: Wow, yeah it is. I wonder if it would go over well to move that definition list over to the style guideline
19:47:19 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: 5-string banjo added
19:47:26 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: thanks
19:47:26 [CallerNo6]
hawke_1: or at least intertwingle them a bit.
19:48:26 [CallerNo6]
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Caller_number_six/sandbox4#Intertwingle
19:48:41 [hawke_1]
CallerNo6: Yeah…or something. I’ve always found it weird how our “definition” pages (like release) and our Style guidelines are so disconnected though.
19:49:03 [hawke_1]
But I guess it would be a bit long if we tried to explain everything and give style guidance in the same place.
19:49:26 [hawke_1]
CallerNo6: lol, nice
19:49:49 [CallerNo6]
That's not the most current draft. Working on it slowly. :-)
19:50:41 [dixoncx]
<jozo>: Sorry , i am new to MB, and doc seems hard to understand. Also i didnt know there is wiki page before <CallerNo6> pointed it..
19:51:18 [LordSputnik]
dixoncx: you might want to read through http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Beginners_Guide if you haven't already found it :)
19:52:00 [LordSputnik]
anyone know what library Picard uses to read metadata from files?
19:52:31 [ianmcorvidae]
mutagen
19:52:51 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Also used by Quod Libet/Ex Falso
19:53:11 [dixoncx]
<LordSputnik>: Am reading that..
19:53:23 [LordSputnik]
dixoncx: great :)
19:53:52 [LordSputnik]
ah it's written in python...
19:53:53 [LordSputnik]
ok
19:54:03 [LordSputnik]
time to find an alternative for C
19:54:59 [hawke_1]
As in you want to find a tag library written to use with C?
19:55:32 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: as in i've already found one :P
19:55:40 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: taglib
19:55:44 [hawke_1]
taglib, yep.
19:56:11 [LordSputnik]
think i'm going to make something to mass-update all my library based on existing mbids
19:56:16 [jozo]
örör
19:56:28 [LordSputnik]
(download new metadata/cover art/info periodically)
19:56:58 [jozo]
ö-ör
19:58:10 [kepstin-work]
* kepstin-work usually does that by loading everything into picard and resaving it periodically
19:58:38 [LordSputnik]
so do i, but it takes ages/sometimes doesn't work
19:59:00 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Beets?
19:59:10 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: huh?
19:59:12 [noobie]
indexed search on beta broken?
19:59:23 [LordSputnik]
noobie: lots of stuff on beta is broken atm
19:59:34 [LordSputnik]
noobie: apparently it's under a lot of stress for some reason
19:59:41 [noobie]
sounds great
19:59:46 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: http://beets.radbox.org/
20:00:42 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: is it linux-only?
20:01:13 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: No idea
20:01:24 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: seems to be
20:01:30 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Nope. Also works on Mac OS X. ;-)
20:01:40 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: fine then, unix only :P
20:01:42 [hawke_1]
Oh, windows too
20:01:43 [hawke_1]
http://beets.readthedocs.org/en/latest/guides/main.html
20:01:53 [hawke_1]
Just a little harder on Windows it seems
20:02:00 [LordSputnik]
"Installing beets on Windows can be tricky."
20:02:11 [LordSputnik]
I'll write a cross platform, command line tool :P
20:03:16 [hawke_1]
It looks not-that-tricky to me, though i admit I’ve never done it.
20:03:32 [JoeLlama]
JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
20:04:27 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: it doesn't look too bad, but it seems to be a media player too, as far as I can tell, and I already have itunes for that
20:04:51 [hawke]
hawke has joined #musicbrainz
20:05:03 [LordSputnik]
plus if I write my own I can add more things to it :P
20:05:27 [hawke_1]
It’s optionally an mpd daemon, yeah.
20:05:33 [hawke_1]
or something
20:05:39 [hawke_1]
I dunno, I don’t understand mpd
20:06:08 [LordSputnik]
brb, going to ubuntu
20:09:04 [LordSputnik]
LordSputnik has joined #musicbrainz
20:10:53 [hawke_1]
That was quick
20:12:01 [nikki]
Freso: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5538
20:12:16 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: it's only a reboot :P
20:12:33 [Freso]
mat_: ^
20:12:38 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Also not as quick as I thought — missed the timestamps. :-D
20:14:07 [mat_]
Freso, nikki, great :-)
20:16:54 [function1]
need guidance. if there exists an arist in brainz already called john doe, and i have a track credited to 'john doe and group' is that a new artist? alias? can't make it two separate credits...
20:17:25 [LordSputnik_]
LordSputnik_ has joined #musicbrainz
20:17:34 [reosarevok]
function1, http://musicbrainz.org/doc/How%20to%20Use%20Artist%20Credits
20:17:46 [LordSputnik_]
ubuntu crashed :/
20:19:30 [Bakura]
Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
20:20:12 [function1]
reosarevok: sorry, by 'Group' i did not mean that generically (like john doe). literally 'group'. 'Rev. Gresham and group' is on the label, and Rev. Gresham exists
20:20:25 [reosarevok]
Oh, heh
20:20:30 [reosarevok]
Hmm
20:20:35 [function1]
its like 'john doe and his band' except even more generic...
20:20:39 [reosarevok]
Yeah
20:20:47 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: opinion?
20:21:12 [CallerNo6]
function1: is it a compilation? Those tend to get silly with track credits.
20:21:27 [function1]
yeah compilation
20:21:36 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: The ways I’ve seen it done would be like “Rev. Gresham as rev. Gresham and Group”
20:22:07 [hawke_1]
and also “Rev. Gresham” with a following join phrase of “and Group”
20:23:19 [hawke_1]
function1: I assume it’s like the semi-common “and friends” thing — where it’s not even a band per se but just some arbitrary bunch of people, with some tracks having one person, other tracks having another?
20:24:09 [function1]
hawke_1: yeah i assume. 'group' is even in lower case. and there's a book that comes with this release, probably documentation.
20:25:00 [function1]
CallerNo6: what is that 'as' construction? do i put in the 'artist credited on this release' that 'rev as rev with group' literally?
20:25:54 [hawke_1]
function1: On the release editor, there’s a little >> expansion thing that lets you add artist credits…
20:26:19 [reosarevok]
function1: when we say that, we mean "Artist in MB as Credit
20:26:20 [reosarevok]
"
20:26:26 [hawke_1]
on the tracklist editor, it’s “credits” on each individual track.
20:26:38 [reosarevok]
(so, in this case, Rev. Gresham credited as Rev. Gresham and Group)
20:28:14 [function1]
got it thanks
20:30:17 [Freso]
jozo: I like how you were saying we need more editors - then as soon as a new editor actually comes along and tries to understand the system, you call them a moron.
20:32:11 [hawke_1]
Freso: Obviously he meant that we need editors who don’t understand the system and are afraid to ask questions about it. ;-)
20:32:50 [Freso]
hawke_1: Of course.
20:34:22 [reosarevok]
hawke_1, cavaquinho added
20:42:20 [LordSputnik|AFK]
hawke_1: taglib working quite well
20:42:26 [LordSputnik|AFK]
got it displaying track artist
20:42:30 [hawke_1]
cool
20:51:03 [reosarevok]
And kudüm
20:51:31 [function1]
also, if the same artist is marked on the cover in multiple forms (aliases? brady "doc" and brady "doc" barnes) would i vary the 'artist credited on this release' or just use the default name (brady "doc") for all tracks on the release and just put an alias on the artist page? seems 'brady "doc"' is closer to artist intent
20:52:08 [Freso]
function1: Use a different AC.
20:52:29 [Freso]
function1: The AC should generally reflect the way they're actually credited.
20:52:38 [Freso]
(AC = Artist Credit)
20:55:19 [dixoncx]
dixoncx has left #musicbrainz
20:57:28 [function1]
ok
21:02:26 [mat_]
ah, that's a funny one, the add work page as two fields for iswc, one named iswc, and one named iswcs
21:06:42 [function1]
k, 'richard and elula moss' on the cover gets credited to brainz artists "richard moss" and "elula moss", but i'm thinking the artist credit for richard should be expanded to 'richard moss' as well, so the credit string reads 'richard moss and elula moss' contrary to what was on the cover?
21:07:16 [reosarevok]
I'd probably use Richard Moss as Richard, really
21:07:23 [reosarevok]
No need to change it from what's on the cover IMO
21:07:32 [reosarevok]
(other people's opinion might vary)
21:09:29 [hawke_1]
I agree with what reosarevok just said.
21:09:33 [function1]
AC wiki page makes provision for 'name variation,' but this is just a linguistic shorthand for listing ppl with common last names, rather than a 'variation' like above ("doc" vs "doc" barnes), so thats my argument/opinion
21:09:34 [hawke_1]
but that happens a lot
21:09:59 [hawke_1]
function1: Honestly, either way would probably be acceptable
21:10:34 [hawke_1]
I tend to go with “as on cover” because if someone needs to find who “richard" actually is, they can do so pretty easily
21:10:51 [function1]
i spend too much time overthinking these things. sometimes i just give up and dont finish the input
21:10:51 [hawke_1]
while finding out what it said on the cover is not so easy.
21:11:19 [function1]
yeah i like preserving whats on the cover
21:11:42 [Freso]
* Freso usually sticks pretty much 1:1 to what's on the cover for these things, since AC's will provide the proper linking/id'ing.
21:13:07 [function1]
and i suppose i could get picard to tag it in an expanded way as well
21:16:01 [djpretzel]
djpretzel has joined #musicbrainz
21:19:04 [Freso]
function1: Yep.
21:19:10 [Freso]
function1: There's actually a function for that.
21:19:14 [Freso]
Or a checkbox.
21:19:54 [Freso]
Settings -> Metadata -> Use standardised artist names
21:20:01 [Freso]
(Or whatever they are in English...)
21:21:42 [function1]
okay i now if the cover says 'Joe and John' should the join phrase be converted to '&
21:21:58 [function1]
i thought this was a no brainer but now im confused
21:22:19 [function1]
cant even find it on the wiki
21:23:43 [CallerNo6]
I don't know of any guideline that suggests we change "and" to "&", although it /does/ have the benefit of being less english-centric.
21:24:08 [CallerNo6]
(slightly)
21:24:20 [Freso]
function1: I usually don't.
21:24:40 [Freso]
function1: I usually leave it just as it is displayed.
21:24:53 [fissl]
fissl has joined #musicbrainz
21:24:54 [Freso]
Other people still use the old guideline of converting to an ampersand.
21:24:57 [kovacsur]
CallerNo6, not all languages use &, so it doesn't help with that at all
21:25:02 [function1]
and this is a backwoods americana album ;)
21:25:07 [Freso]
I'm not sure if there's a guideline in that regard.
21:25:17 [function1]
so NGS generally favors 'whats on the cover'
21:25:23 [andreypopp]
andreypopp has joined #musicbrainz
21:25:32 [function1]
or allows for it anyway
21:25:37 [CallerNo6]
kovacsur: I did say "slightly" :-)
21:25:44 [kepstin-work]
there used to be a guideline, back pre-ngs when 'Foor & Bar' and 'Foo and Bar' were different artists.
21:25:51 [Freso]
Only for regular track/release/release group credits.
21:26:04 [kepstin-work]
the idea was to have as few duplicate artists as possible, so the 'and' got normalized
21:26:44 [function1]
yeah thats the guideline i remembered
21:27:15 [kovacsur]
CallerNo6, fair enough :)
21:27:52 [fissl]
hi
21:28:13 [fissl]
wouldn't it be better to link wikidata instead of wikipedia?
21:28:46 [reosarevok]
Most people don't even know what wikidata is
21:28:53 [kepstin-work]
fissl: for what kind of link?
21:29:01 [function1]
never heard of it
21:29:06 [reosarevok]
I mean, I have only *heard* of it, I'm opening it for the first time :)
21:29:27 [fissl]
wikidata now provides an index of interlingual wikipedia links per topic
21:29:48 [reosarevok]
fissl: can you get to the wikidata page from the wikipedia one?
21:29:53 [reosarevok]
(programatically)
21:30:00 [fissl]
should be possible
21:30:09 [reosarevok]
If so, it could be reasonable to make a bot that did it
21:30:29 [kepstin-work]
* kepstin-work notes that you can fairly easily get the interwiki links for a page given the language-specific wikipedia url anyways, so that doesn't buy us anything...
21:30:35 [reosarevok]
I expect most people will keep using wikipedia, so we should keep linking to that
21:30:49 [fissl]
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11036
21:30:57 [reosarevok]
kepstin-work: wikidata is supposed to be machine-readable info though
21:31:03 [reosarevok]
Which probably makes sense as a link
21:31:14 [CallerNo6]
sounds neat
21:31:23 [kepstin-work]
reosarevok: the mediawiki api returns interwiki links in a machine-readable format.
21:31:27 [reosarevok]
Unsure if it is *now*, but AFAIK that was the plan
21:31:44 [reosarevok]
I mean, AFAIK the plan was for machine-readable *info* to be there
21:31:45 [ianmcorvidae]
yup, that's how the new wikipedia-extract feature works
21:31:46 [reosarevok]
Not just links
21:33:52 [kepstin-work]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=Feist&prop=langlinks
21:34:14 [kepstin-work]
that looks machine-readable to me :)
21:34:24 [reosarevok]
for links, sure :p
21:34:37 [reosarevok]
If links are all wikidata can offer as of now, then yeah, little use
21:34:54 [ianmcorvidae]
kepstin-work: the point, ultimately, is to have things like the contents of templates be machine-readable in a concrete way
21:35:10 [ianmcorvidae]
but yes, for just links it's easy enough
21:35:21 [kepstin-work]
hmm. how do you find the wikidata page for a wikipedia subject, anyways?
21:35:28 [Bakura]
Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
21:36:41 [kepstin-work]
"what you will find is a page that lists the language links for a specific topic, i.e. it lists all the articles on the different language editions of Wikipedia that are about the same topic. [...] As of now, that's all. Nothing is happening with the language links yet, and you also cannot add any other form of data to the items."
21:36:57 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: https://gist.github.com/5d4f2fe09a6e7cbe9d00
21:37:08 [kepstin-work]
they say they plan to add more stuff, of course...
21:38:59 [fissl]
kepstin-work: search function^^
21:40:02 [kepstin-work]
fissl: tried it on a couple random things, didn't find anything. I guess nobody made pages for the stuff I tried yet.
21:40:26 [kepstin-work]
they really should be doing automated importing of the language links to get started :/
21:40:56 [fissl]
i think that is the plan
21:41:14 [fissl]
get a rid of the article based interwiki links
21:41:16 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Seems like a start, eh?
21:41:52 [kepstin-work]
hmm. actually, they do have one nice feature in the initial release - language-marked aliases.
21:42:43 [kepstin-work]
* kepstin-work should edit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Technical_proposal#Optional_extensions_to_phase_1 to add 'MBID' to their list of external identifiers ;)
21:42:46 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: definitely does, although that's only FLAC support atm... next thing is to bring in libmb
21:43:07 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Why only FLAC?
21:43:27 [reosarevok]
kepstin-work, you should
21:43:34 [reosarevok]
:p
21:44:03 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: I'm using an old version of taglib, so it's harder to read tags flexibly
21:44:38 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: plus I was just messing around really , so didn't try to make it work for all three to start with
21:44:40 [reosarevok]
kepstin-work, maybe contact https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_(WMDE)
21:44:47 [Leftmost]
Leftmost has joined #musicbrainz
21:45:30 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Fair enough
21:45:30 [function1]
so seems like we should have something similar to this 'artist credit' granularity for track titles as well. eg when one recording has two different songs or tracks on it (necessitating the literal '/' between names, altering the bullet point i see on the cover instead)
21:46:06 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: technically it works with ogg too - it's reading Xiph comment tags atm
21:46:43 [fissl]
my last contribution: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14005 ^^
21:46:49 [LordSputnik]
hawke_1: http://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisComment those
21:47:01 [hawke_1]
LordSputnik: Nod.
21:48:09 [function1]
though i guess mbrainz doesnt attempt to make some idealized abstraction of 'song' the way it does 'artist'... persons are relatively more staticly defined
21:48:10 [LordSputnik]
anyway, i'm off now, see you all :)
21:48:17 [drsaunde]
drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
21:49:16 [reosarevok]
function1: well, we just relate the two works to the recording
21:49:41 [reosarevok]
(which are the "idealised abstraction" of songs)
21:50:03 [reosarevok]
Actually, what we sadly lack *is* its equivalent for "person2
21:50:05 [reosarevok]
*"
21:50:25 [CallerNo6]
word
21:51:23 [function1]
oh shit, each instance of 'title1 / title2' on a cover (as one recording) should have related works?
21:51:23 [reosarevok]
we don't link works to parts of the recording title, though, as we do with artists + credits. that's true
21:51:38 [reosarevok]
function1: well, in theory every recording which has been composed should :p
21:51:59 [reosarevok]
(work vs. expression levels)
21:52:38 [reosarevok]
Well, or work/expression vs. manifestation, I guess
21:52:44 [reosarevok]
(man, FRBR is confusing)
21:53:02 [function1]
yeah. what percentage of 'title1 / title2' instances have those relationships? 2%
21:53:05 [function1]
FRBR?
21:53:19 [derwin]
functional records fo mumble mumble
21:53:28 [CallerNo6]
* CallerNo6 chuckles
21:53:33 [kepstin-work]
function1: that's nothing special - most *single-song* recordings are missing work relationships too :)
21:53:43 [reosarevok]
function1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records
21:53:59 [function1]
oh know, the librarians have been thinking about this for years
21:54:17 [function1]
oh no
21:54:21 [reosarevok]
Yep, they have
21:54:23 [reosarevok]
Mostly thinking :p
21:54:44 [reosarevok]
Much more thinking than implementing, from what I've seen :(
21:55:03 [function1]
okay, but what i am going to be sure to do is have a recording of a hymn linked to a 'work'
21:55:45 [function1]
would it be so hard to have some 'guess' function to link a new track to a work when doing the input, creating new work if necessary?
21:56:06 [reosarevok]
For classical music at least, yes
21:56:12 [reosarevok]
For popular music, probably not very
21:56:22 [DremoraLV]
DremoraLV has joined #musicbrainz
21:56:31 [reosarevok]
There's a script for batch-relating to works from an artist's recording page
21:56:50 [hawke_1]
And another for relating to works from the release page
21:56:56 [hawke_1]
and the relationship editor
21:57:00 [noobie]
it would be nice if the track parser would detected & and vs. collaborations
21:57:05 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: I'd argue for pop music the latter is more useful
21:57:10 [reosarevok]
latter?
21:57:13 [reosarevok]
The first one
21:57:18 [reosarevok]
The one from recordings page
21:57:21 [hawke_1]
former. :-)
21:57:37 [reosarevok]
The former might have been *your* former :p
21:57:42 [hawke_1]
Oh, true.
21:57:51 [reosarevok]
I mean, how often do artists have two songs of the same title?
21:58:03 [reosarevok]
(unless they're [untitled]. or Schubert)
21:58:04 [hawke_1]
No idea.
21:58:24 [ianmcorvidae]
I feel like there's a database query for this :P
21:58:30 [nikki]
I can think of a few where the difference is the lyrics language
21:58:38 [nikki]
ianmcorvidae: that's more a query for things that need merging :P
21:58:45 [ianmcorvidae]
heh
21:58:53 [reosarevok]
nikki: sure, but usually that changes the title too...
21:58:58 [reosarevok]
(not always, of course)
21:58:59 [ianmcorvidae]
heh, fair
21:59:17 [nikki]
reosarevok: I know. I can still think of a few where the titles are the same but the lyrics are different
22:00:07 [reosarevok]
Sure. But in general relating to works from recording lists is still quicker and pretty safe :)
22:00:09 [function1]
google should be doing all of this input work. or someone should give a grant to LOC. manhattan project style
22:00:45 [hawke_1]
function1: Not if you want it done right.
22:00:51 [hawke_1]
heh
22:00:55 [hawke_1]
not that we do it right either.
22:00:59 [reosarevok]
:)
22:01:05 [nikki]
reosarevok: oh, sure, I'm not trying to argue that it's not, I was just expanding your list a little bit :)
22:01:08 [JoeLlama]
JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
22:02:02 [hawke_1]
function1: Not if you want it done in a truly open way, that will continue for the foreseeable future?
22:02:40 [reosarevok]
hawke_1: admittedly, a combination of machine input and user review would be kinda nice
22:03:00 [hawke_1]
reosarevok: Yeah…that’s what we’ve been trying to build label data feeds for, right?
22:03:12 [reosarevok]
I meant for works, ATM
22:03:17 [hawke_1]
Ah
22:03:18 [reosarevok]
But yes, for releases there's that
22:03:40 [CallerNo6]
I'm curious to see how good the labels' data is/are.
22:04:04 [reosarevok]
CallerNo6: UMG's samples are surprisingly decent
22:04:35 [CallerNo6]
we want information!
22:04:49 [reosarevok]
when do we want it?
22:04:58 [nikki]
yesterday
22:05:03 [reosarevok]
Yes, pretty much
22:05:10 [reosarevok]
But it will have to wait a bit more than that
22:05:34 [reosarevok]
hawke_1, write to the NML
22:05:46 [reosarevok]
"It's me again! What about you give me all your metadata!"
22:05:53 [hawke_1]
hahaha
22:06:33 [hawke_1]
based on their web stuff, their metadata is not what we have, since they’re a little more classical-focused than we are.
22:06:34 [fissl]
good night
22:06:44 [hawke_1]
(they have stuff grouped by work, generally)
22:06:52 [reosarevok]
How's that a bad thing?
22:06:57 [reosarevok]
They have track info
22:06:59 [reosarevok]
night fissl
22:07:04 [reosarevok]
Track info linked to works
22:07:07 [function1]
all i really want are tags. and the immortality of my hard data entry
22:07:21 [hawke_1]
* hawke_1 is out, back later
22:07:32 [reosarevok]
They do not have as-on-cover titles, but that's easily "solved" by adding them as low quality by default :p
22:07:42 [reosarevok]
Enjoy!
22:07:42 [hawke_1]
yep
22:08:06 [Freso]
function1: https://musicbrainz.org/release/7c943301-8d9d-4da5-8e9d-f8797a0bcee5 :D
22:09:25 [function1]
Freso: well done :)
22:09:29 [function1]
how long did that take?
22:11:11 [function1]
and was all that information actually on the physical product?
22:13:36 [Freso]
Freso has joined #musicbrainz
22:14:07 [Freso]
* Freso checks chatlog to see which of his messages made it through...
22:14:21 [Freso]
None, apparently.
22:14:34 [Freso]
"reosarevok | There's a script for batch-relating to works from an artist's recording page" - link?
22:14:38 [Freso]
Some of the works I cross-referenced with the recording in the TheSession.org database.
22:14:44 [Freso]
function1: Mostly, yes. And not too long, really. The relationship editor is pretty good at such stuff.
22:14:55 [Freso]
Some of the works I cross-referenced with the recording in the TheSession.org database.
22:15:02 [Freso]
But otherwise, it's what is on the physical release.
22:15:29 [Freso]
- and then I got disconnected.
22:15:34 [Freso]
Yay for awesome sucky connection! \o/
22:16:18 [reosarevok]
Freso: one sec
22:16:31 [reosarevok]
Oh, here
22:16:32 [reosarevok]
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/119544
22:16:46 [reosarevok]
Unsure if it works on https
22:16:53 [reosarevok]
Probably not since it's not updated
22:20:34 [Freso]
bitmap: ^ Go update! :p
22:43:51 [function1]
'guess sort name' doesnt work?
22:45:34 [Freso]
Freso has joined #musicbrainz
22:46:47 [reosarevok]
function1, where?
22:47:10 [reosarevok]
In the Add Missing Entities tab?
22:47:57 [reosarevok]
If so, it "works" - kind of. It pretty much copies the names since it doesn't know if it should do Person or Group order, IIRC
22:49:46 [function1]
yeah. but there's also a button for copy names... so they do the same thing? i at least expected <last word>, <rest of string>
22:52:46 [reosarevok]
I imagine Guess turns "The Name" into "Name, The"
22:52:49 [reosarevok]
But I haven't tried
22:53:09 [reosarevok]
I mostly avoid using that tab and create all the artists outside of it
22:54:36 [function1]
before even starting the release? or can you just skip it
22:55:13 [nikki]
* nikki notes that http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-4186 is probably the most relevant ticket
22:55:21 [function1]
oh my session timed out and i lost everything.
22:55:35 [function1]
:(
23:07:13 [derwin]
oof.
23:09:13 [Freso]
Freso has joined #musicbrainz
23:16:52 [function1]
is there a way i can do the input more piecemeal? add a release without any tracks, log off, come back later, add 1 cd at a time?
23:22:32 [nikki]
not really. you would need to at least do the first cd
23:25:41 [murdos]
murdos has joined #musicbrainz
23:28:44 [function1]
or at least the first track on the first cd?
23:28:49 [uptown]
uptown has joined #musicbrainz
23:31:18 [nikki]
that wouldn't really work properly
23:33:56 [function1]
what can i do? session expires before i can get everything in
23:34:12 [function1]
or maybe it was just wireless disconnection
23:34:46 [nikki]
what are you trying to add anyway?
23:35:02 [function1]
a 4cd compilation
23:35:20 [function1]
most artists are not in the db
23:35:54 [CallerNo6]
* CallerNo6 was going to say, add all the relevant artists first.
23:37:08 [CallerNo6]
function1: are you using the track parser?
23:41:19 [ijabz]
ijabz has joined #musicbrainz
23:42:59 [function1]
i tried typing all the titles in manually into the parser, but they weren't added to the new disc. freedb exists but is messy, and either way i have to edit the artist credits
23:43:38 [reosarevok]
function1: when you say the session expires, what's what happens?
23:43:45 [reosarevok]
The session is supposed to last pretty long :/
23:44:02 [function1]
i just got thrown to the login page
23:44:09 [reosarevok]
:/
23:44:15 [reosarevok]
I've never had that happen
23:44:29 [function1]
yeah and i had been clicking on other pages while editing
23:44:36 [nikki]
me neither
23:54:05 [function1]
well, before i asked, i had created a release with one cd and one track just to have something saved. should i kill that release and start over? or edit it to add tracks? ive messed up
23:55:58 [reosarevok]
Well, since it's there already, add a disc :p
23:56:33 [CallerNo6]
I'm not sure, but the one track might be confusing the track parser.
23:56:38 [CallerNo6]
* CallerNo6 goes to experiment
23:57:42 [function1]
i tried to add all the other tracks to the first disc, but couldn't get past the next step, it demanded some reconciliation with the 'change' in the first track that was already there and the existing recording entry from when i had first created the track
23:58:06 [function1]
no combination of check boxes would allow me to pass