Re: [mb-users] Should "vol." always be expanded? -- intent?
Tom Crocker <[email protected]> Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:32:28 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHmUbmdwW2Vv4BurH3S88Xm0Hyw-CUW_0aLv8JFPiP4oX_9f3Q@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============0890779665== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228626404ffd05019ef7ae --089e01228626404ffd05019ef7ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 26 Aug 2014 19:52, "lixobix" <[email protected]> wrote: > > caller#6-2 wrote > > On 08/24/2014 12:25 PM, lixobix wrote: > >> And the release itself is generally the strongest evidence of artistic > >> intent anyway. > > > > That's not my understanding of "artist intent". I mean, yes, it's a > > source to consider if you're trying to prove artist intent, but I don't > > think it's sufficient. If it is, then we should just say "enter > > everything as on cover". > > > > [...] > > > > IMO, for something to be "artist intent", it needs to be in some way a > > meaningful difference to the artist. > > (snip) > > In relation to artistic intent, I see your point, but surely the release > itself is always a refutable presumption of artistic intent. Your approach > that the titling choices must make a "meaningful difference to the artist" > goes in the opposite direction: you presume that the choices are wrong > unless the artist has somehow confirmed that they are correct. Regardless of whether we should standardise Part, Volume etc. or not, those are the style principles : "Usually you stick to the style guidelines. If you are still unsure how to enter something because it is labelled inconsistently on official sources, use the most common version. Finally there is the notion of Artist intent. If you can show that the artist intended something to be stylized a special way, then you should enter it like that into the database." > According to > that approach, we at MB have the authority to correct "errors" that were > make by people actually involved with the release, simply because the artist > has not made it clear whether such "errors" were intentional or not. I don't > see why we take it upon ourselves to do this, nor the benefit. It's standardising rather than correcting errors, but it's fair to ask what the costs and benefits are in each case. --089e01228626404ffd05019ef7ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 <p dir="ltr"><br> On 26 Aug 2014 19:52, "lixobix" <<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > caller#6-2 wrote<br> > > On 08/24/2014 12:25 PM, lixobix wrote:<br> > >> And the release itself is generally the strongest evidence of artistic<br> > >> intent anyway.<br> > ><br> > > That's not my understanding of "artist intent". I mean, yes, it's a<br> > > source to consider if you're trying to prove artist intent, but I don't<br> > > think it's sufficient. If it is, then we should just say "enter<br> > > everything as on cover".<br> > ><br> > > [...]<br> > ><br> > > IMO, for something to be "artist intent", it needs to be in some way a<br> > > meaningful difference to the artist.<br> ><br> > (snip)<br> ><br> > In relation to artistic intent, I see your point, but surely the release<br> > itself is always a refutable presumption of artistic intent. Your approach<br> > that the titling choices must make a "meaningful difference to the artist"<br> > goes in the opposite direction: you presume that the choices are wrong<br> > unless the artist has somehow confirmed that they are correct.</p> <p dir="ltr">Regardless of whether we should standardise Part, Volume etc. or not, those are the style principles :<br> "Usually you stick to the style guidelines.<br> If you are still unsure how to enter something because it is labelled inconsistently on official sources, use the most common version.<br> Finally there is the notion of Artist intent. If you can show that the artist intended something to be stylized a special way, then you should enter it like that into the database."</p> <p dir="ltr">> According to<br> > that approach, we at MB have the authority to correct "errors" that were<br> > make by people actually involved with the release, simply because the artist<br> > has not made it clear whether such "errors" were intentional or not. I don't<br> > see why we take it upon ourselves to do this, nor the benefit.</p> <p dir="ltr">It's standardising rather than correcting errors, but it's fair to ask what the costs and benefits are in each case. </p> --089e01228626404ffd05019ef7ae-- --===============0890779665== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users --===============0890779665==--