Re: [mb-users] Where to add the recording date?
Tom Crocker <[email protected]> Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:37:04 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHmUbmf6gVXqga5UTNhgaUKWKm8UBsxhCp_uwJNCcyhZwDGQ+Q@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============0070994879== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044282ac60cbbf050319e424 --f46d044282ac60cbbf050319e424 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 15 Sep 2014 13:17, "Nicol=C3=A1s Tamargo de Eguren" <[email protected]= m> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM, MeinDummy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> if the date, the recording location and the corresponding work are known for >> a particular recording there are 2 or 3 possible places where the date could >> be added: >> - as begin and end date of the work-recording AR >> - as begin and end date of the place-recording AR >> - to the disambiguation comment of a live recording as described in >> https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording , Live recordings section >> >> Which one of these places is preferred? Or should the same date be added >> everywhere? > > > I've been adding it everywhere... including every single performer rel, too. We could probably use a better place though. Or well, a single place at least. > I also add it in all those places (but only a live comment if it's actually live of course). Different dates have the potential to be useful where eg guitar recorded there and then, drums here and now. Also there is sometimes no work to link to (for eg crowd noise, tuning) BTW if it's performed live and then mixed on a different date I stick with performance date for recording - work rel. But Reo is right, and in the long-term n-ary relationships seem the solution, but I wonder if/how much events will be able to be used for some of this? --f46d044282ac60cbbf050319e424 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <p dir=3D"ltr"><br> On 15 Sep 2014 13:17, "Nicol=C3=A1s Tamargo de Eguren" <<a hre= f=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM, MeinDummy <<a href=3D"mailto:MeinD= [email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> >><br> >> Hi,<br> >><br> >> if the date, the recording location and the corresponding work are= known for<br> >> a particular recording there are 2 or 3 possible places where the = date could<br> >> be added:<br> >> - as begin and end date of the work-recording AR<br> >> - as begin and end date of the place-recording AR<br> >> - to the disambiguation comment of a live recording as described i= n<br> >> <a href=3D"https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording">https://mu= sicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording</a> , Live recordings section<br> >><br> >> Which one of these places is preferred? Or should the same date be= added<br> >> everywhere?<br> ><br> ><br> > I've been adding it everywhere... including every single performer= rel, too. We could probably use a better place though. Or well, a single p= lace at least.=C2=A0<br> ></p> <p dir=3D"ltr">I also add it in all those places (but only a live comment i= f it's actually live of course). Different dates have the potential to = be useful where eg guitar recorded there and then, drums here and now. Also= there is sometimes no work to link to (for eg crowd noise, tuning) BTW if = it's performed live and then mixed on a different date I stick with per= formance date for recording - work rel. <br> But Reo is right, and in the long-term n-ary relationships seem the solutio= n, but I wonder if/how much events will be able to be used for some of this= ?</p> --f46d044282ac60cbbf050319e424-- --===============0070994879== 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 --===============0070994879==--