History talk:Performances And Recordings Proposal

From MusicBrainz Wiki

Personally I don't really get the point why this information should be added as in a different way than using an AdvancedRelationship on a release level. Please let me know if I missed any mailing list discussion about this matter lately. It seems to me that this would make the whole lot more complex than it can be. Especially when the info on track level is added as an AR it would only cause confusion. 'This proposal uses "performed at" for songs played live and "recorded at" for studio-recording' in both cases we are dealing with "Recorded at". Introducing "Performed at" specifically for live recordings is yet another confusing bit for the normal user. "Performed at" doesn't have to mean it was recorded as well. I think we can make things a lot easier when just sticking to ARs and introducing only a "Recorded at" AR. This AR can be applied on release or track level. To make the distinction between a studio recoding and a live recording we can add a 'Recoding Type' dropdown with values like 'Studio' and 'Live'. Obviously a date can be specified as well when creating the AR. If we are dealing with multiple recoding sessions but no distinction can be made between which tracks where recorded when, the "Recorded at" AR can be added multiple times on release level, specifying different dates (and possibly locations) for each AR. When the (live) recordings took place on different locations for different tracks, you can add the same AR on track level. -- Prodoc 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I certainly subscribe to this opinion. AR is the way to go IMHO. The LocationProposal is a really exciting new enhancement! But linking them using a CoreRelationship to releases just doesn't make sense I think. Actually, I would even prefer the AR to be limited to track level (though I won't insist too much on this) which I think is the only level were it really make sense - semantically, a release is an assemblage of tracks, and the "recorded at" AR for the release is just the "total" of all "recorded at" ARs for tracks (in a less precise way) - this is completely different to "release events" which are semantically a "release level" information. As Prodoc said, the AdvancedRelationships provide with the infrastructure to allow all we need: linking a track to multiple Locations, and using dates. Hope I'm making sense... Cheers. -- dmppanda 13:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)