History talk:Continuous Mix Style Proposal

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 01:40, 23 September 2010 by BrianFreud (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search


Re: "Similarly a whole other set of guidelines exist for Live and Bootleg performances that may or may not have been released through standard means (never released or "fan managed.")", this seems redundant to the definitions for Bootlegs elsewhere in the database (release status, etc). Additionally, it does not accurately define all potential types of bootlegs according to the way they've been considered (see table at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User_talk:BrianSchweitzer/Release_Status_Proposals#Current_Discussion for a summary that's been relatively consistent on defining this concept since ~2007). BrianFreud 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Release Annotation

"Putting all the track names and artists into the track title would be inappropriate, all this information should be listed in the release annotation. Along with any other general annotation information."

Why? It's entirely consistent with Medley Style, and is far more useful outside of the database than annotation-trapped titles. BrianFreud 01:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Release Event

Date: Is of the original broadcast (not of when it was recorded.) So for bootlegs that are replayed only the original date is to be entered as the release event.

This is counter to the definition of a Release Event, or of the Release Date. Release Events do not store performance, nor broadcast, dates - not any of the broadcast dates. Advanced Relationships do have date fields, and those properly should be used to store this data. Redefining REs for a special-case situation such as this makes that singular meaning of a release event far less useful - esp as these releases are indistinguishable (data-wise) from other releases. Also, this section (and much of the rest of the proposal) pretty much assumes that only bootlegs ever are bootlegs. I know that you say "almost always", not "always", but the rest of the text completely ignores those cases where the release is not a bootleg. BrianFreud 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Problem

...It is clear that audio recorded from radio, TV, etc would be classified as Bootleg and sometimes the releases do fall into the official Live Bootleg Style - if so this should be used."

Live Bootleg Style applies to any bootleg. (There's a few instances of "live" still mixed into the text where they likely shouldn't be, but "This guideline applies to the titling of a bootleg release.", the examples, and the common understanding of the guideline all outweigh that nit.) Therefore, this sentence of the proposal essentially makes the proposal apparently meaningless. It applies to continuous mixes, which are claimed to be almost always bootlegs. It provides no guidance for non-bootleg releases of this type, only bootlegs - but this sentence states that LBS overrules this proposed guideline (and as I read it, entirely overrules it, not only overrules it when there is a LBS/ContMixStyle conflict) - so when would this guideline ever actually come into play? BrianFreud 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)