Talk:Mash-up Relationship Type: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: This relationship doesn't allow [release-track] or [track-release] EntityPairs. Those could conceivably be useful in a very few situations: however, those situations are s...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This relationship doesn't allow [release-track] or [track-release] [[Entity Pair|EntityPairs]]. Those could conceivably be useful in a very few situations: however, those situations are so rare that adding these possibilities would just make things confusing. You can still represent a track which is a [[Mash-up|MashUp]] of all the tracks on a release, or a release which is a [[Mash-up|MashUp]] of many other tracks, using multiple [track-track] relationships. |
This relationship doesn't allow [release-track] or [track-release] [[Entity Pair|EntityPairs]]. Those could conceivably be useful in a very few situations: however, those situations are so rare that adding these possibilities would just make things confusing. You can still represent a track which is a [[Mash-up|MashUp]] of all the tracks on a release, or a release which is a [[Mash-up|MashUp]] of many other tracks, using multiple [track-track] relationships. |
||
It has been suggested that we should move away from the [[Primary Artist|PrimaryArtist]] field altogether, and give all credits as advanced relationships. There are currently (2005-08-12) advanced relationships equivalents for every current use of [[Primary Artist|PrimaryArtist]], except [[Mash-up|MashUp]]. So if we ever did deprecate [[Primary Artist|PrimaryArtist]], we'd either need to create a new relationship type for "masher-upper", or use the [[Remixer Relationship Type |
It has been suggested that we should move away from the [[Primary Artist|PrimaryArtist]] field altogether, and give all credits as advanced relationships. There are currently (2005-08-12) advanced relationships equivalents for every current use of [[Primary Artist|PrimaryArtist]], except [[Mash-up|MashUp]]. So if we ever did deprecate [[Primary Artist|PrimaryArtist]], we'd either need to create a new relationship type for "masher-upper", or use the [[Remixer Relationship Type]]. |
||
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">''I disagree. The proposed [[Remix Relationship Class| |
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">''I disagree. The proposed [[:Category:Remix Relationship Class|Remix Relationship Class]] does not have sub-types to the [[Remixer Relationship Type|RemixerRelationshipType]] on purpose. Since is is so difficult to tell [[Remix Means Different Things|RemixMeansDifferentThings]] apart, and a [[Mash-up|MashUp]] could even be considered a special kind of remix, I think it is perfectly OK to call the person doing a [[Mash-up|MashUp]] a ''remixer''. I thought this was even consensus. --[[User:DonRedman|DonRedman]]'' |
||
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">You're right - so right, that I modified the style section above to reflect that. Is that correct, or am I jumping the gun? --[[User:MatthewExon|MatthewExon]] |
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">You're right - so right, that I modified the style section above to reflect that. Is that correct, or am I jumping the gun? --[[User:MatthewExon|MatthewExon]] |
||
</ul> |
</ul> |
||
Latest revision as of 21:51, 22 March 2010
This relationship doesn't allow [release-track] or [track-release] EntityPairs. Those could conceivably be useful in a very few situations: however, those situations are so rare that adding these possibilities would just make things confusing. You can still represent a track which is a MashUp of all the tracks on a release, or a release which is a MashUp of many other tracks, using multiple [track-track] relationships.
It has been suggested that we should move away from the PrimaryArtist field altogether, and give all credits as advanced relationships. There are currently (2005-08-12) advanced relationships equivalents for every current use of PrimaryArtist, except MashUp. So if we ever did deprecate PrimaryArtist, we'd either need to create a new relationship type for "masher-upper", or use the Remixer Relationship Type.
- I disagree. The proposed Remix Relationship Class does not have sub-types to the RemixerRelationshipType on purpose. Since is is so difficult to tell RemixMeansDifferentThings apart, and a MashUp could even be considered a special kind of remix, I think it is perfectly OK to call the person doing a MashUp a remixer. I thought this was even consensus. --DonRedman
- You're right - so right, that I modified the style section above to reflect that. Is that correct, or am I jumping the gun? --MatthewExon
