[mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project

[joan WHITTAKER]

Cristov - this debate has now been going on for some weeks and we had reached a consensus.  To put my pet case to you - Roger Glover and Guests - The Butterfly Ball.

This was a project that Roger Glover undertook after the demise of Deep Purple Mk II.  To quote from the liner notes
would be far too wordy, but in essence Glover was approached to put Alan Aldridge's book "The Butterfly Ball" to music.   Each character in the book was given a distinct musical identity, but the singers selected ranged from professional rock artists to actors and even his then girlfriend.  Recording took place over a period of time and as he wrote the songs he decided who he wanted to sing them.

The project was performed once live at the Royal Albert Hall in London from whence the recording comes.

Now, to my mind, this is very definitely not mainstream and falls very clearly into the "project" category.

I would probably also put Quadrophenia and Tommy into this category, together with the Jon Lord Symphony, but that is opening another can of worms.

In this instance I have to totally disagree with you.  I don't think these instances are covered by what we have and I do think they ought to be marked as "special" in some way.

Joan
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stefan Kestenholz 
  To: MusicBrainz style discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project


  this is pointless. why should we develop new attributes of type attributes, if we can just introduce a new type with minimal effort? it is just beyond my grasp why you are stubborn like that.


  On 7/5/06, Cristov Russell <wolfsong at endlessforest.net> wrote: 
    As far as pseudonyms go we'll just have to agree to disagree.

  No problem there for me, a) seems more people agree with nyght. b) its ok to disagree if we are able to find consensus somewhere down the line. 

    How can you possibly compare the wiki to a database? The ObjectModel introduces many levels of complexity. Are you going to argue that we should convert it to CSV? Also, for the 

  Now maybe you are tired, or you are intentionally misreading my statement. this is an ANALOGY. The wiki copes well with flat hierarchies, therefore it they will work even better for this simple artist attribute. That is what i was saying.. 


    record, I'm suggesting that if we make a change we're only describing groups and not creating new ArtistTypes as being suggested so I better way to describe those groups is to use a 

  A group in MusicBrainz should IMO describe a "Band", with more or less equal members. We've been labelling artists with "Group" because we lacked the proper type for this.

  Stefan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Musicbrainz-style mailing list
  Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20060705/8dee46e9/attachment.htm