[mb-style] RFV: Adding {instrument} and {vocals} to 'Recorded By' AR

[Jim DeLaHunt]

Gecks:


Gecks wrote:
> 
> changed to an RFV as i can't think of any reason why this shouldn't
> already be in! anyone???
> 

I don't know the process; I don't know what an RFV implies.  But I'd feel
more comfortable delaying an final vote to implement the proposal until
there is a written proposal in a wiki page, which gives the exact wording to
guide clueless editors like me that might want to apply these ARs.  i.e. if
you're ready to call an final vote, then I think it's time to "iron out the
details" as Chris B (you?) says.

What I'd like to see are paragraphs for these new relationships in
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType, being specific about:
* the wording of the ARs; 
* saying if these are new parameters to the existing Recorded By AR or (as
Chris B writes) "2 ARs in addition to the current 'Recorded By' AR"; 
* describing when "recorded" is preferred over "recorded vocals" or
"recorded" instrument and vice versa;
* describing if there should is a list of instrument and voice type
parameters, and if so what list;
* etc. 

In other words, writing in the wiki everything we need, so that an
implementor can implement it without ambiguity, and then simply remove a
"proposal" notice, and we immediately have a production-quality set of
instructions.

My CAD 0.02 as a clueless newbie,
      --Jim DeLaHunt, Vancouver, Canada



Gecks wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/05/2007, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
>> here's a 'few' examples of seperate recording credits for vocals :)
>> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=In9&q=+site%3Awww.discogs.com+%22Recorded+by+%5Bvocals%5D%22&btnG=Search&meta=
>>
>> and here's a few more of seperate recording credits for a vocal type:
>> http://www.discogs.com/search?type=releases&q=%22recorded+by+%5Bbacking+vocals%5D%22&btn=Search
>>
>> On 21/05/07, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
>> > Bit of straight forward one this, so I didn't bother adding it to the
>> > wiki (though I will of course once the details are ironed out).
>> >
>> > Basically I think we need 2 ARs in addition to the current 'Recorded
>> > By' AR in http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType -
>> >
>> > artist recorded {instrument} in release or track
>> > release or track has {instrument} recorded by artist
>> >
>> > artist recorded {vocal type} in release or track
>> > release or track has {vocal type} recorded by artist
>> >
>> > few worries:
>> > - the {vocal TYPE} probably isn't needed since i don't imagine we'll
>> > ever have a different person recording different parts but it's
>> > possible, and indeed perhaps it's easiest/consistent to stick with the
>> > list we have already defined.
>> > - i believe we have to have 2 new ARs rather than one (or indeed
>> > adding to the existing), if we're going to cover instruments and
>> > vocals but only because that's how it's been done in
>> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PerformerRelationshipType (1 AR for
>> > performed by, 1 for vox and 1 for instruments).
>> >
>> > examples:
>> > http://www.discogs.com/release/950208 (last track - vocals recorded
>> by...)
>> > http://www.discogs.com/release/686094 (string quartet recorded by...)
>> >
>> > anything else? :)
>> >
>> > chris/gecks
>> >
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/RFV%3A-Adding-%7Binstrument%7D-and-%7Bvocals%7D-to-%27Recorded-By%27-AR-tp14577614s2885p14594320.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.