[mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

[Aaron Cooper]

On 11-Mar-08, at 11:54 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> >  I would have thought this:
> >
> >
> >  Track is an instance of TrackMaster
> >  TrackMaster is a recording of Session
> >  Session is a performance of Work
>
> That makes sense to me.  So if we're soon to have track masters, and
> sooner to have works, but also planning to eventually have sessions in
> the long term, what AR are we then going to use, near term, to link
> tracks directly to works, and how would that change when track masters
> are added in, before sessions are added in to complete the structure?
> One/two of those 3, or some other temporary AR that we eventually
> depricate as the full entity structure becomes available?
>
> I suggest we use the temporary AR, because this AR is equivalent to  
> a shortcut to the full series of 3 future ARs and when the full  
> structure is implemented, I believe we will be happy we are able to  
> separate true fully detailed ARs from our current temporary ones.  
> Maybe this temporary AR is even going to stay because we will not  
> always be able to find the master or the session, and inputting the  
> 3-steps AR will then be impossible.
>
>
> Also, to add to that list, too, I'd add in the current three (four)  
> ARs:
>
> Work is the earliest version of work
> Track is the earliest release of ???
> Work is a parody of work
> Track is a cover of work
>
> For the earliest release of AR, would a track be the earliest release
> of a track, of a track master, of a session or of a work?  Or perhaps
> it's really three different concepts - a track as the earliest release
> of a track master, a track master as the earliest released recording
> of a session, and a session as the earliest performance of a work?
>
> For the last one of these four, under a structure which contains a
> work concept, do we then even have a need for a special cover AR?
> Isn't a track instance / track master / session of a work by
> definition a cover, if the track artist and the work artist are not
> the same?
>
> Are the "earliest" ARs such good ideas? If someone discovers there  
> was actually an earlier something, we could forget to remove the  
> older incorrect AR. Couldn't we just use dates? The "earliest" AR  
> could be easily deduced by the system by comparing them.

I don't like "earliest" ARs either.  It's going to be extremely  
difficult tracking down this sort of performance information and  
recording information even for popular and well-documented/well- 
followed bands like Metallica.  Even though we have extensive bootleg/ 
concert/tour information, are we sure that it is complete?  Can we say  
that a particular performance is the earliest?  I don't think we can  
do that with much accuracy.

I'd rather we say things like:

WORK is a {acoustic | live | demo | unfinished | etc} version of WORK
TRACK is a release of TRACKMASTER
WORK is a parody of WORK

I'm not sure about the cover AR though.  Doesn't seem write to link it  
to a track.  Maybe a performance?  Or maybe we need "works" in the  
cases of covers then we can keep the works linked together with the  
Cover AR and not have to link every single track or performance to the  
original.

Just some thoughts,
-Aaron