[mb-style] RFV-Something: Instrumental Attribute for Performance Relationship Type

Calvin Walton calvin.walton at kepstin.ca
Tue Jul 5 14:14:43 UTC 2011


On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 10:12 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> The proposal: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Performed_Relationship_Type_Instrumental_Attribute

Unfortunately, it seems like most people don’t actually read the
Guidelines section of the relationship type pages, resulting in people
ignoring my guideline regarding karaoke tracks:
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14772380

It seems like the confusion is caused partially because of the wording
of the short description for the “instrumental” attribute.

I’d like to suggest a minor update to is; something along the lines of:

“instrumental”
        This indicates that the recording is of an instrumental
        arrangement of a work which originally included vocals.

Hopefully, the mention that it would have to be a new arrangement should
be enough to clarify things. (It also clarifies the case of a
performance of a work which was originally instrumental, which was a
little ambiguous previously.)

Should this go up to another round of RFC/RFV? Anyone have any better
ideas?

-- 
Calvin Walton <calvin.walton at kepstin.ca>




More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list