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

Calvin Walton calvin.walton at kepstin.ca
Tue Jul 5 14:42:41 UTC 2011


On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 17:32 +0300, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Yin Izanami <yindesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did read the guildeline, but it is unhelpful and confusing in a different
> > area than you've pointed out.
> >
> > "Do not use the instrumental attribute for karaoke recordings, see Karaoke
> > Version Relationship Type instead."
> >
> > That statement doesn't even begin to lead an editor to the answer of why the
> > instrumental attribute shouldn't be used to relate a karaoke recording to a
> > work.  The part after the comma needs to be clarified - Why is a guideline
> > about Work-Recording relationships telling you to see/use a guideline about
> > Recording-Recording relationships instead?
> Yin, I kinda agree, and that is why I gave the RFC a second week
> asking for anyone to comment / help with the wording. And nobody did
> :(
> Still, better late than never, I guess. Please discuss the wording :)

Based on a discussion I just had with reosarevok (Nicolás) on IRC, it
looks like the original intent of the “instrumental” attribute was to
somehow indicate that the lyrics of a work are not important to a
particular recording. This covers both the case of an instrumental
arrangement (where it is not intended that lyrics will be sung at all),
and a hip-hop beat, where the same beat may be re-used with a new vocal
track.

Since the lyrics /are/ important to a Karaoke track, I added an
exception to the attribute description, but the wording that I ended up
using in the Guidelines section didn’t do a good job of explaining why
this exception was in place.

So, I think the end result is correct, but we need to do a better job of
explaining the attribute to avoid confusion.

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




More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list