[mb-users] Double bass / contrabass vs. Acoustic upright bass

[Olivier]

2008/3/25, Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen <freso.dk at gmail.com>:
> 2008/3/23, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com>:
>
> >2008/3/23, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com>:
>  >>On 23/03/2008, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>>Can an instrument tree guru clarify the difference between a double
>  >>>bass and an acoustic upright bass?
>  >>>
>
> >>>[...]
>
> >>
>  >>they are the same thing. i'm forever updating discogs entries to fix
>  >>these things :/
>  >
>  >Thanks for the confirmation.
>  >
>  >Any RelationshipEditor reading this who can stuff things back into one
>  >entry? Or is a merge more complicated than that on the instrument
>  >tree?
>
>
> From a quick glance, it looks like it's rather more complicated. So
>  I'll let a RelEditor with more experience tell you how it should be
>  handled. :)

k. I guess this will still require some formal process to obtain, but
I was curious how complicated this is/is not.
If you have one at hand, can you possibly bug "a RelEditor with more
experience" so he give us some light on that? :-)

>  But another thing I stumbled on while looking: Why are the bass
>  guitars under guitars and not basses? I'd find it more intuitive that
>  a bass guitar was (sloppily(?)) filed as "bass" than as "guitar"?

Well, I guess both points could be argued, but I myself (with
admittedly less experience than you in the instrument tree) find it
rather natural to find bass guitars under guitars (indeed I feel it's
closer to guitars than to double bass).

>  And what about the electric upright bass? Should that be changed to
>  "electric double bass" (or "... [/] contrabass") as well?

Well, possibly?

Btw, I'm not too sure what's the best way to prevent people from
claiming the return of the "upright bass".
Maybe make them all read "double bass / contrabass (a.k.a. upright
bass)" is a bit overkill... Notes in the wiki?

>
>  All in all, my vote is in favour of a small rearranging of the basses
>  in general, and it should probably go through a proper RFC/RFV
>  process, in case some folks have some very heavy/good arguments for
>  doing things one way or the other.

Sure.
I'll do that soon.

Regards,

- Olivier