Balance engineer

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Balance engineer

Frederic Da Vitoria
Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

Yeah, that passed an RFV 4 years ago at a weird point on the history of style, and it never got implemented I don't think. I actually closed a 2010 ticket about it last week because nobody had mentioned it again since :D

If a few more people show interest, I'll get it added.

On 24 Jan 2014 22:48, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014/1/24 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

Yeah, that passed an RFV 4 years ago at a weird point on the history of style, and it never got implemented I don't think. I actually closed a 2010 ticket about it last week because nobody had mentioned it again since :D

If a few more people show interest, I'll get it added.

On 24 Jan 2014 22:48, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

I have no strong opinion about it (does it need a separate role or could it be entered as a sound engineer or another close role?) But in any event, we must manage to get a documentation consistent with what the UI allows :-)

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014/1/24 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

Yeah, that passed an RFV 4 years ago at a weird point on the history of style, and it never got implemented I don't think. I actually closed a 2010 ticket about it last week because nobody had mentioned it again since :D

If a few more people show interest, I'll get it added.

On 24 Jan 2014 22:48, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

I have no strong opinion about it (does it need a separate role or could it be entered as a sound engineer or another close role?) But in any event, we must manage to get a documentation consistent with what the UI allows :-)

Probably. Since class pages were always unnecessary and we're moving the relationship docs themselves to the server (after which they'll just be thankfully removed) we never actually checked to see if they matched reality, heh. I have absolutely no idea what a balance engineer does, so I can't really suggest any specific type (and I'd have gone with just "engineer" myself.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014/1/25 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014/1/24 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

Yeah, that passed an RFV 4 years ago at a weird point on the history of style, and it never got implemented I don't think. I actually closed a 2010 ticket about it last week because nobody had mentioned it again since :D

If a few more people show interest, I'll get it added.

On 24 Jan 2014 22:48, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

I have no strong opinion about it (does it need a separate role or could it be entered as a sound engineer or another close role?) But in any event, we must manage to get a documentation consistent with what the UI allows :-)

Probably. Since class pages were always unnecessary and we're moving the relationship docs themselves to the server (after which they'll just be thankfully removed) we never actually checked to see if they matched reality, heh. I have absolutely no idea what a balance engineer does, so I can't really suggest any specific type (and I'd have gone with just "engineer" myself.

- adding Balance engineer into https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Mix_Engineer_Relationship_Type . BTW, I'd like to remove references to mixing console,

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Brant Gibbard

I don’t agree with your interpretation of the second source, www.grammy.com.

 

The actual definition they give for Balance Engineer is:

 

Balance Engineer (Classical)

This person is an engineer with all of the same re

sponsibilities as the engineering description. This

term is most often used in classical music.

 

In other words they consider Balance Engineer to be the same as an Engineer, not as a Mixer. Further down the page they also define Tonmeister as being the same as an Engineer or a Balance Engineer (but requiring specific educational qualifications)

 

Also the documentation here: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Engineer_Relationship_Type (which appears to be official as far as I can tell) states:

 

If the Engineer relationship type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer relationship type should be used, and not one of the more specific Engineer relationship types.

Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
http://bgibbard.ca

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-25-14 6:02 AM
To: MusicBrainz User Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-users] Balance engineer

 

2014/1/25 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:

2014/1/24 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

Yeah, that passed an RFV 4 years ago at a weird point on the history of style, and it never got implemented I don't think. I actually closed a 2010 ticket about it last week because nobody had mentioned it again since :D

If a few more people show interest, I'll get it added.

On 24 Jan 2014 22:48, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

 

I have no strong opinion about it (does it need a separate role or could it be entered as a sound engineer or another close role?) But in any event, we must manage to get a documentation consistent with what the UI allows :-)

 

Probably. Since class pages were always unnecessary and we're moving the relationship docs themselves to the server (after which they'll just be thankfully removed) we never actually checked to see if they matched reality, heh. I have absolutely no idea what a balance engineer does, so I can't really suggest any specific type (and I'd have gone with just "engineer" myself.

 

- adding Balance engineer into https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Mix_Engineer_Relationship_Type . BTW, I'd like to remove references to mixing console,


--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014/1/25 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

I don’t agree with your interpretation of the second source, www.grammy.com.

 

The actual definition they give for Balance Engineer is:

 

Balance Engineer (Classical)

This person is an engineer with all of the same re

sponsibilities as the engineering description. This

term is most often used in classical music.

 

In other words they consider Balance Engineer to be the same as an Engineer, not as a Mixer. Further down the page they also define Tonmeister as being the same as an Engineer or a Balance Engineer (but requiring specific educational qualifications)

 

Also the documentation here: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Engineer_Relationship_Type (which appears to be official as far as I can tell) states:

 

If the Engineer relationship type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer relationship type should be used, and not one of the more specific Engineer relationship types.

Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
http://bgibbard.ca

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-25-14 6:02 AM
To: MusicBrainz User Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-users] Balance engineer

 

2014/1/25 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:

2014/1/24 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

Yeah, that passed an RFV 4 years ago at a weird point on the history of style, and it never got implemented I don't think. I actually closed a 2010 ticket about it last week because nobody had mentioned it again since :D

If a few more people show interest, I'll get it added.

On 24 Jan 2014 22:48, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

 

I have no strong opinion about it (does it need a separate role or could it be entered as a sound engineer or another close role?) But in any event, we must manage to get a documentation consistent with what the UI allows :-)

 

Probably. Since class pages were always unnecessary and we're moving the relationship docs themselves to the server (after which they'll just be thankfully removed) we never actually checked to see if they matched reality, heh. I have absolutely no idea what a balance engineer does, so I can't really suggest any specific type (and I'd have gone with just "engineer" myself.

 

- adding Balance engineer into https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Mix_Engineer_Relationship_Type . BTW, I'd like to remove references to mixing console,


Yes, Grammy's definition of engineer is different. OTOH, to my not-native-English ears, "engineer" sounds like a general definition, and as such could as well apply to the engineer who built the studio. Of course, MB does not record those, especially not in a recording context, but still, "engineer" 's non-specificity sounds precisely too general. The balance engineer does not even have to enter the recording studio, and often steps in once the recording is done. I don't know why Grammy used this definition. Maybe they felt that the kind of mixing used in classical where usually all source recordings were made at the same time and in the same place was not as important as the work done by the mix engineer, who uses recordings most often made at different times. I shouldn't have included that link, but this one of the first Google brought back, so someone else was bound to find it.

In the MB Relationship tree, Engineer contains the more specific engineer relationship classes (including mix, record, sound...), in other words, it is there as a fall-back solution. Users pick "simple" engineer when no specific engineer AR fits. So using "simple" engineers for Balance engineers would be actually saying that their particular expertise is not worth a separate category. I disagree. I believe that balancing the different sound sources is an art, as much as putting the microphones in the correct places, and that as such it deserves being recorded. I hate it when a balance engineer gives me the feeling that a solo instrumentalist suddenly jumped in my lap to play it's part. And I love when a balance engineer lets me forget that I am listening to a recording.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Brant Gibbard

Don’t get me wrong, I actually would like to see Balance Engineer as a separate category rather than just lumped in with Engineer, given that it is the terminology is used very extensively in classical music.

 

Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
http://bgibbard.ca

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-25-14 1:42 PM
To: MusicBrainz User Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-users] Balance engineer

 

2014/1/25 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

I don’t agree with your interpretation of the second source, www.grammy.com.

 

The actual definition they give for Balance Engineer is:

 

Balance Engineer (Classical)

This person is an engineer with all of the same re

sponsibilities as the engineering description. This

term is most often used in classical music.

 

In other words they consider Balance Engineer to be the same as an Engineer, not as a Mixer. Further down the page they also define Tonmeister as being the same as an Engineer or a Balance Engineer (but requiring specific educational qualifications)

 

Also the documentation here: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Engineer_Relationship_Type (which appears to be official as far as I can tell) states:

 

If the Engineer relationship type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer relationship type should be used, and not one of the more specific Engineer relationship types.

Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
http://bgibbard.ca

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-25-14 6:02 AM
To: MusicBrainz User Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-users] Balance engineer

 

2014/1/25 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:

2014/1/24 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

Yeah, that passed an RFV 4 years ago at a weird point on the history of style, and it never got implemented I don't think. I actually closed a 2010 ticket about it last week because nobody had mentioned it again since :D

If a few more people show interest, I'll get it added.

On 24 Jan 2014 22:48, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

 

I have no strong opinion about it (does it need a separate role or could it be entered as a sound engineer or another close role?) But in any event, we must manage to get a documentation consistent with what the UI allows :-)

 

Probably. Since class pages were always unnecessary and we're moving the relationship docs themselves to the server (after which they'll just be thankfully removed) we never actually checked to see if they matched reality, heh. I have absolutely no idea what a balance engineer does, so I can't really suggest any specific type (and I'd have gone with just "engineer" myself.

 

- adding Balance engineer into https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Mix_Engineer_Relationship_Type . BTW, I'd like to remove references to mixing console,

 

Yes, Grammy's definition of engineer is different. OTOH, to my not-native-English ears, "engineer" sounds like a general definition, and as such could as well apply to the engineer who built the studio. Of course, MB does not record those, especially not in a recording context, but still, "engineer" 's non-specificity sounds precisely too general. The balance engineer does not even have to enter the recording studio, and often steps in once the recording is done. I don't know why Grammy used this definition. Maybe they felt that the kind of mixing used in classical where usually all source recordings were made at the same time and in the same place was not as important as the work done by the mix engineer, who uses recordings most often made at different times. I shouldn't have included that link, but this one of the first Google brought back, so someone else was bound to find it.

 

In the MB Relationship tree, Engineer contains the more specific engineer relationship classes (including mix, record, sound...), in other words, it is there as a fall-back solution. Users pick "simple" engineer when no specific engineer AR fits. So using "simple" engineers for Balance engineers would be actually saying that their particular expertise is not worth a separate category. I disagree. I believe that balancing the different sound sources is an art, as much as putting the microphones in the correct places, and that as such it deserves being recorded. I hate it when a balance engineer gives me the feeling that a solo instrumentalist suddenly jumped in my lap to play it's part. And I love when a balance engineer lets me forget that I am listening to a recording.


--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014/1/25 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

Don’t get me wrong, I actually would like to see Balance Engineer as a separate category rather than just lumped in with Engineer, given that it is the terminology is used very extensively in classical music.

 

Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
http://bgibbard.ca

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-25-14 1:42 PM


To: MusicBrainz User Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-users] Balance engineer

 

2014/1/25 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

I don’t agree with your interpretation of the second source, www.grammy.com.

 

The actual definition they give for Balance Engineer is:

 

Balance Engineer (Classical)

This person is an engineer with all of the same re

sponsibilities as the engineering description. This

term is most often used in classical music.

 

In other words they consider Balance Engineer to be the same as an Engineer, not as a Mixer. Further down the page they also define Tonmeister as being the same as an Engineer or a Balance Engineer (but requiring specific educational qualifications)

 

Also the documentation here: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Engineer_Relationship_Type (which appears to be official as far as I can tell) states:

 

If the Engineer relationship type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer relationship type should be used, and not one of the more specific Engineer relationship types.

Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON
http://bgibbard.ca

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-25-14 6:02 AM
To: MusicBrainz User Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-users] Balance engineer

 

2014/1/25 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:

2014/1/24 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>

Yeah, that passed an RFV 4 years ago at a weird point on the history of style, and it never got implemented I don't think. I actually closed a 2010 ticket about it last week because nobody had mentioned it again since :D

If a few more people show interest, I'll get it added.

On 24 Jan 2014 22:48, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

Balance engineer is explained here http://musicbrainz.org//doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class but I couldn't use it for an AR as it didn't appear in the list. It also appears here http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type , which could mean that it is deprecated, but nowhere could I find an explanation of why it was deprecated nor of what we should do with balance engineers.

 

I have no strong opinion about it (does it need a separate role or could it be entered as a sound engineer or another close role?) But in any event, we must manage to get a documentation consistent with what the UI allows :-)

 

Probably. Since class pages were always unnecessary and we're moving the relationship docs themselves to the server (after which they'll just be thankfully removed) we never actually checked to see if they matched reality, heh. I have absolutely no idea what a balance engineer does, so I can't really suggest any specific type (and I'd have gone with just "engineer" myself.

 

- adding Balance engineer into https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Mix_Engineer_Relationship_Type . BTW, I'd like to remove references to mixing console,

 

Yes, Grammy's definition of engineer is different. OTOH, to my not-native-English ears, "engineer" sounds like a general definition, and as such could as well apply to the engineer who built the studio. Of course, MB does not record those, especially not in a recording context, but still, "engineer" 's non-specificity sounds precisely too general. The balance engineer does not even have to enter the recording studio, and often steps in once the recording is done. I don't know why Grammy used this definition. Maybe they felt that the kind of mixing used in classical where usually all source recordings were made at the same time and in the same place was not as important as the work done by the mix engineer, who uses recordings most often made at different times. I shouldn't have included that link, but this one of the first Google brought back, so someone else was bound to find it.

 

In the MB Relationship tree, Engineer contains the more specific engineer relationship classes (including mix, record, sound...), in other words, it is there as a fall-back solution. Users pick "simple" engineer when no specific engineer AR fits. So using "simple" engineers for Balance engineers would be actually saying that their particular expertise is not worth a separate category. I disagree. I believe that balancing the different sound sources is an art, as much as putting the microphones in the correct places, and that as such it deserves being recorded. I hate it when a balance engineer gives me the feeling that a solo instrumentalist suddenly jumped in my lap to play it's part. And I love when a balance engineer lets me forget that I am listening to a recording.


Good :-)

IIUC adding the balance engineer would mean at least some modifications in the code, right? If so, I see 2 solutions:
1 - "exact" solution, adding a new AR type for balance engineers, which means waiting until it is done before starting to enter balance engineers. Note that we have survived without it until now, so waiting could be the best solution.
2 - approximative solution: use the mixing engineer AR for both roles. There should be very few recordings using a balance engineer and a mixing engineer, so this could be an acceptable solution. I already used this once: http://musicbrainz.org/release/59ff1074-dc58-4b4e-ac35-7bd3c43e6581 But I'll gladly change my AR if solution 1 is chosen.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

"Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen"
Den 26-01-2014 03:32, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
> IIUC adding the balance engineer would mean at least some modifications
> in the code, right?

Did I miss something in the discussion? Isn't "balance engineer" just
another relationship to (possibly) be added as a child of the "engineer"
relationship? If so, no code modifications should be needed.

--
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

signature.asc (919 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Balance engineer

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014/1/26 Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <[hidden email]>
Den 26-01-2014 03:32, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
> IIUC adding the balance engineer would mean at least some modifications
> in the code, right?

Did I miss something in the discussion? Isn't "balance engineer" just
another relationship to (possibly) be added as a child of the "engineer"
relationship? If so, no code modifications should be needed.

No you didn't, I hadn't slept enough yesterday :-P

One last question: I found http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Tonmeister_Relationship_Type and http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Balance_Engineer_Relationship_Type . Which means that at one point, some users found it necessary to distinguish between them. I am not sure this is a good idea. I have a few releases which use balance engineer and Tonmeister as translations of each other. So should we create a common AR for both or should we keep them separated?

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users