On artist intent reasoning

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

On artist intent reasoning

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Hi!

http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Exception:_Spelling.2C_Punctuation_and_Grammar
says "[...] or creating new imaginary words for stylistic purposes. In
such cases it often makes sense to fix the errors, valuing spelling
and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy."

That feels to me like it asks people to correct stuff which shouldn't
be corrected - the creation of "new imaginary words for stylistic
purposes" sounds like pretty much what artist intent is about (as
opposed to "illiterate artist can't spell"). Am I reading this wrong?
:)

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/5/16 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>
Hi!

http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Exception:_Spelling.2C_Punctuation_and_Grammar
says "[...] or creating new imaginary words for stylistic purposes. In
such cases it often makes sense to fix the errors, valuing spelling
and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy."

That feels to me like it asks people to correct stuff which shouldn't
be corrected - the creation of "new imaginary words for stylistic
purposes" sounds like pretty much what artist intent is about (as
opposed to "illiterate artist can't spell"). Am I reading this wrong?
:)

Well, I agree it would be better to at least add a few examples. Currently, the only examples are when not to apply the SG :-)

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

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


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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

Frederic Da Vitoria
2012/5/16 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
2012/5/16 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>
Hi!

http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Exception:_Spelling.2C_Punctuation_and_Grammar
says "[...] or creating new imaginary words for stylistic purposes. In
such cases it often makes sense to fix the errors, valuing spelling
and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy."

That feels to me like it asks people to correct stuff which shouldn't
be corrected - the creation of "new imaginary words for stylistic
purposes" sounds like pretty much what artist intent is about (as
opposed to "illiterate artist can't spell"). Am I reading this wrong?
:)

Well, I agree it would be better to at least add a few examples. Currently, the only examples are when not to apply the SG :-)

... and since I don't know which new words this SG wanted to correct, I am completely unable to provide an example.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

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


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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

CallerNo6
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren


On 05/16/2012 09:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:

> Hi!
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Exception:_Spelling.2C_Punctuation_and_Grammar
> says "[...] or creating new imaginary words for stylistic purposes. In
> such cases it often makes sense to fix the errors, valuing spelling
> and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy."
>
> That feels to me like it asks people to correct stuff which shouldn't
> be corrected - the creation of "new imaginary words for stylistic
> purposes" sounds like pretty much what artist intent is about (as
> opposed to "illiterate artist can't spell"). Am I reading this wrong?
> :)
>

Note, it says "record companies making errors" [including] "new
imaginary words...".

On the one hand (as you say) that seems like a contradiction, since if
they /invented/ a new word, it's not an error per se.

On the other hand, the record company isn't the "artist" so whose intent
is it? :-P

Alex / caller#6

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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:43 PM, caller#6
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 05/16/2012 09:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Exception:_Spelling.2C_Punctuation_and_Grammar
>> says "[...] or creating new imaginary words for stylistic purposes. In
>> such cases it often makes sense to fix the errors, valuing spelling
>> and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy."
>>
>> That feels to me like it asks people to correct stuff which shouldn't
>> be corrected - the creation of "new imaginary words for stylistic
>> purposes" sounds like pretty much what artist intent is about (as
>> opposed to "illiterate artist can't spell"). Am I reading this wrong?
>> :)
>>
>
> Note, it says "record companies making errors" [including] "new
> imaginary words...".
>
> On the one hand (as you say) that seems like a contradiction, since if
> they /invented/ a new word, it's not an error per se.
>
> On the other hand, the record company isn't the "artist" so whose intent
> is it? :-P

Maybe. I'd like to see an example of a proved invention of a word by a
label without the artist's involvement though (not saying they never
happen, just that I don't know of any) and in any case it feels
strange to keep this as a specific note unless it's much more common
than I think...

> Alex / caller#6
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

swisschris


On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:43 PM, caller#6
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/16/2012 09:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Exception:_Spelling.2C_Punctuation_and_Grammar
>> says "[...] or creating new imaginary words for stylistic purposes. In
>> such cases it often makes sense to fix the errors, valuing spelling
>> and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy."
>>
>> That feels to me like it asks people to correct stuff which shouldn't
>> be corrected - the creation of "new imaginary words for stylistic
>> purposes" sounds like pretty much what artist intent is about (as
>> opposed to "illiterate artist can't spell"). Am I reading this wrong?
>> :)
>>
>
> Note, it says "record companies making errors" [including] "new
> imaginary words...".
>
> On the one hand (as you say) that seems like a contradiction, since if
> they /invented/ a new word, it's not an error per se.
>
> On the other hand, the record company isn't the "artist" so whose intent
> is it? :-P

Maybe. I'd like to see an example of a proved invention of a word by a
label without the artist's involvement though (not saying they never
happen, just that I don't know of any) and in any case it feels
strange to keep this as a specific note unless it's much more common
than I think...

I agree that "creating new imaginary words" is certainly not the most adequate term to address the issue here at stake. Probably something like
"[…] cases of record companies ''or cover designers'' […] breaking/transgressing generally accepted rules of spelling, capitalization or punctuation for ''stylistic'' or ''graphic'' purposes"
would be less ambiguous (and more frequent) ^^

Chris/chabreyflint

> Alex / caller#6
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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


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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

Simon ‘Chiark’ Austin
On 16/05/2012 18:29, SwissChris wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:43 PM, caller#6
>     <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 05/16/2012 09:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
>     >> Hi!
>     >>
>     >>
>     http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Exception:_Spelling.2C_Punctuation_and_Grammar
>     >> says "[...] or creating new imaginary words for stylistic
>     purposes. In
>     >> such cases it often makes sense to fix the errors, valuing spelling
>     >> and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy."
>     >>
>     >> That feels to me like it asks people to correct stuff which
>     shouldn't
>     >> be corrected - the creation of "new imaginary words for stylistic
>     >> purposes" sounds like pretty much what artist intent is about (as
>     >> opposed to "illiterate artist can't spell"). Am I reading this
>     wrong?
>     >> :)
>     >>
>     >
>     > Note, it says "record companies making errors" [including] "new
>     > imaginary words...".
>     >
>     > On the one hand (as you say) that seems like a contradiction,
>     since if
>     > they /invented/ a new word, it's not an error per se.
>     >
>     > On the other hand, the record company isn't the "artist" so
>     whose intent
>     > is it? :-P
>
>     Maybe. I'd like to see an example of a proved invention of a word by a
>     label without the artist's involvement though (not saying they never
>     happen, just that I don't know of any) and in any case it feels
>     strange to keep this as a specific note unless it's much more common
>     than I think...
>
>
> I agree that "creating new imaginary words" is certainly not the most
> adequate term to address the issue here at stake. Probably something like
> "[…] cases of record companies ''or cover designers'' […]
> breaking/transgressing generally accepted rules of spelling,
> capitalization or punctuation for ''stylistic'' or ''graphic'' purposes"
> would be less ambiguous (and more frequent) ^^
>
>

One recent example: the new My Bloody Valentine early EP compilation was
seemingly titled "ep's 1988-1991" because otherwise in lower case, it
would look like it was called "eps" rather than "ee-pees". This has
produced some slightly confused press releases:
http://www.sonymusic.ie/news/my-bloody-valentine-new-releases-friday-4th-may

- Si

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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

practik
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Principle/Artist_intent#Exception:_Spelling.2C_Punctuation_and_Grammar
says "[...] or creating new imaginary words for stylistic purposes. In
such cases it often makes sense to fix the errors, valuing spelling
and punctuation correctness over cover accuracy."

That feels to me like it asks people to correct stuff which shouldn't
be corrected - the creation of "new imaginary words for stylistic
purposes" sounds like pretty much what artist intent is about (as
opposed to "illiterate artist can't spell"). Am I reading this wrong?
:)
caller#6 wrote
On the other hand, the record company isn't the "artist" so whose intent
is it? :-P
The sentence in question originally came from the Style Principle page.  DonRedman put it there in July 2005* (though he may not have been its author), and then Brian Schweitzer rewrote it and started an RFC to move it to the Artist Intent page in Feb. 2008.†

All of which is to say, we probably shouldn't read too much into the specific wording of that sentence.  I think SwissChris is on the right track in suggesting that we simply rewrite it:

swisschris wrote
Probably something like
"[…] cases of record companies ''or cover designers'' […]
breaking/transgressing
generally accepted rules of spelling, capitalization or punctuation for
''stylistic'' or ''graphic'' purposes"
would be less ambiguous (and more frequent) ^^
Patrick

* http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Style/Principle&oldid=14947
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-StylePrinciple-Reasoning-td1059880.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On artist intent reasoning

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> The sentence in question originally came from the Style Principle page.
> DonRedman put it there in July 2005* (though he may not have been its
> author), and then Brian Schweitzer rewrote it and started an RFC to move it
> to the Artist Intent page in Feb. 2008.†
>
> All of which is to say, we probably shouldn't read too much into the
> specific wording of that sentence.  I think SwissChris is on the right track
> in suggesting that we simply rewrite it:
>

That sounds reasonable to me. If Chris or you want to RFC for it, I'd
+1 - I would but I just promised I wouldn't send more RFCs in May! :)

> swisschris wrote
>>
>> Probably something like
>> "[…] cases of record companies ''or cover designers'' […]
>> breaking/transgressing
>> generally accepted rules of spelling, capitalization or punctuation for
>> ''stylistic'' or ''graphic'' purposes"
>> would be less ambiguous (and more frequent) ^^
>>

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

practik
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
I think SwissChris is on the right track
> in suggesting that we simply rewrite it:
>

That sounds reasonable to me. If Chris or you want to RFC for it, I'd
+1 - I would but I just promised I wouldn't send more RFCs in May! :)
Sure, I'll give it a shot -- unless you want to, Chris?

Patrick
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On artist intent reasoning

swisschris


On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, practik <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
>
> I think SwissChris is on the right track
>> in suggesting that we simply rewrite it:
>>
>
> That sounds reasonable to me. If Chris or you want to RFC for it, I'd
> +1 - I would but I just promised I wouldn't send more RFCs in May! :)
>

Sure, I'll give it a shot -- unless you want to, Chris?

Just go ahead, Patrick. I'll gladly follow you ;-) 
(you'll probably never ever will see me championing a RFC/RFV process. I would be terrible at it. I prefer sticking to things I know I'm able to do. ^^

Patrick

--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/On-artist-intent-reasoning-tp4634049p4634144.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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


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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

practik
swisschris wrote
Just go ahead, Patrick. I'll gladly follow you ;-)
Thanks, Chris :-)

I looked at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Principle/Artist_intent over the weekend, and several questions came up:

First, I notice that only Artist Names, Release Titles and Track Titles are mentioned.  I'm guessing that's because the guideline was written before Works and Recordings existed in MusicBrainz, so I'm planning to add them.  Any reason why I shouldn't?

Second, I see some issues with the "Agreed Upon Artist Names" section.  For one, the group lostprophets is supposedly to be written all in lowercase, but their MB page and their website both contradict that.*  Then there's the group locomotor ataxia, which certainly is a good example of Artist Intent, but not IMO of "community agreement," since it appears that brianfreud more or less unilaterally added them to the "Agreed Upon Artist Names" section.†  Given these inconsistencies, I'm tempted to just rename the "Agreed Upon Artist Names" section "Examples" and combine it with the other examples below.  Any reason why I shouldn't?

And third, the heading "Exception: Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar" is kind of backwards, since it's actually Artist Intent that's the exception from our standard practice of correcting errors.  So I'm going to do some restructuring.  I guess I'm wondering whether the "Reasoning" section that started this whole thread even belongs on the Artist Intent page at all, since it really has nothing to do with Artist Intent.  Does anyone know a better place for it?  (I haven't noticed one.)  Should I consider renaming the page to something like "Error Correction and Artist Intent"?  Better suggestions?

Patrick

* http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ef6e2e49-aa93-41bd-89b0-8c7d2f260a83 and http://lostprophets.com/
† See http://musicbrainz.org/edit/6892422 and the 2007-05-17 revision of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Principle/Artist_intent
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On artist intent reasoning

Kuno Woudt
Hello,

On 21/05/12 19:52, practik wrote:
>I guess I'm wondering whether the "Reasoning" section that
> started this whole thread even belongs on the Artist Intent page at all,
> since it really has nothing to do with Artist Intent.  Does anyone know a
> better place for it?  (I haven't noticed one.)

I think many of the old style guidelines included a "Reasoning" section
to explain why that particular guideline exists, to explain the purpose
of the guideline.  So it is incorrect to say "it really has nothing to
do with Artist Intent", that section is intended to explain the
reasoning why Artist Intent exists in the first place.

-- kuno / warp.

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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

practik
Kuno Woudt wrote
On 21/05/12 19:52, practik wrote:
>I guess I'm wondering whether the "Reasoning" section that
> started this whole thread even belongs on the Artist Intent page at all,
> since it really has nothing to do with Artist Intent.  Does anyone know a
> better place for it?  (I haven't noticed one.)

I think many of the old style guidelines included a "Reasoning" section
to explain why that particular guideline exists, to explain the purpose
of the guideline.  So it is incorrect to say "it really has nothing to
do with Artist Intent", that section is intended to explain the
reasoning why Artist Intent exists in the first place.
Hmm, yes and no.  As far as I can tell, the "Reasoning" section we're talking about here was originally written for the Style Principle page.*  If you look at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Style/Principle&oldid=14947, just under the heading "Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar," you can see the text in something closer to its original context.  That context makes it pretty clear that this text is intended to explain the reasoning for correcting spelling etc., not the reasoning for Artist Intent.

So the question remains:  What's the best place for this "Reasoning" section?  It seems to me that the principle it explains -- that we correct errors in titles -- is an important one, and I find it a little weird that it should be buried under Artist Intent.  I see two possibilities:  We could create a new page for Error Correction (or whatever we call it), or we could rename the existing page to something like "Error Correction and Artist Intent."  But I'm open to suggestions, as I said.  Anyone?

Patrick

* It may well be older than that, but I don't know how to get at the MoinMoin history to find out -- does it still exist somewhere?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On artist intent reasoning

Kuno Woudt
Hello,

On 22/05/12 17:50, practik wrote:

>
> Kuno Woudt wrote
>>
>> On 21/05/12 19:52, practik wrote:
>>> I guess I'm wondering whether the "Reasoning" section that
>>> started this whole thread even belongs on the Artist Intent page at all,
>>> since it really has nothing to do with Artist Intent.  Does anyone know a
>>> better place for it?  (I haven't noticed one.)
>>
>> I think many of the old style guidelines included a "Reasoning" section
>> to explain why that particular guideline exists, to explain the purpose
>> of the guideline.  So it is incorrect to say "it really has nothing to
>> do with Artist Intent", that section is intended to explain the
>> reasoning why Artist Intent exists in the first place.
>>
>
> Hmm, yes and no.  As far as I can tell, the "Reasoning" section we're
> talking about here was originally written for the Style Principle page.*  If
> you look at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Style/Principle&oldid=14947,
> just under the heading "Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar," you can see the
> text in something closer to its original context.  That context makes it
> pretty clear that this text is intended to explain the reasoning for
> correcting spelling etc., not the reasoning for Artist Intent.

Ah, you are correct.

> So the question remains:  What's the best place for this "Reasoning"
> section?  It seems to me that the principle it explains -- that we correct
> errors in titles -- is an important one, and I find it a little weird that
> it should be buried under Artist Intent.  I see two possibilities:  We could
> create a new page for Error Correction (or whatever we call it), or we could
> rename the existing page to something like "Error Correction and Artist
> Intent."  But I'm open to suggestions, as I said.  Anyone?

They seem quite closely related (artist intent and fixing spelling
mistakes).  Either the artist intended for something to have a peculiar
spelling and we don't fix it, or we fix the spelling mistake.

I agree the concept of fixing spelling mistakes is a bit buried, so I
wouldn't mind adding it to the style principles page in some way -- but
I wouldn't want to split up the Artist Intent page (as it is currently
written) into two separate pages.  Perhaps with some rewriting of
various parts it could be an improvement, but with the texts as we have
them now I think it is clearer to keep it on one page.

-- kuno / warp.

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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

CallerNo6


On 05/22/2012 09:55 PM, Kuno Woudt wrote:

>
> On 22/05/12 17:50, practik wrote:
>>   It seems to me that the principle it explains -- that we correct
>> errors in titles -- is an important one, and I find it a little weird that
>> it should be buried under Artist Intent.  I see two possibilities:  We could
>> create a new page for Error Correction (or whatever we call it), or we could
>> rename the existing page to something like "Error Correction and Artist
>> Intent."  But I'm open to suggestions, as I said.  Anyone?
> They seem quite closely related (artist intent and fixing spelling
> mistakes).  Either the artist intended for something to have a peculiar
> spelling and we don't fix it, or we fix the spelling mistake.
>
> I agree the concept of fixing spelling mistakes is a bit buried, so I
> wouldn't mind adding it to the style principles page in some way -- but
> I wouldn't want to split up the Artist Intent page (as it is currently
> written) into two separate pages.  Perhaps with some rewriting of
> various parts it could be an improvement, but with the texts as we have
> them now I think it is clearer to keep it on one page.
>

IMO the most helpful place to address the question ("Should I fix
spelling mistakes?") is in the Editing FAQ[1] (with a link to Artist
Intent, of course).


Alex / caller#6

[1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Editing_FAQ

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

Re: On artist intent reasoning

practik
caller#6 wrote
On 05/22/2012 09:55 PM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
> I agree the concept of fixing spelling mistakes is a bit buried, so I
> wouldn't mind adding it to the style principles page in some way -- but
> I wouldn't want to split up the Artist Intent page (as it is currently
> written) into two separate pages.  Perhaps with some rewriting of
> various parts it could be an improvement, but with the texts as we have
> them now I think it is clearer to keep it on one page.
>

IMO the most helpful place to address the question ("Should I fix
spelling mistakes?") is in the Editing FAQ[1] (with a link to Artist
Intent, of course).
Thanks, Kuno and Alex, for the ideas, which I'll incorporate.  At this point I'm planning to work on this over the coming week and then RFC it the first week of June.  More suggestions are welcome in the meantime.

Patrick