RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

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

RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Frederic Da Vitoria
This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types. Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.

Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-290
This ticket expires on 2014-02-04.

--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

ListMyCDs.com
On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types.
> Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just
> entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.

+1 for this RFC.

--
ListMyCDs / Timo Martikainen

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

Re: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014-01-27 ListMyCDs <[hidden email]>
On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types.
> Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just
> entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.

+1 for this RFC.

The link sentences were copied from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR . I'd feel more comfortable if someone who knows English better than me would check them.

Also note that the original RFC separated balance engineer from Tonmeister. I suggest that MB does not need this distinction, especially since many releases seem to consider those as equivalent.

--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

Brant Gibbard

Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I’ve just managed to located one of my CDs (Deutsche Gramophon) that does translate Tonmeister into other languages. The results are most unfortunate!

 

Before the name of the engineer being credited is this quadrilingual statement:

 

“Tonmeister / Recording Engineer / Ingénieur du son / Ingegnere del suono”

 

Thus two of the four language versions use something reminiscent of Sound Engineer, which of course is a completely distinct MB term, and another uses Recording Engineer, again a distinct MB term.

 

 

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

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-27-14 11:24 AM
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

 

2014-01-27 ListMyCDs <[hidden email]>

On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types.
> Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just
> entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.

+1 for this RFC.

 

The link sentences were copied from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR . I'd feel more comfortable if someone who knows English better than me would check them.

Also note that the original RFC separated balance engineer from Tonmeister. I suggest that MB does not need this distinction, especially since many releases seem to consider those as equivalent.


--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014-01-27 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I’ve just managed to located one of my CDs (Deutsche Gramophon) that does translate Tonmeister into other languages. The results are most unfortunate!

 

Before the name of the engineer being credited is this quadrilingual statement:

 

“Tonmeister / Recording Engineer / Ingénieur du son / Ingegnere del suono”

 

Thus two of the four language versions use something reminiscent of Sound Engineer, which of course is a completely distinct MB term, and another uses Recording Engineer, again a distinct MB term.

 

 

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

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-27-14 11:24 AM
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

 

2014-01-27 ListMyCDs <[hidden email]>

On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types.
> Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just
> entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.

+1 for this RFC.

 

The link sentences were copied from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR . I'd feel more comfortable if someone who knows English better than me would check them.

Also note that the original RFC separated balance engineer from Tonmeister. I suggest that MB does not need this distinction, especially since many releases seem to consider those as equivalent.


I suppose this could happen with other engineering types. This means we'll have to take this type of situation into account. I suggest something like: "In case of conflicting engineering types, prefer the one of the original release language, usually the first language in the order of translations".

--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Calvin Walton-2
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 17:24 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

> 2014-01-27 ListMyCDs <[hidden email]>
>
> > On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > > This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types.
> > > Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just
> > > entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.
> >
> > +1 for this RFC.
> >
>
> I forgot to give a link to the wiki:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR
>
> The link sentences were copied from
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR . I'd feel
> more comfortable if someone who knows English better than me would check
> them.

This actually shows one of the issues with the current AR template: The
link phrases shown here are not what we will be using on the Musicbrainz
website itself! The ones on the website will look like:

Release/Recording
=================
balance engineer: Artist

And I don't think the reverse phrase for artists is actually shown
anywhere on the site; the relationship name "balance engineer" will be
used as a header in the artist relationships table.

--
Calvin Walton <[hidden email]>


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

Re: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014-01-27 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I’ve just managed to located one of my CDs (Deutsche Gramophon) that does translate Tonmeister into other languages. The results are most unfortunate!

 

Before the name of the engineer being credited is this quadrilingual statement:

 

“Tonmeister / Recording Engineer / Ingénieur du son / Ingegnere del suono”

 

Thus two of the four language versions use something reminiscent of Sound Engineer, which of course is a completely distinct MB term, and another uses Recording Engineer, again a distinct MB term.

 

 

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

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-27-14 11:24 AM
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

 

2014-01-27 ListMyCDs <[hidden email]>

On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types.
> Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just
> entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.

+1 for this RFC.

 

The link sentences were copied from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR . I'd feel more comfortable if someone who knows English better than me would check them.

Also note that the original RFC separated balance engineer from Tonmeister. I suggest that MB does not need this distinction, especially since many releases seem to consider those as equivalent.


I suppose this could happen with other engineering types. This means we'll have to take this type of situation into account. I suggest something like: "In case of conflicting engineering types, prefer the one of the original release language, usually the first language in the order of translations".

Wouldn't "In case of conflicting engineering types, use just 'engineer'" make more sense?

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

Re: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Frederic Da Vitoria
In reply to this post by Calvin Walton-2
2014-01-27 Calvin Walton <[hidden email]>
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 17:24 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2014-01-27 ListMyCDs <[hidden email]>
>
> > On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> > > This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types.
> > > Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just
> > > entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.
> >
> > +1 for this RFC.
> >
>
> I forgot to give a link to the wiki:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR
>
> The link sentences were copied from
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR . I'd feel
> more comfortable if someone who knows English better than me would check
> them.

This actually shows one of the issues with the current AR template: The
link phrases shown here are not what we will be using on the Musicbrainz
website itself! The ones on the website will look like:

Release/Recording
=================
balance engineer: Artist

And I don't think the reverse phrase for artists is actually shown
anywhere on the site; the relationship name "balance engineer" will be
used as a header in the artist relationships table.

You are probably right, but I wouldn't know how to say this correctly in the wiki. The formulation I used is quite similar to the one in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Category:Engineer_Relationship_Class

--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

Frederic Da Vitoria
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2014-01-27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> wrote:
2014-01-27 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I’ve just managed to located one of my CDs (Deutsche Gramophon) that does translate Tonmeister into other languages. The results are most unfortunate!

 

Before the name of the engineer being credited is this quadrilingual statement:

 

“Tonmeister / Recording Engineer / Ingénieur du son / Ingegnere del suono”

 

Thus two of the four language versions use something reminiscent of Sound Engineer, which of course is a completely distinct MB term, and another uses Recording Engineer, again a distinct MB term.

 

 

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

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-27-14 11:24 AM
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

 

2014-01-27 ListMyCDs <[hidden email]>

On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types.
> Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just
> entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.

+1 for this RFC.

 

The link sentences were copied from http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR . I'd feel more comfortable if someone who knows English better than me would check them.

Also note that the original RFC separated balance engineer from Tonmeister. I suggest that MB does not need this distinction, especially since many releases seem to consider those as equivalent.


I suppose this could happen with other engineering types. This means we'll have to take this type of situation into account. I suggest something like: "In case of conflicting engineering types, prefer the one of the original release language, usually the first language in the order of translations".

Wouldn't "In case of conflicting engineering types, use just 'engineer'" make more sense?

Yes probably. I edited the wiki accordingly.

--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

Brant Gibbard
In reply to this post by Brant Gibbard

On checking some more of my European label CDs

 

I find I have two Archiv CDs that credit a particular engineer twice on the same CD, once as “Tonmeister (Balance Engineer)” and once as “Recording Engineer”, so clearly they regard those as distinct roles (although DG doesn’t)

 

On an EMI recording I have someone credited as “Tonmeister / Balance Engineer/ Ingénieur du son”

 

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

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brant Gibbard
Sent: January-27-14 11:46 AM
To: 'MusicBrainz Style Discussion'
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

 

 

Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I’ve just managed to located one of my CDs (Deutsche Gramophon) that does translate Tonmeister into other languages. The results are most unfortunate!

 

Before the name of the engineer being credited is this quadrilingual statement:

 

“Tonmeister / Recording Engineer / Ingénieur du son / Ingegnere del suono”

 

Thus two of the four language versions use something reminiscent of Sound Engineer, which of course is a completely distinct MB term, and another uses Recording Engineer, again a distinct MB term.

 

 

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

 


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

Re: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014-01-27 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

On checking some more of my European label CDs

 

I find I have two Archiv CDs that credit a particular engineer twice on the same CD, once as “Tonmeister (Balance Engineer)” and once as “Recording Engineer”, so clearly they regard those as distinct roles (although DG doesn’t)

 

On an EMI recording I have someone credited as “Tonmeister / Balance Engineer/ Ingénieur du son”

 

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

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brant Gibbard
Sent: January-27-14 11:46 AM


To: 'MusicBrainz Style Discussion'
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

 

 

Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I’ve just managed to located one of my CDs (Deutsche Gramophon) that does translate Tonmeister into other languages. The results are most unfortunate!

 

Before the name of the engineer being credited is this quadrilingual statement:

 

“Tonmeister / Recording Engineer / Ingénieur du son / Ingegnere del suono”

 

Thus two of the four language versions use something reminiscent of Sound Engineer, which of course is a completely distinct MB term, and another uses Recording Engineer, again a distinct MB term.


regarding French translations, we frenchies are rather poor regarding sound matters: AFAIK in France one can only be "ingénieur du son", or use foreign words :-) IMO the fact that everything translates to "Ingénieur du son" does not mean only "engineer" should be used in MB.

--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

Brant Gibbard

That was a pattern I was noticing, and it had made me wonder if there might simply be less categorization of such terms in French

 

The one Erato disc I have to hand just credits someone in English only as “Sound Engineer”, and my one CD on the K617 label gives no technical credits at all as far as I can see beyond “avec le soin de” in a context that might or might not imply the person was doing the actual recording and/or engineering.

 

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

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frederic Da Vitoria
Sent: January-27-14 12:27 PM
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

 

2014-01-27 Brant Gibbard <[hidden email]>

On checking some more of my European label CDs

 

I find I have two Archiv CDs that credit a particular engineer twice on the same CD, once as “Tonmeister (Balance Engineer)” and once as “Recording Engineer”, so clearly they regard those as distinct roles (although DG doesn’t)

 

On an EMI recording I have someone credited as “Tonmeister / Balance Engineer/ Ingénieur du son”

 

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

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brant Gibbard
Sent: January-27-14 11:46 AM


To: 'MusicBrainz Style Discussion'
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationshiptype

 

 

Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I’ve just managed to located one of my CDs (Deutsche Gramophon) that does translate Tonmeister into other languages. The results are most unfortunate!

 

Before the name of the engineer being credited is this quadrilingual statement:

 

“Tonmeister / Recording Engineer / Ingénieur du son / Ingegnere del suono”

 

Thus two of the four language versions use something reminiscent of Sound Engineer, which of course is a completely distinct MB term, and another uses Recording Engineer, again a distinct MB term.

 

regarding French translations, we frenchies are rather poor regarding sound matters: AFAIK in France one can only be "ingénieur du son", or use foreign words :-) IMO the fact that everything translates to "Ingénieur du son" does not mean only "engineer" should be used in MB.


--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Staffan Vilcans
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
27 januari 2014, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> skrev:
This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types. Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.
Well, we would lose some information, but nothing that important. Considering that the definition seems to be somewhat unclear I think it would be best just to use "engineer".

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

Re: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014-01-28 Staffan <[hidden email]>
27 januari 2014, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> skrev:
This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types. Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.
Well, we would lose some information, but nothing that important. Considering that the definition seems to be somewhat unclear I think it would be best just to use "engineer".

Sorry, I don't understand your meaning. Do you mean that we shouldn't add balance engineer? Why? I don't see anything unclear in "This relationship type should only be used if the engineering credit specifies a balance engineer role".

--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014-01-28 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>:
2014-01-28 Staffan <[hidden email]>

27 januari 2014, Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]> skrev:
This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types. Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information.
Well, we would lose some information, but nothing that important. Considering that the definition seems to be somewhat unclear I think it would be best just to use "engineer".

Sorry, I don't understand your meaning. Do you mean that we shouldn't add balance engineer? Why? I don't see anything unclear in "This relationship type should only be used if the engineering credit specifies a balance engineer role".

Staffan,

I'd like you to make your position more clear before I try RFV.

--
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: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Staffan Vilcans

Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:

>>> Considering that the definition seems to be somewhat unclear I think it
>>> would be best just to use "engineer".

> I'd like you to make your position more clear before I try RFV.

I strike my objection since the definition now seems to be "a balance
engineer is what is called a balance engineer".

--
http://www.interface1.net


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

Re: RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer relationship type

Frederic Da Vitoria
2014-02-04 Staffan Vilcans <[hidden email]>:

Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:

>>> Considering that the definition seems to be somewhat unclear I think it
>>> would be best just to use "engineer".

> I'd like you to make your position more clear before I try RFV.

I strike my objection since the definition now seems to be "a balance
engineer is what is called a balance engineer".

Yes, if someone is called "balance engineer" on the sleeve, then enter her or him as such :-)

--
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