LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  December 2009

ARSCLIST December 2009

Subject:

Re: Wired on the need for a single comprehensive music database

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:53 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (140 lines)

Paul's point about ISRC codes is spot-on.

Plus, I'm not sure what Wired is advocating. Hopefully not another group cluster-f like Gracenote or 
cddb. These databases were cheap to create but are full of errors and are generally of low use to 
anyone wanting uniform naming, punctuation, etc in his music library.

Observations based on my experiences bringing a large CD collection into Catraxx software, which 
uses Gracenote:

1. the whole format of the Gracenote and Catraxx database was not a great fit for classical music. 
So how data was entered by the army of volunteers (who obviously have few or no paid editors) was 
almost at random. Similar works on the same label by the same orchestra and conductor would have 
very different field structures. All of this, of course, needed to be cleaned up by hand (line 
edited), which very much defeats the purpose of an "automated" database.

2. for jazz and rock, the database format is more comfortable, since these are the genres around 
which it was created. But, the data entry in Gracenote is so poor and non-uniform that almost every 
CD inserted required some level of line-editing. Only the most mainstream/popular/heavy-selling 
titles had database entries of good quality, I'm guessing because many people copy-edited and 
re-submitted the entry until it was correct.

3. such conventions as capitalization and punctuation are out the Wild West of anything goes with 
Gracenote. You insert a CD and you takes your chances. It's telling that the first thing that 
Catraxx does after a CD is inserted is go to the line-editing interface.

Ironically, CD Text was available from the beginning, I think. If not, soon after CD's hit the mass 
market. Yet, almost no record companies made use of the technology. These traditionally 
control-obsessed organizations missed an opportunity to have absolute control of their metadata. 
They should have standardized on conventions like capitalization and punctuation and standardized 
how they were going to fit classical works into a data-field system optimized for rock and pop works 
(ie disc artist, disc title, song title, song composer, etc). Instead, almost no major labels or 
artists utilized CD Text and thus the need for online databases that match CD technical parameters 
to volunteer-entered data. The other chance the record companies had to make this right would have 
been funding the database creation so they could control the quality of the data-entry, but in those 
days, to them anything online was enemy and potential loss of revenue.

As in all things involving data and facts, the quality of gracenote and cddb is exactly akin to the 
cost of collecting the data (ie low in both cases).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Turney, Sirensound Digital UK" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Wired on the need for a single comprehensive music database


ISRC CODES ARE FOR THE FORMAL IDENTIFICATION OF THE ARTIST, THE NAME OF THE WORK ETC.
NOT MEANT TO EXIXT IN A CATALOGUING TERM.
USED FOR ARTIST ROYALTY PAYMENTS AND FOR COLLABORATORS ON THE MUSIC.
HOPE THIS CLEARS THIS POINT UP FOR THE LIST.
THE NUMBERS ARE OBTAINED FROM PPL AND ARE SEQUENTIAL BASED ON YOUR ACCOUNT.



PAUL






Paul Turney
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message (including any attachments)
is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain
confidential and privileged information

Sirensound Digital UK
Somerford House
22 Somerford Road
Cirencester
 ++44 (0) 1285 642289
Sirensound Digital UK

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Biel [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 07:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Wired on the need for a single comprehensive music database

By reinventing the wheel I mean that the geeks at Wired seem to thinkthat there have never been any 
listings of recordings before on-linemusic services, and that they probably have never heard the 
worddiscography or have ever seen one. The line about making a list ofsongs and using a "unique 
identifier" is what really set me off. "Musicservices already apply their own unique identifiers to 
songs in theircatalogs" and that these geeks think that unifying these numbers is THEway to go, is 
frightening. The records already have their own uniqueidentifiers -- they are the matrix numbers and 
the company catalognumbers, not numbers made up by the music services. I also doubt thatthey realize 
that there were recordings before CDs. I also wonder ifthey know that before computers there were 
things known as books. Andwhile most of the great discographies of the world are not on 
databasesthat can be seen on computer screens, I sometimes find it much easier todo research with 
eight or ten discographies spread out open on a tablethen having to click from window to window to 
window on a computerscreen. I agree that Rigler-Deutsch is a rats nets, because although mysignature 
is on the title page of the final report (I just happened tobe ARSC president when it was 
completed -- I didn't have anythingsubstantial to do with compiling it) I couldn't convince the 
librariansof the AAA who controlled the RDRI, that record collectors withoutlibrary science degrees 
might be capable of cleaning up the filescreated by the minimally trained data entry personnel. I 
had proposeddistributing the label films to expert collectors who could clean up thecomputer 
entries, but they didn't think that people who have spent theirentire lives with records could do 
things like "attempt a controlledvocabulary of songs, artists" etc. Yet that is what collectors 
havedone for more years than there have been library catalogs of records. Ihad a group of 
experienced collectors just salivating at the thought ofgetting a couple of films for a year or so 
and correcting the database-- for free, I might add -- but there was an aversion among 
theprofessionals to let the amateurs correct their work. The wheel was already invented by Brian 
Rust, Tom Lord, John Bruninx,Charles Delauney, Michel Ruppli, Frank Andrews, Pekka Gronow, 
TimBrooks, Ross Laird, Julian Morton Moses, Carl Kendzioria, Walt Allen,George Blacker, Malcolm 
Rockwell, Allen Koenigsburg, Steve Barr, RobertDixon, John Godrich, Tony Russel, Bill Moran, Ted 
Fagen, John Bolig,Reiner Lotz, and yes, Dick Spotswood among many, many others. And Imight add that 
most of these names are people who were from thecollectors community. Tom Lord's Jazz Discography is 
available on lineor CD-Rom, and Rockwell's and some of Ruppli's are on CD-Rom. There areall sorts of 
on-line discography projects including the Victor Project,Brian, JazzDiscography.com, national 
discography projects in Sweden andseveral other countries, and many others that slip my mind right 
now. (Steve Barr can probably name them all.) There had been an ARSC computerized project about 10 
years ago that fellthrough, utilizing a program which made data entry unified and was goingto be 
based on existing discographies like those mentioned above. It iswhen "outsiders" like the Wired 
geeks recommend starting over with thesources being the on-line music service lists without knowing 
what hasalready been compiled by experts, that is most problematic. Mike Biel 
[log in to unmask] -------- Original Message --------From: Joel Bresler Hi, Mike, could you please 
amplify a bit on your answer? I thought theWired article was thought provoking. WorldCat, perhaps 
the largest repository of discographic information, isnot a database. It grows willy nilly, and 
there is no attempt at acontrolled vocabulary of songs, artists, and so forth. No tying togetherof 
78s with their re-release on LP, CD, etc. The Rigler-Deutsch databaseis a worthy try, but the 
contents are a rats nest. Dick Spottswood'swonderful EMOR is in print form only, and is not a 
database per se. If they are talking about reinventing the wheel, please point us to 
thewheel!!Thanks,JoelJoel Bresler, Publisherwww.sephardicmusic.org-----Original Message-----From: 
Michael BielReinventing the wheel. What is needed is a knowledge of DISCOGRAPHYamong these computer 
geeks who think that nothing has happened outsidetheir little world.Mike Biel 
[log in to unmask] Original Message --------From: "Schooley, John" 
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/4-ways-one-big-database-would-help-music-fans-industry/4 Ways 
One Big Database Would Help Music Fans, Industry"The solution to this and other problems dogging the 
music industrycould be forehead-slappingly simple: one big, free, public databasewith, at the very 
least, song titles in one column and uniqueidentifiers in another. When online and mobile music 
services buildtheir own content databases out of the labels' catalogs, they would haveincentives to 
use the same numbers to identify each song, for thereasons laid out below. Music services already 
apply their own uniqueidentifiers to songs in their catalogs, so the use of numbers is not 
theissue - they just need to be the same numbers.This database would have to be free, readily 
available and totallytransparent, visible to music fans and industry people alike, becausethe 
barrier to entry for startups to use the system would have to bezero. Open source software making 
use of the data set, available on thesame website, might encourage services to use the numbers."

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager