Vorbis - Jan 2002 - TAG Standard - ENSEMBLE/PERFORMER tags

I've read through what I think is the entire thread and looked at the
standard in its current incarnation
(https://reactor-core.org/~djw/ogg-tags.txt).  I have only one major problem
with the proposed standard at the moment.  The existance of both PERFORMER
and ENSEMBLE tags.  I think this is describing the same type of data
(ENSEMBLE = thing that performed the music, PERFORMER = thing that performed
the music), except ENSEMBLE carries extra information that the data is a
kind of plural.

I don't see that the need for this extra information about the data
justifiying the extra time and energy on the part of the user, or the
increased complexity in logic needed for vorbis players.  If the user does
know something about the performer/ensemble of the music they listen to they
will most likely already know whether they are a group of people.  Otherwise
I do not see how this information on its own is of particular interest to
most people.

I suggest depreciating ENSEMBLE, and use only PERFORMER.

A more useful tag may be BAND or GROUP (I think there may be a better name
for this) which holds the identifier the people went under, to perform the
piece of music.  This should be a singleton so that users (programs and
people) immediately know where to look to easily find/display concise
information on the performer(s) of the music and don't have to worry about
which information is important (is that a minor backing vocalist or the main
singer in that PERFORMER tag?) and how to display the important information.
Examples of use:

"U2 and REM" (after all this is the identifier for the group of people
that
have performed "One" together)
"Delerium"
"London Symphony Orchestra".

If someone felt they needed to store more information they could place the
names of the members of U2 and REM and/or "U2" and "REM" in
the PERFORMER
tag.

An ambiguous and hard to use tag scheme will only confuse and complicate
matters, and therefore it is important that the scheme works in the majority
of usage by 'normal' people.  Otherwise it is less useful and even more
confusing than previous schemes.  IMHO it is better to use a slightly more
obvious tag scheme where the data is easily placed in the correct place,
rather than place data in the incorrect place, which invalidates the data
because of the context (especially over such a small issue).  With the
ensemble/performer set of tags I think you may find people do not respect
ensemble/performer definitions and will end up using one by default on all
their pieces of music.


----

Hmmm.. I think I just suggested something that is the same as the normal
usage of 'ARTIST' in rock/pop/etc. music.
<grins> Maybe the proposed GROUP (or BAND) tag should be called ARTIST
But with the strict, proposed definition of course.
But that would mean ARTIST would be a misnomer.
Maybe it should not be called ARTIST then.

Jared Sulem

<p><p>--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

Jared Sulem wrote:
> I've read through what I think is the entire thread and looked at the
> standard in its current incarnation
> (https://reactor-core.org/~djw/ogg-tags.txt).  I have only one major
problem
> with the proposed standard at the moment.  The existance of both PERFORMER
> and ENSEMBLE tags.  I think this is describing the same type of data
> (ENSEMBLE = thing that performed the music, PERFORMER = thing that
performed
> the music), except ENSEMBLE carries extra information that the data is a
> kind of plural.
Which is not terribly meaningful, really.

Your basic point has been made several times by others; since I happen to
agree with you, I'm glad to see another voice added to our chorus.
> I suggest depreciating ENSEMBLE, and use only PERFORMER.
I agree.

Off-topic pet peeve: The word you are looking for is "deprecate",
which
means something quite different from "depreciate".
> A more useful tag may be BAND or GROUP (I think there may be a better name
> for this) which holds the identifier the people went under, to perform the
> piece of music.  This should be a singleton so that users (programs and
> people) immediately know where to look to easily find/display concise
> information on the performer(s) of the music and don't have to worry
about
> which information is important (is that a minor backing vocalist or the
main
> singer in that PERFORMER tag?) and how to display the important
information.
> Examples of use:
> 
> "U2 and REM" (after all this is the identifier for the group of
people that
> have performed "One" together)
> "Delerium"
> "London Symphony Orchestra".
Personally, I see no need to put all of the liner notes into the tags. I
really have no idea why anyone would want to list all the supporting
musicians (as in your "minor backing vocalist" example). The purpose
of
tags is to allow players to display meaningful identifying information
about the files they play, and to provide enough information for someone
to track down the CD from which the track was ripped. Listing all the
supporting musicians (or the recording engineers, or all the people to
whom the artist gives special thanks and without whom this glorious work
of art would never have been possible) does nothing towards those ends,
and seems to me more like an attempt to make one's Vorbis collection
double as a searchable trivia database.

All you really need in the tags are the following:

(1) The principal performer(s), including the conductor for classical
    music and some large-ensemble jazz;

(2) The track title (track number is also nice, but not strictly
    essential except for reproducing the sequence of the album);

(3) The composer(s);

(4) The album title;

(5) The date of recording and/or original release;

(6) The record company's name;

(7) The CD's catalog number (which can be used to distinguish between
    the original release and subsequent, presumably superior,
    remasterings).

Anything beyond this is really just bloat, IMHO. Given all of the above,
you should be able to visit your local CD store (or online equivalent)
and buy the recording with high confidence that you are getting the same
recording (even the same digital mastering) that is encoded in the
Vorbis file.

Craig

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

On 2002-01-02, Jared Sulem wrote:
> I've read through what I think is the entire thread and looked at the
> standard in its current incarnation
> (https://reactor-core.org/~djw/ogg-tags.txt).  I have only one major
problem
Is that only me, or is this (and the other one Jonathan gave once) address
down for several days already?  If yes, jonathan, would you please solve
it (as I want to read - I haven't saved a copy) or mail to me and I can
host it?


-- 
Beni Cherniavsky <cben@tx.technion.ac.il>
                 (also scben@t2 in Technion)
Happy new 2 (mod 100).

<p>--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

"In the Metadata stream" quite a different beast indeed that metadata 
stream. In fact I don't think it is even of the same species as Tags.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: [vorbis] TAG Standard - ENSEMBLE/PERFORMER tags
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > These are other good arguments to allow pre-calculated 
> transliteration in
> > the metadata stream, and not expecting players to do it on the fly.
> 
> Its rather ridiculous for people to be railing against RFC2047, 
> yet even 
> SUGGESTING on-the-fly transliteration.
> 
> -Dan
> -- 
> [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
> 
> 
> --- >8 ----
> List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
> Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-
> request@xiph.org'containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the 
> body.  No subject is needed.
> Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
> 
<p>--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
'vorbis-request@xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is
needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.