I have an outstanding request from August (originally said June - an error) to have an instrument added to the list of instruments. The need is to allow me to complete adding the performers for a track.
I created a jira ticket and included a link to a wikipedia description of the instrument. I think this is a simple request and not controversial.
What can I do to encourage it to be completed soon? I realise there might be more important and higher priority requests. How long should I expect to wait? Iâd like to finish updating the entry
Thanks
Whatâs the actual request? (JIRA link wouldnât hurt) Generally instruments are added / edited in blocks of related things (so, all accordions, or whatnot) but we can take a quick look to see if itâs trivial at least.
Itâs adding an entity from the site (like adding artists or whatnot), but it requires:
a) deciding whether it should be added at all (in this case, I could see it being just considered both an actual instrument and a specific type of analog synthesizer to be just linked as a credit.
b) researching enough about it to write a proper disambiguation and description
c) figuring out exactly where it belongs among other instruments, relationships-wise (in this case, I guess as a subtype of the analog synth instrument, if we add it)
d) actually adding it (the easiest bit)
Given this is not a 100% obvious add, Iâd suggest just using âanalog synthesizerâ with a credit for now and (if you want) listing the use in the comments of the ticket, so that if itâs added itâs trivial to find the credit and improve it further. If Iâm honest, Iâd have expected this to not be added at all because it seems like basically yet another synth, but I see we have Moog and Minimoog already so maybe it will be added anyway
Yes, thatâs why we have the ability to add a specific credit to every instrument relationship saying how it was credited If the liner notes said âFender Stratocasterâ we would still add âelectric guitarâ, for example, but with a Fender Stratocaster credit. As I said, we might end up deciding this should be added as an instrument, and if so then it can be edited to be more precise - but saying this is âanalog synthâ is certainly correct, so itâs a lot better than not adding the information at all.
I donât understand why thereâs any need to filter or change what is on the liner notes. We prioritise artist intent in many other parts of MB. This is no different. Why not just allow us to faithfully record what is on the liner notes?
Again: you are already allowed to faithfully record what is on the liner notes using a free text field for the printed credit for the instrument Thatâs actually an exception for relationships, even: for most other relationships you just get to pick whatever kinda applies. âconductorâ can be printed as âdirectorâ, âconducted byâ, âmaestroâ sometimes, plus all the other versions in other languages, and we still just have the âconductorâ option to pick. Same for ârecorded byâ/ârecording engineerâ, etc.
Thereâs of course always a way to ensure the exact liner notes are available and preserved: adding a scan / image to the Cover Art Archive
I see the instrument cat was nudged about this on IRC. I donât think they are going to add brand name items at the moment, but they said that synthesizers are coming up soon on the to-do list. Maybe that means revisiting our criteria on brands, in regards to synthesizers - which seems to be a pretty special case?
I do want to highlight that @CatQuest does an amazing job with instruments. Check out this Gamelan blog postâŚ
So I would look forward to when they reach synthesizers, it will be good!
I understand that and I made use of the field when I added the performers and instruments back in August. However my experience is that such free text fields are not a good idea as they lead to lower quality data. The data is not checked etc. I looked back at the entries I added in August and there are mistakes.
One track has Polymoog with a leading upper case âPâand another has lower case âpâ. Obviously they should be the same text with a upper case âPâ. If Polymoog was in the instrument list, this would not be possible. I would just pick Polymoog from the list.
So, we come back to the question of why Polymoog is not in the list of instruments?
To ensure that the coverage of instruments in MusicBrainz remains reasonable and avoid a huge surge in the amount of instruments, the following guidelines are in place (but keep in mind exceptions can be made, so if you think your instrument still qualifies, do request it and explain why):
It appears that this concern is behind the approach of wanting to generalise specific instruments such as Polymoog into synthesiser or piano. I believe that this is not a valid concern. What is wrong with having a long list of instruments? The list of instruments is real world information and not something that MB should be attempting to refine or curate. MB doesnât do it with artist names just prevents duplicates.
The entries In the liner notes are simple:
Ken Bickel: Polymoog
We should just accept Polymoog is a valid instrument and let it be used. If it is already in the list, then use it. If not, then simply add it. No analysis or refinement needed. Then the database accurately and precisely reflects the credits which is the primary aim of MB.
Instruments seem to be unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps I donât understand the requirments and rationale that has created the complexity. The instructions How to Add Instruments - MusicBrainz do include some rationale, but the status is
This page has not been reviewed by our documentation team
Is the rationale and philosophy described anywhere else? Is it âofficialâ?
Is there anyway contributors can provide input? I donât think itâs correct.
The current list of instruments currently includes
Some brands of synthesisers e.g. Moog and Minimoog are already on the list. I donât agree with the brand names approach, and think itâs not limited to synthesizers⌠Iâd be happy to see Gibson and Fender . Give us the freedom to record the level of detail we want - I have musican friends who care about the pick-up used by a guitar player. Classical music fans probably want to know if a Steinberg was played.
I wasnât suggesting anything negative about @CatQuest. I was just asking for a request that I perceive to be very simple to be completed so I could complete adding the details on a CD and put it away. I did caveat my request with âI donât know what the priorities areâ⌠and how complicated it is.I was just asking how long I should expect to waitâŚ
If users could edit the database, as @yindesu suggests, then we wouldnât have to wait!
Because the Instrument Inserter hasnât gotten around to reviewing the ticket yet, and as @reosarevokcommented, it âis not a 100% obvious addâ, so itâs not going to get âfast trackedâ. It doesnât mean that the suggestion has been rejected, just that it needs more consideration. @aerozol has already mentioned that this (synths) is something that is likely to come up soon. Consider the Instrument Inserter nudged. They will get to it when they get to it.
Itâs official, as announced in this blog post (we donât really have a âdocumentation teamâ):
There was a bunch of community feedback when it was presented to the community (see forum topic linked in the blog post). No guideline in MusicBrainz is necessarily set in stone forever, however, so if you disagree with a part of that, feel free to make a topic discussing it or asking about it. Just remember to keep our Code of Conduct in mind when doing so.
Generally instruments are added / edited in blocks of related things (so, all accordions, or whatnot) but we can take a quick look to see if itâs trivial at least.
