On Mon, November 6, 2006 5:17 pm, Børge Holen wrote: > aaight... I get yer point there, > BUT > > you see, what do you do when an artists changes it name... forget it, > that was > a bad choice... Oh no, it's a GREAT choice. First of all, if they really really changed their name, then I create a new record for them, and they have 2 Artist Profiles, so I can maintain historical accuracy. E.g., if Prince had played our venue every year, I'd want the shows in 1993-- to be 'Prince' and then from 1993 to 2000 to be 'tafkap' and then I'd be using the same pre-1993 record again from 2000 onwards. (Assuming his name does not change again.) I have done this many many many times for artist who marry, rename their bands, have "side projects" or perform "solo" as well as with their band, or suffer some other identity crisis. If you've worked with musicians, you would know that all of the above are not uncommon experiences. :-) If it's just a typo in an artist name, I just fix it. But the artist name is the ONE field we simply do not let the artist have access to. They'd end up destroying the historical accuracy of our web calendar listing their gigs back to 2003 (and earlier, if I ever get the owner to drag in his dead-tree bookings calendars so I can input them...) And since the ID3 tag comes from the DB in real-time, pre-pended to the mp3 "stream" with the static audio portion of the mp3 following, the actual output MP3 stream is corrected for the artist name as soon as I fix the typo. PHP ID3 rocks. :-) Actually, if you download the same MP3 file 2 successive times from my server, and if the artist has multiple images, you could trivially prove that I change the stream on the fly, as I choose the image at random. I think Rachel Sage has the most images in there, so that would be a good choice, if she has turned on "downloads" in her account. That's why only a tiny fraction of the 65000 mp3s are available. Artists have to login, choose the tracks and their usage parameters (streaming, download, radio, hifi, lofi, cafe speaker system) and they have to sign a "release" form. [aside] The release form is the worst possible non-contract I could manage to draft, on purpose, to avoid locking the artist into anything, while keeping the cafe lawyer happy -- Dang thing doesn't even have a DATE on it, much less read as an enforcable contract. So your version of the MP3 and mine will not match on our browser, wrt the ID3 meta-data being different images. The static audio portion will remain the same, of course. > anyway... > you see, in one of my fields of interests, you got dogs... see, dogs > can > change name, not just the calling name, but I mean completely change > it all. > second, they change apperance with growth. > > So to keep track on "stuff" you need to make a system work for you, > not the > other way around... Hence, all in the db... but no way someone would > be * > enought to put ... you know what.. In that case, I'd suggest a series of related records for each dog tied back to some unique ID. If there is an industry-standard ID for a dog that never changes throughout the course of its life, tie that into the central ID, or just make one up and convince users to tie their records together correctly through the business logic. I don't even attempt to map out which artists are "really" the same as which other artists, as the can of worms and social issues this would open up are legion. Prince/tafka looks a mere piker in this regard compared to some of the data I'd have to deal with... I'll pick a funny story of an artist, just as an example... Ken Vandermark was interviewed a couple years ago, after winning the McArthur Foundation "genius grant" (sic) and they got to talking about all the bands he was in. He's a "free/improv jazz" artist, plays mostly saxophone. Anyway, the interviewer asked him just how many bands he was in. Ken's answer was something not unlike this: "I don't know. You'd have to track down all the bands I ever played in, and ask them [shrug]. If we played together every 2 or 3 years for awhile, but it's been 5 years now since we've been together, are we still a band? I dunno. I guess it just depends on whether we make plans to play together again or not. Call it about 500 bands, give or take." Now Ken's an extreme example, but these and similar issues turn out to be pretty non-trivial, once you start digging into it. > NOone would EVER put a single mp3 > file in > a db ;) lol. There we agree. I don't know that nobody would ever put a single MP3 in a db. They might have a zillion teeny tiny MP3 files that they can more efficiently serve up from the DB, and have the research and stats to prove that it's better on their system. But if you have to ask the question about this matter, I'd say putting the data in your file-system is the Right Answer. :-) -- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some starving artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
