west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (09/25/85)
It seems like it would be useful for all concerned if we had an agreed-upon format for passing songlists & tape descriptions around. (Of course, this is unlikely to work, but I thought I'd make an attempt anyway.) The advantages are that this allows for easier troffing into more legible form, and it allows for the possibility of using database-access-like routines to look up concerts, etc. Here is a description and a short example: ------------------------------------------ | .ig | Format here is similar to "refer(1)" and "addbib(1)": | Percent char (`%') followed by single key character, | followed by space. This can be fudged into being | troff code (make `%' act as `.'). Here are the defined | meanings: | %A Artist(s) | %C City | %D Date | %G Generation -- number of times copied since concert | %N Number within volume (e.g., two tapes) | %O Other commentary, notes | %Q Quality of recording, concert | %R noise Reduction (type -- Dolby B or C, dbx) | %S Songlist | %T Theater | %W Who? Who has the tape? | %== (break between tape entries) | .. | %A Dead | %T Fox Theater | %C Atlanta | %D 20 May 1977 | %G At least 5th | %N 1 of 2 | %Q Quality is generally very high. Reported to be soundboard tape. | %R Dolby B. | %S | Promised Land | Sugaree | El Paso | Peggy-O | Looks Like Rain | Row Jimmy | Passenger | The Loser | Dancing in the Streets | %== ------------------------------------------ What I'd like to hear is comments and suggestions about this. Things like "Use '%B' for 'Band' instead of '%A' for Artist(s)" are okay, but not very useful as a "sed" script would suffice to remove the discrepancy. I know this format uses lots of lines, but the access programs and formatting macros don't have to. ( To fend off people I don't really want to hear from: no one is ) ( going to require anyone to have anything to do with this; it is ) ( merely a suggestion. I know this is net.music.gdead and this ) ( sorta stuff is very peripheral to the main event, which is of ) ( course being at a Dead concert. Please send flames to /dev/tty. ) Thanks in advance for your thoughts. I'll post a summary and perhaps a changed format outline sometime in October (assuming this isn't really hairy, et cetera). -- Larry West (USA+619-)452-6771 Institute for Cognitive Science non-business hours: 452-2256 UC San Diego (mailcode C-015) La Jolla, CA 92093 U.S.A. ARPA: <west@nprdc.ARPA> or <west@ucsd.ARPA> UUCP: {ucbvax,sdcrdcf,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west or {sun,mplvax,gti,ihnss,whuxlb,ulysses}!sdcsla!west
ejd@petrus.UUCP (Ed J. Donofrio) (10/04/85)
I feel that the idea of a proposed format for the exchange of tapes is a great idea. Personally I would like to complete my collection of some of the shows I have wanted but often get frustrated by trying to find them. This would allow a perfect medium for such a thing. My only suggestion is to make it a little easier for people to use therefore increasing the chances that alot of netheads will use it. For example people with alot of tapes would hesitate to type in every song (maybe I'm wrong??). Anyway most of us have either copied off the net or still have the setlists from 75 on, this could be redistributed to those who want it. I think that I could probably decide whether or not I would like to trade a tape based on the show and quality, not neccesarily the songlist and what generation of tape it is. I may be in the minority since I know that generation is an important quality for some deadheads, but I've had first generation tapes that are not as good quality as some tapes I don't know what generation they are. This is more a function of the equipment used, that's why I think that a quality rating would suffice. I'd be interested in seeing if there is interest in the proposed system, and comments on how detailed or simple it should be. --Ed Donofrio "We can have us a high time if you'll abide"