[mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

[David Gibson]

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:47:26PM -0400, Dave Smey wrote:
> On Mon, October 9, 2006 8:11 pm, David Gibson said:
> >
> > Hrm.. except I don't think your draft really moves away from it - it
> > just makes it implicit rather than explicit.  Yes, it is fuzzy and
> > subjective, which makes life hard, but I don't think we can really get
> > away from that: the fact is the reason we're contemplating this format
> > is for discs where there's a reasonably large chance someone would buy
> > or listen to the release because they want to hear the particular
> > performer, more importantly than because they want to hear the
> > particular works.
> >
> Well, let me try to make my main point on this again: Filing under VA vs.
> filing under a performer name will make a negligible difference in how MB
> is used.  Let's run two scenarios on the same disc:
> 
> Marilyn Nonken: American Spirituals
> http://www.amazon.com/American-Spiritual-Marilyn-Nonken/dp/B00005AMM9/
> (The amazon info is unusually bad, but suffice it to say that it is a
> piano recital with pieces from 4 contemporary composers, Rzewski,
> Finnisey, Jason Eckhardt, I forget the fourth.)
> 
> If I'm interested in one of the composers like Rzewski, obviously I search
> for Rzewski, go to that page and find this release under VA albums. 
> That's not going to change regardless of what decision is made (Nonken vs.
> VA)
> 
> If I really am a Nonken fan (and I am!) I search for Nonken as artist and,
> hopefully, she comes up in the database.  (Right now she does not, but
> eventually I should at lease have this one release in.)  If the thing is
> credited directly to her as artist, it will be listed as an album right
> under her name.  If not, she will hopefully be attached to it via an AR.
> 
> Really, the only advantage to crediting her directly is that it signals to
> me that it is a mixed recital (since I know she's not a composer.)  It
> would seperate it from some other non-mixed recordings she has made, like
> Feldman's Triadic Memories which belongs under Feldman and would be ARed. 
> And, if she continues to record a few more recitals in the course of her
> career, they'll be collected together nicely.  Looking at the Nonken page
> will make me happy.
> 
> But it doesn't really matter either way - if the release is entered
> correctly and ARed, I'll find it.
> 
> And here's the thing - the more you try to explain why it does or doesn't
> belong, the more likely you are to start fights - is she historically
> important? No. Is she a star? No.  She does have her picture on the cover,
> but if the disc was published by another label (like Naxos or Albany) that
> could just as likely not be the case.  If the label decided to call it
> "Contemporary Virtuoso Piano" you might be arguing that it's "not about
> the performer" but rather the subject of contemporary virtuoso piano
> music.  But the contents (and really the way I would think about it) would
> be the same.
> 
> Why do you want to worry about whether I put it under Nonken or not?  What
> difference does it make?
> 
> So, that's my main point when I say you shouldn't worry too much about the
> definition.  Better to keep it simple and let people do what they want to
> do  (non-destructively, of course.)

Good example, I'm convinced.  In the process, I'm also convinced that
my "Violin Miniatures" examples should list the violinist as Release
artist, whereas I was previously leaning towards leaving it Various
Artists.

I think the "about the performer" bit remains potentially important in
the case of a single-performer single-composer disk.  I'm thinking
specifically of "Fred Nertz plays Bach" or "Famous Callas recordings
of Puccini Arias" type discs here.  I'd be happy enough with letting
this remain always composer, which avoids the issue, but if not we do
need to make some sort of distinction here.

[snip]

> >Oh - and I just thought of another potential category: narrow release,
> >limited interest recordings.  For example, I have discs from each of
> >the Australian Intervarsity Choral Festivals
> 
> Yeah, I guess that is OK.  It is really not a question of the limited
> interest so much as whether an event can be an artist.  The closest
> analogue I can think of are the Bang on a Can Festivals:

Sure, I was being a bit sloppy in my expression.  If would envisage
the artist being something like "55th Australian Intervarsity Choral
Festival Choir" (plus ARs for the orchestra and soloists, where
present).  Because the choir is formed for the event "festival" and
"the festival choir" are used somewhat interchangeably.

> http://musicbrainz.org/album/db1831f3-cc1e-4644-8f8a-f66d77db710b.html
> 
> Which are VA and named in parallel fashion ("Bang on a Can Live, Volume
> 1/2/3")  I would keep these in VA for sure because there is already enough
> confusion between the ensemble, the three BoaC composers, and the
> Festival.

Incidentally, am I right in my assumption that these discs shouldn't
go in MB at all?  It would certainly be convenient for me to index
them with MB like everything else, but there's only ever likely to be
a tiny handful of other people to look the data up again (and that's
assuming I got some choral acquantainces interested in MB).

> Right now all artists are people or groups, though.  In the store, there
> are lots of kinds of VA that could get their own bin ("Dick's Picks" and
> what-not) but they are not grouped together in MB.
> 
> -DS
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson