[mb-style] RFC: Setting Classical Release Artists to Performers

[Chris B]

On 07/02/2008, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please take a look at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistsStyleProposal
>
> I have attempted to take the existing ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle and
> extend it to apply to cases where all tracks are composed by one
> artist (Currently we assign Release Artist to performers when there
> are multiple composers on a release).
>
> I have outlined 5 steps for determining who the Release Artist should
> be (based on my opinion of which performers are most important and on
> the list which Rob Keeney (P84) wrote here: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-February/005689.html)
> .
>
>     1.       If there is a SOLO PERFORMER who performed an instrument/
> voice on all tracks, the solo performer is the Release Artist.
>     2.      If there is a COLLABORATION between a small number of
> artists who performed on all tracks, the collaboration artist is the
> Release Artist.  (This would be similar to our regular
> CollaborationStyle)
>     3.      If there is a CONDUCTOR who performed on all tracks, the
> conductor is the Release Artist.
>     4.      If there is an ORCHESTRA/ensemble/choir who performs on
> all tracks, they are the Release Artist.
>     5.      If the Release Artist has not been determined after going
> through the first four steps, the Release Artist should be the
> composer of all tracks or Various Artists (in the case where tracks
> are composer by varying composers).
>
> I have given several examples of where this style would apply on the
> Wiki page.
>
> Please share your thoughts and concerns.

i suppose i should say what i said in the other thread again for
clarity (and elaborate on it):

IME the release artist is always the billed artist (eg
http://musicbrainz.org/release/ac70bc10-f96e-420a-b319-ba09b0485e34.html
), so i think relating the release artist field to the 'performer' (or
indeed, 'composer') is incorrect.

i realise this is a redefining of ReleaseArtist, but IMO i think
that's what we've always meant, it just happens that in contemporary
music, the billed artist is normally the performer, and in classical
music, the composer.

a use case:
the tagger uses the release artist field to update my itunes' 'Album
Artist' field, which then affects how my music is sorted. as such, i
want my digital music to be indexed as my physical music is indexed -
by billed artist. i also want to see discographies that are based on
when an artist was billed, as that's how i see music is normally
catalogued.

eg, i scroll through my CD collection (or mp3s, or musicbrainz
artists) to find Henryk Górecki, not the polish national orchestra,
when i want to find my release of sorrowful songs. a release billed
under the polish national orchestra would typically be a different
kind of release (eg a compilation of them playing a variety of
different compositions)

i think that if people want to use a particular role to occupy the
release artist (composer or performer), then the tagger could do that
automatically from ARs, but maybe others don't care for billed artist
at all?