[mb-style] Composition/Performer/Production ARs at Release or Track level? - PROPOSAL

[Olivier]

2008/1/2, Philipp Wolfer <phw at rubyforge.org>:
> On Jan 2, 2008 10:44 AM, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A Release is definitely something more than the sum of its tracks IMHO.
> Agreed
>
> > Well, again, it doesn't make any sense to say that Artist A provided
> > photography for track A...
> > You (usually) provide photography for a *release* (but maybe this
> > discussion excluded that AR).
> > Same goes for the AR "liner notes": usually (semantically) valid for
> > releases, and shouldn't be propagated to tracks... (because that would
> > have a different meaning).
>
> This is what regularly comes up in discussions about this topic. But
> IMHO this is irrelevant, as it is clear that there are ARs that are
> completely valid on release level and don't apply to individual tracks
> (of course this needs to be defined).

Liner notes AR can perfectly apply to track level as well, and there
are cases where there are liners *for the release* by Artist A, and
separate liners for each tracks by artists B, C, ...

>
> But Brian explicitly limited his suggestion to "performance and
> production ARs", and for those I think he's absolutely correct. I now
> really think there is value in allowing the "fuzzy" ARs on release
> level and that viewpoint 2 is the way to go.

The Producer AR is part of the Production ARs I assume :-)
And it pose the same problem as above.
That view just doesn't work for it...