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

[Barry Platt]

Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote :

> Viewpoint 3:
> An AR on the release level has an entirely different meaning of the
> same AR applied at track level.
> Producer A produced the recording sessions that gave track A, B & C
> (using the links on the tracks)
> Producer B produced the reissue *release* containing A, B & C.
>
> Heriting/propagating either way (from track to release, or from
> release to tracks) in such a case just sounds bad to me, as they
> really mean two different things.

You're right that the "Produced" AR is a potentially problematic one as
there is a semantic difference between production of a release and
production of a track master.  Part of me even wonders whether these
should actually be separate ARs (or variants).

As it is right now, I don't think we would really have the option of
assigning 'Produced' in a fuzzy sense as we're defining it in this
discussion, as 'Producer' at release level will be assumed to mean
production of the release.  But then, the reason we would *have* to do
this is because the liner notes use in a fuzzy sense themselves.  If
better information comes along later, and we can determine which
producers did track-level production, then those ARs can be implemented
at track level.

Regards,
Barry