[mb-style] RFV: Adding {instrument} and {vocals} to 'Recorded By' AR

[Chris B]

changed to an RFV as i can't think of any reason why this shouldn't
already be in! anyone???

On 22/05/2007, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
> here's a 'few' examples of seperate recording credits for vocals :)
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=In9&q=+site%3Awww.discogs.com+%22Recorded+by+%5Bvocals%5D%22&btnG=Search&meta=
>
> and here's a few more of seperate recording credits for a vocal type:
> http://www.discogs.com/search?type=releases&q=%22recorded+by+%5Bbacking+vocals%5D%22&btn=Search
>
> On 21/05/07, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
> > Bit of straight forward one this, so I didn't bother adding it to the
> > wiki (though I will of course once the details are ironed out).
> >
> > Basically I think we need 2 ARs in addition to the current 'Recorded
> > By' AR in http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType -
> >
> > artist recorded {instrument} in release or track
> > release or track has {instrument} recorded by artist
> >
> > artist recorded {vocal type} in release or track
> > release or track has {vocal type} recorded by artist
> >
> > few worries:
> > - the {vocal TYPE} probably isn't needed since i don't imagine we'll
> > ever have a different person recording different parts but it's
> > possible, and indeed perhaps it's easiest/consistent to stick with the
> > list we have already defined.
> > - i believe we have to have 2 new ARs rather than one (or indeed
> > adding to the existing), if we're going to cover instruments and
> > vocals but only because that's how it's been done in
> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PerformerRelationshipType (1 AR for
> > performed by, 1 for vox and 1 for instruments).
> >
> > examples:
> > http://www.discogs.com/release/950208 (last track - vocals recorded by...)
> > http://www.discogs.com/release/686094 (string quartet recorded by...)
> >
> > anything else? :)
> >
> > chris/gecks
> >
>