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

[Aaron Cooper]

On Jan 2, 2008 1:32 PM, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 5:12 PM, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2008/1/2, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > I'm not sure I'm counted in that or not :-)
> > Either way, I don't actually view any data I entered as suspect :] -
> > though double checking sure can't hurt.
> > Now, there are data I entered at release level *which* just should be
> > applied to all tracks (entered on release back in the time because it
> > was simpler), and there also are data that I entered at release level
> > that *must stay* there (producer and others).
> > You seem to imply my reserve was about data quality - it's not. It's
> > about your conclusion that any data at release level is "fuzzy".
>
>
> Again Olivier nails what I've been trying to say.   I think I'll just
> let him channel me for the rest of this.
>
> And I'd like to think my release level AR's are 100% truly
> release-wide, but since I managed to bust one just today, it would be
> foolish to claim so, and so I do not. Which is the point really; They
> oughtn't to be auto-propagated, rather it's one more chance for me to
> check over a whole lot of data.


I'm just going to chime in now after reading this discussion and say
that (I think) we're just shifting the problem.  Eventually we're
going to want to move these production/performance ARs from tracks to
"songs".  This whole AR situation frustrates me and I think we're
wasting a lot of time and energy on them and, in doing so, we're
creating more problems for ourselves in the future.

Are we sure we want to move these production/performance ARs to tracks
when they might be more appropriately associated to "recordings"?

-Aaron (cooperaa)