[mb-style] Guest performances again

[mud crow]

I only use guest if the artist is credited as guest. I dislike assumed
credits. Stick to what the credits are printed on the release.
Once you start assumptions you get away from facts and start getting bogus
credits.

I see far too many additional guest vocal credits for what is credited on
the release as simply vocals.
Mud


On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Bram van Dijk <bram_van_dijk at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Well, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PerformerRelationshipType says
> literally that
>
> *"additional" and "guest"*
>
> There is no guideline yet that specifies what /exactly/ these two are for.
>
> These seem to overlap a little. I suppose that "*additional*" should
> designate performers who did not play a main role in the performance.
> While "*guest*" designates performers who are not usual members of the
> group that performed, say, the whole release, but only appear on one
> track.
>
> So, personally, I only add them if the liners explicitly say "guest" or
> "additional".
>
> Bram / jongetje
>
> Philip Jägenstedt schreef:
> > Very well, if nobody really cares either way then I will edit the way
> > that looks "pretty" to me.
> >
> > Philip
> >
> > On 3/3/08, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philip at foolip.org>
> wrote:
> >>  > If I understand the both of you correctly, we have a situation where
> >>  >  different editors are interpreting this differently.
> >>  >
> >>  >  I'm not sure if it's true or not, but let's assume that Madonna
> >>  >  doesn't have a standard group of musicians which record all her
> albums
> >>  >  and that different drummer are used on different albums. Chris
> would
> >>  >  use "performed guest drums" AR:s while Lauri would use "performed
> >>  >  drums" on Madonna's albums. Correct?
> >>  >
> >>  >  To me, "guest drums" in such a situation is about as sensible as
> >>  >  "guest composed". I think "guest" should imply at least some level
> of
> >>  >  special status, even if not necessarily noted as "guest" in the
> >>  >  liners. If the artist is somehow noted on the cover (duet with
> Artist
> >>  >  Foo) then that would probably be "guest" (and a feat. in most
> cases).
> >>  >  I don't know if I'm making any sense, does anybody else see a
> problem
> >>  >  here?
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't really think this one's a big problem.   I don't think most of
> >>  us really care if the 'guest' or not is used, nor if the attribute
> >>  disappeared entirely or was retroactively automatically applied to
> >>  every AR that doesn't have it.
> >>
> >>  Sometimes it's unclear what we'll need when a new feature is
> >>  implemented, and things we think will be vital turn out to not be,
> >>  after a few thousand edits are done.  I suspect this is one of them.
> >>  In hindsight, I don't know why we didn't make 'featured' one of the
> >>  attributes.  Picard is certainly smart enough now to pick that up (it
> >>  already does from the track titles, with the appropriate plugin.)
> >>
> >>  I've never seen anyone arguing about the guest attribute though (and
> >>  we certainly like to argue about things around here.)
> >>
> >>
> >>  --
> >>
> >> Lauri Watts
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> >>  Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> >>  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> > Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080303/63d377a0/attachment.htm