[mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

[Aaron Cooper]

On 5-Mar-08, at 5:07 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On 5-Mar-08, at 4:35 PM, David K. Gasaway wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thus, actually, why I'd opposed the implementation of the parody AR
>>>> as
>>>> an attribute to the cover AR.  The cover AR is distinctly a "song
>>>> instance"-"work listing" AR, linking from one artist's recording  
>>>> back
>>>> to another artist's work listing.
>>>
>>> I didn't get a clear picture of how you would enter a cover.  Would
>>> the covering artist have an entry in the works list for the cover
>>> will an AR to the composition?  If not, I don't think it's fair to
>>> say that a cover is necessarily a cover of a composition.  It could
>>> be a cover of a specific performance (i.e., specific variation in
>>> lyrics, instrumentation, rhythm, or whatever else you could  
>>> imagine).
>>
>> The picture I see is both artists having a work in their worklists
>> with one linked to the other with a Cover AR.  The original
>> composition will also have Composition/Lyrics/Arranged/etc ARs but  
>> not
>> the cover version.
>
> I guess it depends on how we define "work".  Is a "work" a unique
> composition?  If so, then there ought to not be, imho, a listing also
> in the covering artist's workslist.  Or is a "work" simply an
> indication that an artist has played a song?  Then it would appear in
> that covering artist's workslist.
>
> Personally, I think the first is the cleaner - and better - solution.

Now that you mention it, I agree.  Things would get very ugly very  
quickly if we listed covers under both artists.

-Aaron