[mb-style] FeaturingArtistStyle clarification (was: Re: RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle)

[Andrew Conkling]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Andrew Conkling
> <andrew.conkling at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Brian Schweitzer
> > <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Andrew Conkling
> > >
> > > <andrew.conkling at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Brian Schweitzer
> > > > <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you lauri; this is exactly what I was saying.  I long ago
> > > > > dropped the "merge smaller to bigger" concept.  This RFC simply is
> > > > > intended to prevent the reverse philosophy of "merge all bigger
> into
> > > > > smaller".  I too don't quite like clutter, but I much prefer
> accurate
> > > > > with clutter over inaccurate without clutter - and the only way to
> > > > > have that type of accuracy is to allow both to exist separately.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you've ever applied FeaturingArtistStyle in classical releases,
> you
> > know
> > > > MBz has a precedent with regards to accuracy and clutter. ;)
> > >
> > > You mean the use of it on track titles, where it was clarified in CSGD
> > > to not be desirable as we have ARs, and where the
> > > post-SG5DisasterRelief notes also concur with that 'use ARs instead'
> > > concept?  ;)
> > >
> >
> > No, I (always) mean the (current revision of the) official docs.
> >
> > According to FeaturingArtistStyle:
> > "add AdvancedRelationships of the PerformanceRelationshipClass to link
> to
> > the secondary artists, and append the name of the secondary artists to
> the
> > TrackTitle/ReleaseTitle".
> >
> > What official doc says to use ARs instead?
>
> Same doc:
> The part you cite is for "If one artist can be considered the primary
> artist,".  Under details:
>
> "Do not add any secondary artist to the track title. Secondary artists
> can be additional voice performers or instrumentalists. Those are
> often mentioned on the cover of the release the track appears on."
>
> "Note, that composers are often the main artists of classical releases
> (see ClassicalStyleGuide)"
>
> (the details section seemingly uses "main artist", "release artist",
> and "primary artist" interchangably.)
>
> It follows then that, if the composer is the primary artist,
> irregardless of any "feat" for a performer on a classical liner (as
> they then are still "secondary artists"), that even without the
> clarification on just this in CSGD, the "feat" style isn't intended to
> be used for any performer on classical track -->  If the composer is
> always the "primary" artist for the track, and the guideline under
> details describes any other performer than the track-credited one as
> "secondary", and the guideline says "secondary" artists ought to not
> be included using "feat" in the track title, then QED, all track
> performers for classical tracks always ought to be in ARs, and never
> in the track title itself.
>

Wait, I'm really confused now, haha.

"If one artist can be considered the primary artist, file the track/release
under the primary artist, add AdvancedRelationships of the
PerformanceRelationshipClass to link to the secondary artists, and append
the name of the secondary artists to the TrackTitle/ReleaseTitle."

and then...

"Do not add any secondary artist to the track title."

What's the difference there?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080324/11db3e0f/attachment.htm