[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Andii Hughes gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Fri Jul 15 15:14:50 UTC 2011

On 15 July 2011 09:33, MeinDummy <MeinDummy at nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
> I still agree with Aurélien and Chris to veto this proposal. My main reasons
> are:
> - It's incomplete. It changes the way recordings are handled but it should
> change tracklists in a similar way, too (without normalization).

That's explicitly part of the proposal and there are reasons for it.

> - A significant number of tracklists is already changed. This includes many
> releases where apparently the artist credits in the tracklist were correctly
> created by the NGS conversion script, e.g.
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/58bad121-bfab-4dda-89f8-4b1bc092de44

Those aren't feat. artists...

We are talking about "title (feat. Y)" by X only.

> - If I didn't overlook something in the release editor then entering new
> data according to the proposal is more difficult. If multiple artist are
> used in the tracklist they will be correctly linked to the recordings.
> Otherwise,  the recordings wil initially be single-artist and they would
> have to be edited after the release was added (which will probably not be
> done by many editors resulting in a lot of pre-NGS quality data).

Yes, that is an issue with creating recordings (which shouldn't always be
done) and is not restricted to just this guideline.  Many recordings need
to be merged anyway, and if people want different rules generally for
track lists and recordings, then most recordings will need to be altered
post addition regardless of their use of feat.

I'm not in favour of having track lists as something separate, but clearly
some people want it and it's what we have.  The two have different rules,
outside of this guideline.

> The only good reason not to veto it is that multiple artist credits are
> harmful to the ws/1 compatibility service.
> So again: Is there any chance to fix it?
> E.g. by letting ws/1 automatically merge all credited artists into one
> collaboration artist.
> Or (probably better) by using only the first credited artist as the track
> artist and automatically appending all others to the track title using the
> join phrases.

What do you gain by vetoing it?  The current guideline is to keep feat.
in the title in all cases.  This at least goes halfway to what you seem
to want...

See my earlier e-mail about ws/1.

I would support the server being altered to automatically move feat.
credits to the title and not have it in the guideline, but this isn't
what it does at present.

> Christian (MD)
> --
> View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-327-Featured-Artists-tp3662499p3669390.html
> Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Andii :-)

More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list