[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists
gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Sat Jul 16 01:59:49 UTC 2011
On 16 July 2011 02:04, SwissChris <swisschris at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Andii Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>
>> I don't see this; there are plenty of 'vs.' and '&' connected artists
>> instead of 'feat' and these have mostly been converted to artist
> Obviously we're not editing the same kind of music.
Well, no. That's a good thing; if everyone was editing the same kind,
the rest would get ignored.
> I know of hundreds and
> thousands of tracks where the link phrase should be "und", "avec", "con",
> "Duett mit", "en duo avec" etc. (as said I mostly don't edit in english).
> All these now have this ugly, wrong and redundant ("feat." artists) attached
> to the title – and your proposal asks to keep these for another year even
> after having added all the information to artist credits?
For track listings, they should stay with the current guideline (feat.
in title) as now.
For recordings, I propose a standardised artist credit which uses
'feat.'. Using another
term there makes it more difficult to automatically handle these cases
>> I don't see how this 'double[s] the work of the editors'. You still
>> have to change
>> existing track and recording titles separately, and even if we change
>> the track guidelines,
>> it sounds like they will be different from the strict recording
>> structure as people want them
>> closer to the cover.
> Well after adding the correct AC with the link phrase "as on the cover" -
> and eventually a normalized link phrase for recording, based on the wording
> of the guideline I should also add the "feat." part to the track title (or
> not be allowed to remove it) – and then come back in a year, to remove it
> again: That's what I call unnecessarily doubling my work ;-)
Why would you add the track listing wrong and then fix it? That makes no sense.
I see two steps:
1. Addition as 'Title (feat. Y)' by X
2. Alter recording to move feat. to artist credit
Step 2 may be unnecessary in many cases if the recording already exists.
The current guideline is:
1. Add as 'Title (feat. Y)' by X
I don't know where you get 'add the link phrase as on the cover' as
disallowed by either guideline. It could be incorporated into a
future track listing
guideline, but that would still need two stages as the recording should be
>> > 4. The current guideline is a pre-NGS guideline, which - like so many
>> > others
>> > - has obviously not really been updated. What editors do in such cases
>> > is to
>> > ignore the parts that no longer apply because we now have a better way
>> > to
>> > deal with a specific problem. They have done so in the past and will
>> > hopefully do so again, until there's an agreement on a new guideline. If
>> > your proposal passes, it would be a post-NGS guideline much harder to
>> > ignore
>> > ;-)
>> You shouldn't be ignoring it. I'll vote down or revert any such edit
>> I see and others should too.
> I could think of more productive ways to use your time seen the problems
> with the UI and other unresolved issues with the (premature?) implementation
> of NGS ;-)
I don't follow; what am I meant to do about these? I've filed bugs
for the issues I've seen.
And no, I don't want to spend time doing that but then what's the
point in guidelines if people don't follow them where possible?
I really don't think ignoring the guidelines and doing whatever you
want is appropriate, especially as I see you're an autoeditor.
>> Andii :-)
>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
More information about the MusicBrainz-style