[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosarevok at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 08:11:01 UTC 2011


On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Ryan Torchia <anarchyriot at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, SwissChris <swisschris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't disagree on the fact that "feat." has a specific meaning
>> different from other link phrases. A said before I wouldn't thus oppose
>> keeping it as link phrase between artists even on recording level.
>> But fact is:
>> 1. We agreed on adding (featured) artists on tracks (instead of artists)
>> only because of the pre-NGS technical limitations. Now that these
>> limitations are finally gone, we should get rid of this (wrong) guideline
>> asap.
>
> I wasn't around when these discussions were taking place, so I can't deny
> that.  But in looking at the mothballed Feature Artist Style page and
> thumbing through its history, it doesn't look like there was any kind of
> universal consensus that the style guideline was purely a technical
> limitation.  The intro paragraph sums up a non-technical reason perfectly:
> "This guideline applies to cases in which one or more artists are featured
> on a track or release by another artist, but not equally as they would be in
> a collaboration. That is, they are given credit on the cover or track
> listing of a release by another artist in a manner which elevates their
> contribution above normal liner note credits."
> That still a common scenario, and the position that the featured artist
> might not deserve equal credit is absolutely correct in many cases.

One would think that if they thought they didn't deserve any special
credit, they wouldn't have put them into the feat. slot though, just
in the liner credits. "Whoever presents Whoever2" is quite less
"equal" and still gets an artist credit if I'm not mistaken.

> technical limitations might have resulted in this guideline being overused
> and misapplied, but we shouldn't be doing a complete 180 -- there are
> definitely plenty of cases where the guest should not be listed as a primary
> artist.  If leaving them attached to the track title is unexceptable
> (...though I'm not sure why it would be for us if it was fine on the
> original release...) it'd be better and far more accurate just to give the
> featured artist a performance AR than to elevate them to the same level as
> the primary artist.
>
>> 2. Many (if not most) of the so called "feat." artists we now have in MB
>> are actually not "featured" artists in reality, since the guideline asked to
>> always use "feat." whatever the actual link phrase on a release may be. It's
>> wrong or at least inaccurate information that we shouldn't wait any longer
>> to correct.
>
> Then fix those cases.
>
> --Torc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list