[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Andii Hughes gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Mon Jul 18 10:30:38 UTC 2011


On 18 July 2011 11:16, SwissChris <swisschris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but – with all due respect – thats bullshit. To put it more bluntly:
> Does "follow the cover mean": put everything in the track title that is
> there. Disregard comment field, annotations (because there's no comment
> field or such on the cover), don't put an artist credit for the main artist
> at track level, because the main artist is not credited at track level? Are
> you really serious????

No, how else do you follow the cover?  If you normalise, you are not
following the cover.
As far as I understand it, those who wanted track listings 'as on the
cover' specifically
didn't want normalisation to either of the feat. guidelines.
Personally, this is why I
would always use normalised recordings but some people do want things
as on the cover.

So,

1. If the cover says 'X (feat. Y)' by Z, then artist credit is Z,
title is 'X (feat. Y)'
2. If the cover says 'X' by Z feat. Y then artist credit is Z +
join-phrase ' feat. ' + Y and title is 'X'
3. If the cover says 'X (with new singing sensation Y)' by Z, then
artist credit is Z, title is 'X (with new singing sensation Y)'
4. If the cover says 'X' by Z with his best friend Y, then artist
credit is Z + join-phrase ' with his best friend ' + Y and title is
'X'.
and so on...

i.e. whatever is on the cover...

Of course, if you have an artist credited for the release and not at
track-level, then it flows down to track-level.  That's NOT
normalisation.
But changing 'X' by Z feat. Y into 'X (feat. Y)' by Z (or vice versa)
is changing what the cover says and specifically what some people have
objected to.
Of course, one rule should be applied at recording level but we are
talking about track level.

>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Andii Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 18 July 2011 11:07, SwissChris <swisschris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Andii Hughes
>> > <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 18 July 2011 10:33, SwissChris <swisschris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Andii Hughes
>> >> > <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 18 July 2011 10:19, SwissChris <swisschris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > There seem to be several unresolved questions here we should try
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > address
>> >> >> > separately:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1. How does "as on cover" (on track/release level) ideally
>> >> >> > translate
>> >> >> > into
>> >> >> > NGS structures?
>> >> >> > For an album by artist Foo with a track Quux featuring artist Bar:
>> >> >> > A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had
>> >> >> > pre-NGS)
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS
>> >> >> > multiple
>> >> >> > artist
>> >> >> > feature, with the link phrase exactly "as on cover") ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Either or neither may be as on the cover, because we don't know
>> >> >> what's
>> >> >> on the cover.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 2. How should the featured artists ideally be treated on the
>> >> >> > (normalized)
>> >> >> > recording level?
>> >> >> > Assuming there is consensus that "feat."-information should not be
>> >> >> > part
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > the title field at recording level:
>> >> >> > A) [Artist Credit] Foo & Bar (as by default)
>> >> >> > B) [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (assuming "feat." has a specific
>> >> >> > different
>> >> >> > meaning, not to be normalized to "&")
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The second is correct.  The first is a collaboration, not a featured
>> >> >> artist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 3. Do we want/need a delay on application of (part of) these ideal
>> >> >> > rules,
>> >> >> > once agreed upon, because of the ws/1 issue?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It seems I'm alone in wanting track list changes delayed, even
>> >> >> though
>> >> >> there
>> >> >> is still very little NGS support.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 4. Do any or all of the above rules apply only to the exact
>> >> >> > wording
>> >> >> > "feat."
>> >> >> > (or featuring, features) or would it also affect (how?) other link
>> >> >> > terms
>> >> >> > (in
>> >> >> > other languages) like "with", "en duo avec", "con"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We should normalise to feat. where appropriate at recording level.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The guideline should IMO reflect the "ideal" regulations, with a
>> >> >> > warning
>> >> >> > box
>> >> >> > for not yet to be used features because of ws/1 compatibility
>> >> >> > issues,
>> >> >> > which
>> >> >> > could be removed (without further debate) when it's no longer
>> >> >> > used.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That sounds sensible, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't be too
>> >> >> confusing.
>> >> >> I also have no idea what's wanted as track level; just 'follow the
>> >> >> cover'?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, this is exactly my first point:
>> >> > If the cover spells a track as "Quux (feat. Bar)" should "follow the
>> >> > cover"
>> >> > be:
>> >> > A) [track] Quux (feat. Bar) [Artist Credit] Foo (as we had pre-NGS)
>> >> > or
>> >> > B) [track] Quux [Artist Credit] Foo feat. Bar (using the NGS multiple
>> >> > artist
>> >> > feature, with the link phrase exactly "as on cover") ?
>> >>
>> >> As I said above, it depends what the cover says!
>> >>
>> >> It may say a, it may say b or it may say something else, C.
>> >
>> > That's not an answer!
>> > When cover says "Track (feat. Artist)" should this ("follow the cover")
>> > translate into
>> >  "Track (feat. artist)" (on track field) [by] "Main Artist" (on AC
>> > field)
>> > or (as I think is the only reasonable way) as
>> >   "Track" (on track field) [by] "Main Artist feat. featured artist" (on
>> > AC
>> > field).
>> > I don't think we're coming to anything productive without answering this
>> > question first!
>>
>> I have; if you're 'following the cover' you don't do any translation.
>> You put what's on the cover!
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Chris/chabreyflint
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> >> >> > MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>> >> >> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Andii :-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> >> >> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>> >> >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> >> > MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>> >> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andii :-)
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> >> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>> >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> > MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andii :-)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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