[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists
Paul C. Bryan
pbryan at anode.ca
Mon Jul 18 16:14:33 UTC 2011
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 11:19 +0200, SwissChris 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") ?
I have a preference for B.
> 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 "&")
I would strongly argue in favour of B.
> 3. Do we want/need a delay on application of (part of) these ideal
> rules, once agreed upon, because of the ws/1 issue?
I don't want to, but I understand that this could impact ws/1. I guess
I'd ask how quickly a relatively straightforward change to the ws/1
could be made?
> 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"
I would prefer we keep " feat. " as the link phrase as it's a very
commonly used abbreviation.
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MusicBrainz-style