[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Andii Hughes gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Mon Jul 18 23:23:38 UTC 2011

2011/7/18 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Andii Hughes


>> Ok, let's take a step back then.  If the current guideline only
>> applies to recordings,
>> should I alter this proposal to also just concern recordings and release groups
>> (i.e. the bit about moving the feat. part to the artist credit)?
> I think that would avoid any vetoes and allow us to go forward. We can
> argue about tracks in another proposal :)

Done; see the revised version at

> Of course, some of the
> questions still apply: is "con", that translates as "with" but is
> sometimes used as "feat.", to be changed to "with"? to "feat."? :)

I don't really feel qualified to judge on these (the only ones I've
ever seen are 'with' and 'feat.')
and the previous guideline didn't cover them either.

I'd say we need a separate guideline that maps them to either 'feat.'
or ' & ' (collaboration)
at recording level.  For the featured artist proposal, the join terms
are mandated as
'feat.' then ', ' and ' & ' for multiple featured artists.

FWIW, 'with' sounds more like ' & ' than 'feat.' to me.

Andii :-)

More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list