[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists
Paul C. Bryan
pbryan at anode.ca
Tue Jul 19 16:31:16 UTC 2011
I'm wondering about this text:
> If a track features both "Foo" and "Bar", it should be entered as "...
> (feat. Foo & Bar)". For more than two: "... (feat. Foo, Bar, Baz ... &
If we're strictly focusing on recordings for this RFC, shouldn't this
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 00:23 +0100, Andii Hughes wrote:
> 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 :-)
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MusicBrainz-style