[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists (attempt 2)

Ryan Torchia anarchyriot at gmail.com
Thu Jul 21 09:31:41 UTC 2011


On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Andii Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>wrote:

> Attempt 2.  The proposal:
>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
>
> updates the
> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording_and_release_group_titles/Featured_artists
> guideline for recordings and release groups.
>
> Instead of the old form for featured artists:
>
> "X (feat. Y)" by Z
>
> a new form is used which makes use of artist credits:
>
> "X" by Z feat. Y
>
> where Z and Y are artists in the DB and ' feat. ' is the join term.
>

This just doesn't seem like an improvement.  The problem is that "(feat. Y)"
is basically a comment, but is neither part of the track title nor part of
the artist name.  It doesn't fit comfortably in either location.  But "Track
(feat. Y)" still seems far more accurate than "Artist feat. Y" to me, for
two main reasons.

First: It's the *track* features the guest, not the artist.  Putting "(feat.
Y)" with the track localizes its scope appropriately.  An artist credit like
"Z feat. Y" is ambiguous: Y could be the primary member of Z, or they could
be a guest for a track -- basically opposite ends of the spectrum.  On the
other hand, nobody's going to mistake "(feat. Y)" for part of the song
title.  It might not look pretty, but it's effective and clear.

Second: it's (generally) a more accurately representation of the
relationship between the primary artist and guest.  These usually aren't
collaborations and shouldn't be treated as such.

--Torc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20110721/f93314ce/attachment.htm 


More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list