[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Andii Hughes gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Thu Jul 21 14:49:14 UTC 2011


On 21 July 2011 13:17, jacobbrett <jacobbrett at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ryan Torchia wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > Seems to me like this credit *should* appear in relationships for the
>>> guest
>>> > artist, because that's (usually) the most accurate description of how
>>> > involved they were with the track.
>>>
>>> It definitely should appear in relationships (probably “Additionally
>>> performed by”.  But I think it would be unfortunate for it not to appear
>>> on the featured artist's Releases and Overview pages.
>>>
>>
>> If we're being pushed into a binary choice of either elevating to the same
>> level as a primary artist or reducing to an AR (with a "featured"
>> checkbox),
>> I'd go with the latter most often.  I don't see it as a major travesty if
>> "feat" appearances aren't on the main page, especially since most are a
>> single track rather than a full release.  I'd much rather see all the
>> artists' guest appearances all together in the Relationships tab, and the
>> main page reserved for primary artist releases only.  It makes no sense to
>> me, for example, that Robert Fripp's main page would include his guest
>> spot
>> on Blondie's cover of "Heroes" but not the David Bowie original.
>>
>> If nothing else, we could have an option whether or not to display
>> "featured" guest appearance ARs in the main Overview and Release pages, or
>> to include them in Artists fields when tagging.  Something like that would
>> provide the most flexibility and the most accuracy.
>> --Torc.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>>
> Hmm, I think this is a decent point.
>
> I don't mean to set the discussion back, but perhaps an additional field for
> featured artists (and other, non-equal/non-collab. artist credits) could be
> introduced to the schema? I _do_ love semantics. :P
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-327-Featured-Artists-tp3662499p3683532.html
> Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

If I understand your point correctly, the normalised form of 'feat.'
suggested in the proposal could be used to
elide featured artists without any schema changes.  The server just
needs to stop reading artists when it encounters
the join term ' feat. '.
-- 
Andii :-)



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list