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

Andii Hughes gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Thu Jul 21 15:00:37 UTC 2011


On 21 July 2011 10:31, Ryan Torchia <anarchyriot at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I disagree.  It's not a comment, it's an attribution of work to that artist
which has been thought worthy of coverage on a release cover and so
should be part of the artist attribution.

> 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.
>

Well, yes, this is one of the points I made in favour of keeping it.  Also
you can differentiate (feat. Z) (A remix) and (A remix) (feat. Z) as
to whether the artist just featured on the remix or on the track as a whole.

The gain is that the featured artist then has those recordings listed in
their discography online [1], while the credit is in a normalised
state such that
you can move it back to the title if you so wish (I intend to).

1. Look at http://musicbrainz.org/artist/85d7a345-8f7b-4794-a8c6-0a83f3a4985c
which
uses the same idea but in track lists so that L is listed as appearing
on the Clubbers
Guide compilation despite being a featured artist on track 1, not the
primary artist.

> 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.
>

I don't see how we're inferring it's a collab. given we're using a
different term.

> --Torc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 
Andii :-)



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list