[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

jacobbrett jacobbrett at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 23 06:33:06 UTC 2011


Andii Hughes wrote:
> 
> 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 :-)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> 
Well, I'm not simply talking about the server, but any service which pulls
data via /ws/2. I think it may be useful for non-collab artist credits (that
is, one artist contributed more to the recording) so that the "lesser"
artist can be semantically recorded better (consider cases where "feat." may
not be used as the joining phrase -- different languages or different
expressions with different meaning to feat.?).

--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-327-Featured-Artists-tp3662499p3688472.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list