[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

Andii Hughes gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Sun Jul 24 13:16:43 UTC 2011

On 23 July 2011 11:06, Ryan Torchia <anarchyriot at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Nikki <aeizyx at gmail.com> wrote:
>> jacobbrett wrote:
>> > 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
>> Semantics is what relationships are for... Artist credits don't even
>> tell you who did what.
>> Nikki
> When thinking about the issue with where to put "featured" artists on
> recordings and tracks, I thought of something that might be ridiculously
> stupid: Maybe recordings shouldn't have artists at all?  Or to put it less
> radically: what if what we currently label as artist in Releases and
> Recordings was converted a Performance AR for Recordings, with "primary" as
> one of the options?  We'd basically enter it the same way we currently do,
> only it'd automatically be converted into a primary credit (as would current
> recordings). If you think about the three structures we currently have:
> Works don't have an artist because all the involved parties are broken down
> into objective, descriptive roles via ARs.  Releases cram all the absolute
> essential information into Artists and Titles (and maybe Release Title),
> because every mp3 player expects it, and because most releases are
> structured that way.  Recordings really don't need to contain an Artist
> field; they can focus on descriptive roles, which can be used to dynamically
> create Artist fields based on user preference.  This might also solve some
> of the Classical issues, if users were allowed to choose whether the Artist
> field was populated from the primary performer on the Recording or the
> composer of the Work, or some combination.  (Obviously there's still a lot
> to figure out here, but I'm just brainstorming.)
> --Torc.
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

I'm against the idea, especially with the prospect of track artist
credits becoming 'as on cover' rather than being standardised.
If you don't want the current artist credits, you're already welcome
to ignore them and use ARs.  For me, ARs are a different
level of detail and artist credits should be kept.
Andii :-)

More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list