[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists
anarchyriot at gmail.com
Mon Jul 25 09:24:50 UTC 2011
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:19 AM, symphonick <symphonick at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 03:45:16 +0200, Ryan Torchia <anarchyriot at gmail.com>
> > Obviously there'd be some clean-up to do, but that's true no matter what
> > we
> > decide. I don't think Classical composers would be that difficult
> > (especially if we can do batch editing) -- search for anybody who died
> > prior
> > to, say, 1940, and don't create performer credits for them. Or looks for
> > recordings that already have conductor or instrumental performer ARs that
> > don't include the Artist. Or release/track titles that include keywords
> > like "conductor", "Orchestra", "Quartet", "feat.:", ", *instrument*",
> > etc.
> > surrounded by parentheses and don't create the AR for them. The
> > difficult
> > part in all this is how to get the Composer credit into the Artist field
> > rather than the performer for only a subset of works (i.e. Classical). I
> > haven't thought of an easy way to do that.
> I'm not sure that's what we want? If we can't see the performers for a
> recording we have to put them in the comment field for disambiguation.
> Maybe a "show composer" ticbox, either for every recording or in the UI
> preferences (similar to the "classical UI-mode" that has been suggested
> Or maybe we could live without composer @ recording level?
I think we'd the primary performer(s) by default when displaying recordings?
We're going to have to give users *something* besides recording title.
There isn't much difference between the primary performer AR and the current
artist field on recordings, really. We'd basically be taking what's
currently labeled as the recording artist and designating it a primary
performer; that would allow users to choose whether they wanted to include
the primary performer, the composer, the featured guest, the remixer,
and/or...hey, why the complete list of performers (if somebody's crazy
enough to do that) in the artist field for their files. We'd have a default
for what goes in the artist field, but we wouldn't be limited to that
default, or be required to invoke regex search-and-replace voodoo to move
the fields where they want them.
I would think Composer/Writer/etc. would only be Works level ARs, and if
they were needed or desired in a recording level view, we could just grab
the information we needed from the associated works level. The only piece
that still seems unclear to me is how to allow the user to toggle between
using the primary performer or composer in artist fields. I'd hate to
reduce that to a checkbox, and shudder to think we'd be segregating
"Classical" works like that), but that may be what it comes to. (If so, I
have some ideas for more objective terminology we could use in that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MusicBrainz-style