[mb-style] RFC-327: Featured Artists

symphonick symphonick at gmail.com
Mon Jul 25 11:51:40 UTC 2011

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:24:50 +0200, Ryan Torchia <anarchyriot at gmail.com>  

>> 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.
Absolutely, that's what I meant; can we live with just performers  
displayed & the occasional disambiguation comment? I think we can. (I  
assume it will be better to standardize track names for recordings instead  
of somehow using work names like we discussed previously. But I'd suggest  
that anyway.)

> 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.

IMO performers makes more sense for recordings anyway. Using composers  
like we do now, renders the recording list on work pages unusable.  
(hundreds of identical titles "by [composer])


More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list