[mb-users] remix / feat.

[Chris Bransden]

On 13/10/06, mud crow <akamudcrow at msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >From: "Lauri Watts" <krazykiwi at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: General discussions about
> >MusicBrainz<musicbrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org>
> >To: "General discussions about
> >MusicBrainz"<musicbrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org>
> >Subject: Re: [mb-users] remix / feat.
> >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:10:24 +0200
> >
> >On 10/13/06, Blue Dream <altar5 at juno.com> wrote:
> >>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Steve Wyles wrote:
> >>
> >> > It makes more sense to use:
> >> >
> >> > Title (remix here) (feat. here)
> >> >
> >> > because the remix information is effecively part of the track title.
> >
> >Not necessarily, it depends if the remix is of "Track (feat someone)"
> >(ie, the original track has the feat) or "Track", where the additional
> >featuring artist is added as part of the remix.  The first case is
> >much more common, so the remix info would be last, in descending order
> >of precedence.
> >
> >In fact, I just saw basically this decision on a style guide page
> >while looking up another styleguide,  but I can't find it again now :)
> >
> >Regards,
> >--
> >Lauri Watts
> >
>
> Sorry but I disagree with this. (feat. artist) is something that Musicbrainz
> appends to track titles, it should not be placed between the track title and
> the remix info.

musicbrainz doesn't append the (feat. x) - that's just the format we
use for when "featuring XYZ" or whatever is written on a track title.

i agree with lauri here - makes sense to change the ordering depending
on the context of the feat. infact, i'd imagine this would simply be
reflecting the order on the actual tracklisting itself most of the
time.