[mb-users] Singer/songwriter covering their own songs?

[Philip Jägenstedt]

Hi again!

That's a very good point... However, the "is the earliest version of"
and "is a cover of" could then be merged as they are separated only by
whether or not the artists are the same.

What about when an a group releases a song and later a member of that
group (say, John Lennon) makes another version. He both wrote and
performed the original version, just not by himself. Using the
strictest possible interpretation of the cover AR, this is also a
cover AR. Can this really be what we want?

I guess what it comes down to is that the difference between a cover
and a version is verry blurry, so adding a new AR between the two will
certainly not help matters. Unsurprisingly, not everything fits nicely
in the MB scemas (or ANY schema).

I'm not so much wiser about how to actually edit though.

Philip

On 9/2/07, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/8/31, Philip Jägenstedt <philip at foolip.org>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm bringing this up again because I'm not very satisfied with the
> > current solution (just setting composition ARs).
> >
> > There is clearly a relationship between a song which was recorded both
> > by artist A and artist B. If anyone but artist B is the composer then
> > "cover" seems the appropriate AR. But for that case where artist B is
> > the composer, the cover AR feels wrong in every way. Would people
> > oppose using the "is a later version of" AR for these cases, which is
> > normally used for the same song by the same artist.  The phrasing of
> > the AR quite fits the purpose, but perhaps such use would be frowned
> > upon.
> >
> > I have taken the liberty to set "is a later release of" ARs for some
> > recordings of songs which were composed by artist B, recorded by
> > artist A+B, released by artist A and only later included on some
> > compilation album by artist B. Two such cases, again with 光良 as the
> > exampl):
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/14fca242-1476-4bbd-8613-911992f71941.html
> >
> > In some manner of thinking, if "is a later release of" AR can be set
> > between different artists in corner cases, then so could "is a later
> > version of". What do you all think?
> >
>
> I don't like this idea because I feel it means using an AR in another
> meaning than what it actually meant. We must distinguish technical (physical
> in a way) meaning from linguistically aesthetic considerations. I understand
> that "cover" sounds wrong, but technically, it is just that: a later
> recording by an artist different from the original performer. I feel it
> would to better to use the "cover" AR and use some presentation trick to
> display the AR with a different wording if the performer is the composer.
> Thus, the "cover" AR would keep it's "technical" meaning. Another way could
> be to create a new AR just for this case, but is it worth it?
>
> --
> Frederic Da Vitoria
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>