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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2007/9/4, Philip Jägenstedt <philip at foolip.org>:
>
> 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.


Yes, you are right, I suppose my dispàlay trick could be applied to merge
"cover" and "earlier release".



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?


This is how I would see it, but this is only my opinion.


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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>



-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20070904/ac6fd8c1/attachment.htm