Without a definition what are you ordering. Also, this isn't a question of general use but one of style since it impacts FeaturedArtist and a number of other sytle related issues.
Cristov (wolfsong) --- "Chris Bransden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: "Chris Bransden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:52:25 +0000 To: "General discussions about MusicBrainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [mb-users] Re: [mb-style] What does primary artist really mean? ah but that's exactly my point - you can't define it. the music industry doesn't define it, and as an index of the music industries product, we can't define it either. all we can is represent it in an ordered manner. On 28/02/06, Cristov Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your entire comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I said and it > we're talking about what constitutes a primary versus secondary performer, > level of contribution does matter. If doesn't then the word choice is > entirely inappropriate. For something to be primary it has to be greater then > something else. So what that something is should be defined be contribution, > popularity, sequencing or whatever. > > Cristov (wolfsong) > _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
