On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
IMO sg5 was a problem because you HAD to make everything an "X (feat.
Y)", regardless of how it was actually billed. This is obviously crap,
but it seems now we're going the opposite way and making everything a
collaboration!
what i want to know is: are you saying that we should:
a) reflect reality (ie, we decide what's a colloboration and what
isn't, not the sleeves)
b) reflect what a song is billed as on its first releasei
c) not use feat. x at all
i say: d) use what's on the sleeve as it's (normally) contextually
appropriate
I say a) Go by known fact.
Otherwise in this particular instance and many others, the only
release that would be under the collaboration artist would be the single.
This makes SG5DR completely pointless and we're back to the mess
of .feat, one way on the release by one artist and the opposite way for
when the same work is released by the other equally billed artist. When in
actual fact they are exactly the same work and should be titled and
credited identically. Oh! and don't forget the thousands of Performed AR's
SG5DR came about from the need to normalise the data a little better, are
people now saying that we should go back to the old .feat mechanism?
Steve (inhouseuk)
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
