|
If you change group to band, then you need
to look at adding artist type collaboration, or am I incorrect in this
conclusion? I do like the thought of record label,
producer and such, but I imagine that will gain a lot of argument, and perhaps it’s not knowing any personally, but again it would
have to transcend a single entry aka: Celldweller being
production/studio/project etc. I know there are many and while we could do many
entries to signify that, I don’t see that as being well embraced either. As
well it’s a huge impact on the schema. (is that
the right way to term that?) Maybe that should be a different discussion
altogether apart from project to cut down on tangents, which for the most part
hasn’t come into play in this style discussion. (save the beginning bit
of today/tonight.) Nyght aka Beth From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan Kestenholz in that case, maybe we should consider about introducing
"Project", and rename the "Group" type to "Band"
as well, to get rid of the ambiguous part of the "Group" type. Is
that a valid deduction? I think its fair to try classifying artist types into Projects and Bands(Groups),
because again this terminology widely in use outside MusicBrainz. Even more, if
we are going to create more AdvancedEntities like Labels, Distributors and
whatnot, we need to have means to specify artist types in a more sophisticated
way than we can today (and there haven't been lots of substantiated arguments
which could make my change my mind to think otherwise until now, imho). |
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
