Jan van Thiel wrote:
On 7/5/06, Stefan Kestenholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
Please no renaming! Collaborations are listed as Group at the moment,
they're not bands.
Agreed. As are orchestras, ensembles you named, choirs and whatnot.
I think this discussion has proven that we cannot only add Project,
Band, perhaps Ensemble.
We now have the distinction between 1 person (Person) and more than 1
person (Group).
Using Project, Collaboration, Band, Ensemble, ..., is a different way
to describe how people can work together on making music. This is a
new approach to the Artist Type. We can go there, but we need to make
sure we cover all cases before implementing this.
I don't think project is just part of such a new approach. The new way you
describe splits the current types up into more detailed descriptions. But by
this you imply that project is just another more detailed description of
something which is already covered by the current model. I don't think it is.
In my eyes project fills a gap in the current approach.
Simon (Shepard)
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
