Arturus Magi wrote: > > On the the original topic of conversation, I would recommend listing > the primary artist of the album itself as the composer (or composer + > lyricist, as appropriate) and the tracks as appropriate of any other > album of it's genre (which would generally be the performer). > Yes, I think this is the best compromise. Compare, for example, these listings of Soundtracks for "The Wizard of Oz" a) http://musicbrainz.org/release/c1c29c22-ec66-4b47-b96c-6a9a3b79c457.html Harold Arlen (chief composer) listed as ReleaseArtist; MGM Orchestra listed as artist for instrumental/orchestral tracks; performers (e.g. Judy Garland, Bert Lahr) listed as TrackArtists for the songs. (I could live without the artist known as "The Munchkins", but you can't have everything). All this info is apparently readily available on the record sleeve. b) http://musicbrainz.org/release/8b21a3c3-7991-4f36-abf5-2596751a3ef9.html Harold Arlen listed as ReleaseArtist and TrackArtist for all but the overture; no ARs supplied for any performances. Without my hastily-cribbed annotation, (which is evidently based on the record sleeve) no one would know who did the performances on this release, and might think it was a completely instrumental score.
Example (a) seems to be a much more pleasing way of doing things. It doesn't result in perfection, but it's a compromise that won't lead to angry arguments. As I've said many times in the past, record companies provide info on the sleeves of their products because that's what people generally want. Composition credits get reduced to the small print on most releases (performance is everything), so it seems absurd to me that MBz sometimes goes against the grain in this regard. Arbitrarily listing artists and titles on MBz that are different to what people have in their hands at home is contrary to any dream of MBz being popular with the general music fan. Equally, would any mainstream licensee want data that doesn't match what's on the shelves of record stores? Arturus Magi wrote: > > As for STS, I would recommend eliminating most of it entirely. The > 're-title soundtracks' junk makes for a mess in quite a few places. > I hope the SoundtrackTitleStyle guideline will be rectified very soon. There are debatable grounds for removing certain ExtraTitleInformation on mainstream pop albums that have multiple format releases, but soundtracks can have so many different versions that it seems ludicrous to not allow any title differentiation. If we can agree on whether details like "The Score" or "Original Cast Recording" should be placed in parentheses or after a colon, that would be a nice start. (Someone in the thread above mentioned "Armageddon". I proposed to re-add the subtitle at http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7544754. Discussion is welcome there.) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Hills-are-Alive-with...-%28The-Great-Soundtrack-Debate%29-tf4479014s2885.html#a12790898 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
