On 14-Apr-08, at 3:25 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> On 13-Apr-08, at 6:57 PM, Paul C. Bryan wrote: >>> On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 16:28 -0400, Aaron Cooper wrote: >>>> It doesn't make much sense to me to put a Lyrics AR on a track >>>> without >>>> lyrics/vocals. >>> >>> Would you leave them off altogether, or credit them as composers? If >>> not >>> credit as composers, then I think I should reconcile two issues: >>> >>> 1. They affected the composition by (at least) affecting note >>> durations. >>> Does this make them some kind of co-composer of the work? >>> >>> 2. They're credited on the instrumental performance, and I should >>> justify omitting them from MB AR credits. >> >> I don't think a composition AR would be appropriate either. For now, >> I think we should live with leaving the lyricist AR off until we have >> works, etc. I'm not exactly sure how it will work... probably >> different recorded versions of works (instrumentals, demos, live >> recordings, acoustic recordings, etc.) > > I agree - including lyricist ARs on works without lyrics doesn't make > a lot of sense. As for works and lyrics, I don't know if we really > need to split live/accoustic/etc, where the work itself isn't altered; > that would seem a step down, at the (nowhere near implementation) > "session" level, as it describes some particular performance version > of a work, not something intrinsic to the work itself. > > Otherwise, we'll end up with separated works again when, say, someone > takes that work for piano and performs a flute trio version. ...Or > maybe we want that? (Or maybe it indicates a need for yet one further > level between "work" and "session"?)
I meant many different recorded versions of one work. -Aaron _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
