On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <phi...@foolip.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 06:43, Brian Schweitzer > <brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 1) In NGS, a Work is 'filed' under an Artist, just as Releases, Tracks, >> Release Groups are now. > > Since this has nothing to do with spurious works, I'm spinning off a new > thread. > > In the last NGS beta works were not implemented, so I assume it's not > a done deal how they are going to be handled. If we have the > opportunity to design it as we want, I would suggest: > > Let works not be filed under an artist, but rather be associated only > by their ARs. Otherwise we will be wasting time trying to figure out > which artist to file it under and there's a risk that the composer ARs > is seen as "redundant" and not added, making the data less precise and > reliable. > > I initially thought that perhaps it's because we're using a relational > database and the indirection would be too slow (a join), but since we > are able to generate pages like > http://musicbrainz.org/show/artist/appears-on.html?artistid=35536 I > don't think that's the case. The other issue is UI, but I refer to the > URL of the previous sentence to show that it's not a problem. > > Thoughts?
Think of works outside of the classical genre, think of them as "songs". Songs usually do have an artist associated with them. For example, most Beatles songs were composed by Lennon/McCartney, but not all of them. Would you not find it useful to see a list of all Beatles works, including cover versions of other songs they made? You can argue that you can take the band member's ARs and show those works. It's not that uncommon that totally unrelated artist compose songs for performers (most pop songs), yet you would like to see the songs also under the performers. Lukas _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
