2010/10/5 Jeroen Latour <t...@jeroen.la> > On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard <per...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour <t...@jeroen.la> wrote: >> >> > A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to >> credit >> > songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I >> > was >> > wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many >> > cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Two >> > people >> > might be credited as writers, with one writing the music and the other >> > the >> > lyrics. The same problem occurs with interpreting 'Writer' credits on >> > liner >> > notes. >> >> +1 >> >> You should probably add some examples to clarify though. I would also >> point out that composer/lyricist should always be used when it can be >> clearly inferred, as in the case of an instrumental track (clearly just >> composer), or singer-songwriter with just one writer (clearly composer and >> lyricist). >> > > I have updated the proposal to include the feedback from Per and > SwissChris. It now has an expanded style section, with a clear list of cases > in which the Writer type should not be used, and an example of proper usage. > I don't see any way to provide negative examples within the relationship > template. If anyone feels specific negative examples are necessary, I would > appreciate suggestions for how that should be incorporated into the page. > > The way I envision it, the existing composer and lyricist relationship > types stay as they are. However, they should be moved to have 'Writer' as a > parent, to make it clear that Writer is a generic form of the two. > > Personally, I don't think it's wise to convert the two into tickable > modifiers, as jacobbrett proposed. With tickable modifiers, it is no longer > possible to express that an artist wrote the music, and 'additionally' wrote > the lyrics. jacobbret, please let me know if I misunderstood your > suggestion. > > The updated proposal is available at: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type > Nikki, the 3rd of October has passed, but I think this needs a little more > time for people to review. Barring any major objections, I would propose: > October 8. > > Regards, > Jeroen >
Quite unimportant, but I'd write "This relationship is used to link an entity <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Entity> to the artist<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artist>who wrote it" instead of "This relationship is used to link an entity <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Entity> to the artist<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artist>who wrote the song" since the AR may apply to a Release. Also, I don't think this would apply to any entity, only to - pre-NGS: Release, Release Group, Track - post-NGS: Recording, Release, Release Group, Track, Work -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
