2010/10/6 Jeroen Latour <t...@jeroen.la> > Hi Frederic, > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria > <davito...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> 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 >> >> >> > Currently it's only Release and Track, to match the approach taken with > composer and lyricist. I could add Release Group, but then we should > probably also add it to composer/lyricist. > > Post-NGS, shouldn't this become a works-only AR? > By the way, if the passing of this RFC depends on a change of UI, I doubt > it's going to be introduced pre-NGS anyway. >
You are right, post-NGS it definitely will not be Track-Artist. But an "additional" AR for a recording, maybe. It depends on where we draw the line between works. If an artist adds a few verses in his cover of a song, will this be a separate Work? If the answer is yes, no problem, but if not, shouldn't he be credited in MB? Then we would need to enable this AR for Recordings too. -- 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
