On 8 October 2010 10:57, Jeroen Latour <t...@jeroen.la> wrote: > Thanks Brian, I changed both lines. > SwissChris, do you agree with Paul's comments about erring on the side of a > more general AR? Would you still like to propose a different example? > Are there any objections to moving this to RFV?
None from me. I'd really like to see this go through. There are a lot of releases where the credit isn't specific, and I've had to abuse 'composed by' to represent these ARs in the past. With this, they'll be able to more closely match the release. Discogs already had this AR, so this is something that can then be mapped across. We also already have a very similar grouping to this in the performance/vocal performance/instrument performance set. While we can reword the guideline ad nauseum, there will be bad edits regardless. Already, there are still releases being created with bad use of capitalisation, featured artists, etc. This is generally done by new users who don't read lists like this or the guidelines. It's not ideal, but I don't see a way of avoiding it. The best thing to do about is to keep an eye on releases and set people right when they go wrong. > Regards, > Jeroen > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Brian Schweitzer > <brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I wonder about "It is well-known whether the artist was responsible for >> the lyrics and/or the music." Most ARs aren't 'well-known'. I'd suggest >> dropping "well-"; it's confusing, and I think unneeded - the only >> requirement ought to be that the info is known at all, not how well known it >> is. >> Also, I question the need for "In case of writing collaborations (e.g. >> 'Lennon/McCartney'), the track must be linked to each writer separately, not >> to the collaboration artist." This is true of ARs anyhow, and those >> workaround collab artists such as you're describing will be going away with >> NGS anyhow, so this text will become out of date. I'd suggest simply >> removing that sentence; you don't gain anything from it. >> Brian >> >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Jeroen Latour <t...@jeroen.la> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list >>> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org >>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MusicBrainz-style mailing list >> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- Andrew :-) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
