2011/6/6 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
> <gnu_and...@member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> On 6 June 2011 18:22, Paul C. Bryan <pbr...@anode.ca> wrote:
>>> Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late in the game—real life has been
>>> demanding much of my time lately.
>>>
>>> I would suggest the test could boil-down to whether a new artist work AR is
>>> required to distinguish one remix from another (if a particular remix
>>> contains new content, and has additional composer/lyricist/etc. credit). If
>>> so, then a separate (but related) work would seem to be in order. If not,
>>> then the original work would be used.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Pretty much what I think too. It has the benefit of being a very
>> straight-forward test based on clear technical grounds (do I need an
>> AR specific to this mix --> Yes, add a new work).
>> Now it would be nice if we actually had a work to work remix AR to go
>> with that...
>
> Make an RFC for it then ;)
I would if I knew of an example. All the remixes I've seen don't
represent new works, but people keep claiming they exist.
> ("Do I need an AR specific to this mix OR does this mix have its own
> ISWC" would be my test though)
I hadn't even heard of an ISWC until I saw it under works, and still
haven't seen one.
>
--
Andii :-)
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
