On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Andii Hughes <gnu_and...@member.fsf.org>wrote:
> > > It'd be much > > safer to assume the concessions for formatting occur on compilations > rather > > than original releases: that the graphic artists put all the "feat." > credits > > next to the primary artist because the comp label thought it would sell > > better that way, the primary artist wasn't around to tell them not to, > and > > because that's what the Photoshop template told them to do. > > Sorry but that's a very big assumption. > I think it's a very safe assumption. An example of a compilation given earlier in this discussion was from the NOW series. Check the tracklists for NOW 40<http://www.allcdcovers.com/show/57508/now_thats_what_i_call_music_40_1998_retail_cd/back>, 50<http://www.allcdcovers.com/show/17667/now_thats_what_i_call_music_50_2001_retail_cd/back>, 60<http://www.freecovers.net/view/1/f575b9d532c66e4f2bc5fb8a0f0c4b20/NOW_That%27s_What_I_Call_Music%21_60-Back.html>, and 70<http://cdcovers.to/audio/now-thats-what-i-call-music-70-2008-retail-cd/back/3773669>-- They're obviously using a template for these. Is it more likely that *every* artist said they wanted the guest credit formatted differently here than they were on the albums and singles, or is it more likely the tracklist formatting is standardized? Comp tracklists are not controlled by the artists and are not a reliable source of intended formatting. They have no place in this discussion or as a basis for guidelines. > > > > >> > >> >> > >> >> It's not > >> >> so much an exception as you wouldn't expect the primary artist to be > >> >> repeated on every track of a release when their name is also on the > >> >> front cover e.g. you wouldn't expect to see: > >> >> > >> >> 1. A by X > >> >> 2. B by X > >> >> 3. C by X > >> >> 4. D by X feat. Y > >> >> 5. E by X > >> > > >> > Artists have plenty of ways to indicate the extent of the involvement. > >> > Word > >> > choice is one (i.e. using "feat." instead of "with" or "and"), > >> > explicitly > >> > stating the relationship ("duet with Y"), crediting as a full > >> > collaboration > >> > on singles, mentionioning "X feat. Y" for that specific track, etc. We > >> > shouldn't be basing our policies on the assumption that it's only that > >> > way > >> > because artists couldn't figure out a better way to do it -- they can, > >> > and > >> > have, and chose not to. > >> > > >> > >> I think you're still missing the point here which is that the 'by X' > >> credit tends to be elided on a release when the entire release is > >> credited to X. > > > > I think I addressed that point very clearly in the paragraph you just > > replied to, and in the examples I provided -- especially the single-song > > releases. Yes, I get that albums don't repeat the artist's name after > every > > track; that fact does not support the assertion that when ("feat. Guest") > is > > used, the primary artist intended it to be a full, equal, creative > credit. > > There are plenty of other options for indicating the extent of the > > collaboration, which artists will use when they deem it appropriate. > It's > > not a binary choice between getting a "feat." credit after the title or > no > > credit at all. > > I'm not sure what your exact problem is here with what's being proposed. > How is the proposal not giving the featured artist 'full equal > creative credit'??? > I'm saying we should NOT assume and should NOT by default give the "featured" artist the same full and equal credit we give the primary. I'm saying it's more likely that "feat" meant nothing more than a *performance*credit for that track, not that the guest was co-author, co-creator or co-artist. If the primary artist intended the guest to get equal creative credit, they have plenty of ways to do it. Your arguing that the "feat." credit is next to the track title because there wasn't anywhere else convenient to put it; I'm saying the reason for its placement is irrelevant; what matters is that the primary artist chose to use a "feat." credit rather than one of the many formats that clearly indicates a collaboration rather than a guest performance. > > > > >> > >> >> > >> >> The examples of singles you posted pretty much go along with what I > >> >> was thinking of with regard to studio albums. You have the primary > >> >> artist dominating the cover, and the featured artist next to the > track > >> >> because they don't appear on other tracks by the artist (including > >> >> B-sides on that single), their appearance being a feature of that > >> >> track. > >> > > >> > ...except five of the six examples I posted didn't have B-sides; the > >> > release > >> > only had one title, so there was no reason aside from artist choice > not > >> > to > >> > include the guest artist as a main artist. > > > > I didn't see a response to this. Why are the "featured" guests' names > still > > associated with the tracks on those releases rather than the with the > > artist? Your argument hangs on the assertion that featured guest are > > credited with tracks instead of alongside primary artists only because > the > > artist's name isn't listed next to every track and the guest doesn't > appear > > on every track. Here are five releases (1 2 3 4 5) with only one song, > the > > featured guest appears on every track on the release, and the artist > still > > chose to link the "featuring" credit with the title rather than next to > the > > artist. > > So there are examples of it being used in the track title. I don't > believe I ever denied they exist. The main issue is we have to standardise > on one or the other and moving to the artist credit has the inherent > advantage of linking > to the artist itself rather than being plain text. It will also usually misrepresent the relationship between the two entities, giving the guest more credit than they deserve or than what was intended. "Artist" does not mean "performer"; if it did, the entire band and producer would be included in every Artist field. "Artist" usually implies some sort of creative authorship. Yes, we have to standardize, but those aren't our only choices. No, typo. My point was this is a collaboration so what has it got to > do with this discussion? > You've been arguing that the way a "feat. guest" credit appears on albums and singles is an effect of the limitation of the format and packaging. I'm saying that the formatting does not limit artists from attributing credits however they want. This is an example of that. The two artists contributed equally to the track and were credited equally, despite the fact that this track appeared on a release by only one of contributing artists. There are thousands of examples of how formatting does not prohibit Artist A from making it clear that one track on the release was a collaboration between Artist A & Artist B. If a primary artist give the guest nothing more than a "feat." credit next to the trackname, it's a fairly reliable indicator that the primary artist views the guest as a performer rather than co-collaborator. > > > Then the artist reference will occur regardless of what goes in the > artist > > field; requiring users to also link it there is an unnecessary > duplication > > of work, and also opens us up to the potential for inconsistent data for > > recordings. > > > > I agree with Nicolas point here that they are two different things; > what was credited > and what was done. > He was saying if "feat. *Band*" is used, the AR should be broken down to individual members of the guest band and what specific contributions those individuals actually made. I have no problem with that, and it doesn't preclude us from adding an AR that says something like "*Band* {feat.} {guest} performed." ARs are already full of "what was credited" information; check the writing credits for the Beatles works for example. > > Also, ARs are far more unlikely to be added so if we prohibit the feat. > credit, > we lose that accreditation altogether. > Then leave it where it is now: next to the track title that the guest appeared on, like the roughly two million tracks that are already that way. Want it machine readable? Add an AR. Want to make sure those get created with new additions AND have remixer ARs too? Have the Add Release form include a field for "other credited artists" with popups or checkboxes to allow users to specify them as featured performers or remixers and create the appropriate Recording ARs from that. That way the credits are exact, the relationship is accurately described and those ARs can be used to allow anybody to customize how and where they're displayed. > > >> It does actually happen in the case of 'vs.' artist usage. In many > >> cases, one of those is a remixer of the other artist's track. > > > > In other words, if relationship warrants full collaborative credit, > artists > > have a way to ensure that happens. They can keep the remix credit with > the > > track, which communicates that the Remixer has created an alteration of > the > > primary artist's creation, or they can credit the track to Artist vs. > > Remixer, which communicates that both parties share equal creative credit > > for the track. That's a very good analogy to "feat." credits: > > "Track (feat. X)" by Y : "Track (X remix)" by Y :: > > "Track" by Y with/and X : "Track" by X vs. Y > > > > Artist intent is difficult to establish with remixes. The artist > being remixed is likely > to have had little if anything to do with it. Some remixes are > 'official' and commissioned for the artist's single, but others aren't > and may appear way after any single release. > And artist intent is difficult to establish with "feat." credits. The guest performer likely has little if anything to do with the song's creation. Some 'feat.' guests are just big names that do nothing besides sing a few lines after the artist has already laid down the rest of the track. I'm still not sure why we'd treat these two scenarios differently. > > Also, it's perfectly possible that 'X remix' does not refer to any > artist but 'feat. X' always does. For remixes, X can be a title of > the remix, the name of a nightclub, etc. > Yet even when "X remix" refers to a specific *person*, we still don't put them in the artist field. --Torc.
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
