2012/1/30 pabouk <pab...@centrum.cz> > > symphonick wrote > > > > 2012/1/29 pabouk <pabouk@> > >> IMHO the logical solution is to have two artist fields > >> at the release and release group level: > >> Performer and Composer. > >> > > Yes, it would be great if there were more fields available, but currently > > there's only one artist field. What we can do is ask editors to always > > begin with the composers: > > > > Beethoven / Nigel Kennedy > > Bruckner / Mahler / Karajan / Berliner Philharmoniker > > > > We could add another delimiter, I suppose? > > > > Mozart : Hillary Hahn > > Bruch / Mendelssohn : Maxim Vengerov > > > I think it is better to ask developers to add the second artist > field but if it takes too long I think your suggestion regarding > order and separation is OK. Maybe I would change ":" for "|" > or something other - more suitable for separation. > It needs to be unambiguously machine-processable. > > Yes, I'm mostly concerned about creating a guideline for what's available now. If we can agree on a delimiter, we should be able to automatically move/copy to a composer field eventually.
> > symphonick wrote > > > > 2012/1/29 Rupert Swarbrick <rswarbrick@> > >> In this case, what we should do is use more than one field, as > >> SwissChris suggests. Requiring edits to carefully follow a style > >> convention so that regexps on client machines can do the right thing is > >> really horrible. > >> > > I'm sceptical to if introducing a "release composer" field is a realistic > > solution. I suppose it has to be applied to the whole of mb & also show > up > > as a column in searches, otherwise we reintroduce the release > > disambiguation problem (by remove performers or composer from the artist > > field). > > > Yes, of course the change would require more than just adding > the second artist field but that does not mean that we should > give it up. > > > symphonick wrote > > > > And it still doesn't help for multiple composers: > > > > Artist: Juliard string quartet / Emerson Quartet > > Composer: Brahms / Mendelssohn > > > Why? Both artist fields would feature artist credits functionality > as the current artist field. > > I mean it won't help with file sorting, because these fields can't tell know which tracks belong to which composer. Release-level fields don't work @ track/recording level. > > symphonick wrote > > > > I believe we should use ARs & work info that's already available to get > > better tags/file sorting. The "album artist" isn't really a concept > > intended for classical anyway. > > > The problem with these ARs is that they are on the recording > level. We need to get summarized information about selected > prominent artists at the release level because we would like > to operate with whole releases and not just with individual > recordings. > > Another realistic problem with ARs is that IMHO most of editors > do not add ARs. > > It's how we enter performer info in MB & it's really important for classical. I wish it was easier to enter ARs too & I hope we can improve that process. But this (pre)RFC is about what to enter in the release artist field now. Post NGS we can add more than one artist to the "release artist" field, so it's a quick way to enter the names featured on the cover. This way the names (composers & artists) will show up in the UI (and in media players), & it works for searching & disambiguation - we don't have to enter performers in the title field anymore. The only thing that's possibly worse than before is if you want directory names with only a single name, based on this artist field. & I agree a composer field would look more elegant in the UI, but it doesn't solve the problem. IMHO, nothing at release-level does. We had a "solution": use "Various Artists" everywhere, and we have had endless debates about which performer to single out, (orchestra? soloist?) but it's impossible to agree. Composers just don't compose "Releases". Now, if it would help to have the composer in the Track Artist field, we could do that. The current suggestion about that field is more or less "don't bother". /symphonick Lemire, Sebastien-2 wrote > > > > I also don't like the idea of mixing composer and performers in artist > > credits. To me they are fundamentally different. > > Ideally we would need two fields, perhaps keeping the current AC for the > > performers and adding one for the composer(s). > > > > That said, if we open a ticket to get that added, I would be open, in > > the interim to have both in the AC separated by a special character so > > that > > in the future they could be split automatically. > > > > In regards to Picard, web-service compatibility, I'm not concerned > because > > they can be modified more easily then all us editors having to re-edit > the > > actual data once the style changes and we realize that we really should > > have put them separately... > I fully agree. Please let's go ahead :) > > ----- > Václav Brožík / pabouk >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
