2012/2/2 monxton <musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org> > ARs and ACs have different attributes at present. With an AR you can > only use the artist's "standard" name, not a performance name. > Conversely, with an AC you cannot specify a role (e.g. conductor, violin > ...) so the AR is much more useful. > > I have a few other thoughts which may not necessarily belong in this > thread. > > - we are talking about using the disambiguation field for specific > information, but the disambiguation field may already be in use e.g. for > a live performance it may contain the performance data. I'm not really > happy about using a free text field for structured data in this way. > > - people are assuming that taggers can be updated so that we can still > achieve the desired (by most of us) outcome of giving artist credit to > the composer. However as this gets more and more complicated we could > easily reach the situation where the tagger must know whether or not a > release is "classical" before it can map the attributes as desired. > Currently there is no attribute to identify "classical" releases. > > - the existence of a Recording-Work AR must be a prereq for any > new-style tagging, otherwise we will start to see "classical" recordings > where the composer is not specified. > > I get the impression that there's a consensus about putting the composer in the track artist field. I'll write a new RFC for track artists soon.
/symphonick
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
