On 25/04/2012 18:39, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 04/25/2012 02:21 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: >> >> In theory, there's nothing wrong with this. In practice, it's >> completely unreasonable until a different UI is in place that allows >> to do these changes - nobody is going to go changing all recording >> artists one by one for hundreds of releases. > > After discussion with reosarevok, I’ve modified the proposal to make > clear that it’s OK for a recording’s artist to be derived from the > tracklist, and that it is not *required* that an editor update all > recordings after entering a new classical release. (i.e. recording > artist = track artist is not a valid reason to no-vote an 'add release' > edit.)
a) I agree with reosarevok that no-one is going to do this with the current UI, so thanks for making this change (above) b) the proposal does not discuss how we should handle one recording on >1 release but with different credits. This may happen, for example if the same performance is on a "by composer" release and also on a "by performer" release. Also, even when the artist is the same, the artist credit may still be different, for example if the release is in a different language. c) I would consider it a highly undesirable outcome if the recording did not identify the composer. So personally I would only find it acceptable for the credits to list the performers in place of the composer IF the recording had a "Performance Of" relation to a Work. I would make this a prerequisite. d) We should also say that these credits are not a substitute for full ARs for the recordings. ARs list all the given performers, not only the "most important" ones. Moreover, ARs tell us what role was performed. With just credits, we don't know if, say, Menuhin was the violin soloist, the conductor, or both. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
