2013/4/4 Sheamus Patt <musicbrainz.r...@ncf.ca> > On 04/03/2013 08:22 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote: > > That shouldn't be a problem, since most artists dedicate their > > creations to someone they know. We can use existing ARs for most of > > those relationships (with a few exceptions, mostly for familial > > relations for which we have yet to devise a plan). > > Just for discussion, then, I'll throw in an exception (which I used for > a completely different reason in this discussion list not long ago. > Elton John's "Candle in the Wind 1997" > http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/1b7f9608-4d65-3daf-ae54-efa7645d92adwhich > he dedicated to Princess Diana, someone who has no particular > relationship with the music industry. > > Seems I was wrong though - "Diana - Princess of Wales" is already an MB > "artist" > http://musicbrainz.org/artist/5c216e1a-cfda-445a-b6cd-c30b90b12bb8 . > There does seem to be prior art for including notables who aren't > typically considered musicians or involved with the music industry. I do > agree that we shouldn't be putting in "artists" just for a "homage to" > relationship, though. Where will it end? > > I think you should be able to add people you need to use this AR. I imagine many (most?) people who get works dedicated to them are not involved in the "music industry". Maybe it's just the term "artist" that's the problem?
/symphonick
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
