On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:30:09PM +0100, Jan van Thiel wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Kuno Woudt :
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:54:51AM +0100, Maurits Meulenbelt wrote:
> >> In my opinion the "feat." is a leftover form the bad old days when there
> >> were no AR's. Personally I only enter them when they're m
No strong opinions here :)
Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> I interpret the word eponymous to mean anything named after a particular
> person (not just an artist lending their name to something), which would
> therefore currently include these examples of quartets named after
> deceased composers.
>
> I do
I interpret the word eponymous to mean anything named after a particular
person (not just an artist lending their name to something), which would
therefore currently include these examples of quartets named after
deceased composers.
I don't mind these quartets being sorted by their namesakes, but
Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> Proposal:
> Change the last bullet of #6 in SortNameStyle to read as follows:
> Artist names that contain a person's name (usually eponymous band names)
> sort as the person primarily, with remaining identifiers as
> comma-separated suffixes. Examples: "The Sensational Alex H
+1
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Aaron Cooper wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> > I think that there's enough support for my earlier query that I should
> > propose this formally as an RFC.
> >
> > Problem Summary:
> > According to SortNameStyle, a band n
+1
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> I think that there's enough support for my earlier query that I should
> propose this formally as an RFC.
>
> Problem Summary:
> According to SortNameStyle, a band name that contains the name of a
> person should sort as a fictitious name
I think that there's enough support for my earlier query that I should
propose this formally as an RFC.
Problem Summary:
According to SortNameStyle, a band name that contains the name of a
person should sort as a fictitious name rather than as the person's
artist sort name. This results in works o
2009/3/2 Kuno Woudt :
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:54:51AM +0100, Maurits Meulenbelt wrote:
>> In my opinion the "feat." is a leftover form the bad old days when there
>> were no AR's. Personally I only enter them when they're mentioned this
>> way on the case, and if I do, I follow the case (excep
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:54:51AM +0100, Maurits Meulenbelt wrote:
> In my opinion the "feat." is a leftover form the bad old days when there
> were no AR's. Personally I only enter them when they're mentioned this
> way on the case, and if I do, I follow the case (except that I change
> "fe
2009/3/2 Maurits Meulenbelt :
> In my opinion the "feat." is a leftover form the bad old days when there
> were no AR's. Personally I only enter them when they're mentioned this way
> on the case
that's the only circumstance you should ever enter a (feat. x) - see
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Featu
In my opinion the "feat." is a leftover form the bad old days when there
were no AR's. Personally I only enter them when they're mentioned this
way on the case, and if I do, I follow the case (except that I change
"featuring" to "feat." for consistency). So I'd follow regional variants
if they'
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, I have been before on many issues.
The artist sort name is only needed to get a sort order for artists.
The artist name can already be found in the artist name itself.
So, preserving the actual name doesn't seem to be an issue.
Furthermore, we want a sort
12 matches
Mail list logo
