On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652
I agree with the 'yes' voters here - the same track can be 'x (feat.
y)', 'y (feat. x)', or 'x y', on different releases. eg, a guest
artist is typically billed as (feat.) on a release on which their
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
IMO sg5 was a problem because you HAD to make everything an X (feat.
Y), regardless of how it was actually billed. This is obviously crap,
but it seems now we're going the opposite way and making everything a
collaboration!
what i want to know is: are
On 25/05/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
IMO sg5 was a problem because you HAD to make everything an X (feat.
Y), regardless of how it was actually billed. This is obviously crap,
but it seems now we're going the opposite way and making
On 25/05/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those are already defined in the styleguides.
yep @ http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/FeaturingArtistStyle - A
collaboration should only be created for primary artists who
contributed equally to the track/release.
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 01:29:17PM +0100, Steve Wyles wrote:
Those are already defined in the styleguides.
Obviously not defined clearly enough or we wouldn't be having this
conversation. It's fine talking about primary artists and secondary
artists, but there's no reference to work from, the
Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MusicBrainz style discussion musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: Re: [mb-style] SG5...again (*ducks*)
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:48:12 +0100 (BST)
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=4831652
I agree
On 5/25/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, really, that both of you are right. There's no way to draw a
definite line between A B and A feat. B and from the evidence given, I'd
say this one falls in the grey area between the two.
It's not the existance of a grey area that's the
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:59:15PM +0100, david scotson wrote:
This will of course lead to the creation of many of the dreaded bogus
artists, the prevention of which sometimes seems like our prime
directive, the 0th Law of MusicBrainz. Seems worth it to have useful,
consistent and correct
On 25/05/06, david scotson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One basic fact is key to this and hopefully everyone can agree once
it's been pointed out:
* there is no basis or rationale for continuing to normalise track
titles to include (feat. X)
Go dig out your albums and you'll find that very few
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 07:45:39PM +0100, Chris Bransden wrote:
such that it makes that AR 'special' which entails that it is highlighted
on the album page
The next server release already shows track relationships on the album
page.
--Nikki
___
i know, but that wouldn't help this situation because it shows ALL ARs
on that track. I agree with showign them all, but we need to highlight
featuring ARs somehow.
On 25/05/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 07:45:39PM +0100, Chris Bransden wrote:
such that it makes
11 matches
Mail list logo
