I was foll of work these last weeks, do I am late commenting here, sorry. On Feb 4, 2008 4:53 AM, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think this this is an independent issue. I'm relatively new here, > > but my > > understanding is that the (Orchestra feat. conductor: X, piano: Y) > > notation > > arose out of time when there was no AR capability in the database, the > > taggers were less good at moving data from the database into tags, > > and many > > players couldn't read tags and used only what were in the > > ReleaseArtist, > > ReleaseTitle, and TrackTitle fields. All three limitations have > > eased. I > > don't see that changing ReleaseArtist is a precondition for removing > > this > > notation. > > There is still desire to have the performer information in the release > title so people can search releases for performers. I agree. I think the browsing the database would be made much harder without at least some performer info. > > Aaron Cooper-3 wrote: > >> > >>> 4. Our composer pages will be less crowded > >> > > > > Yes, but our Soloist and Conductor pages will become more crowded, > > won't > > they? And in an ideal world, the MB.org and a database full of ARs > > will > > have lengthy results for many artists, regardless of the value of the > > ReleaseArtist field. If pages being "crowded" is a problem, perhaps > > a better > > solution is to redesign the search results page to deal with lots of > > results. We could add more useful list orderings, subheadings, > > refinement of > > search results, summaries of results, etc. > > > Composer pages will shrink (yay) and performer pages will grow, yes. > But that's the point. Performers put out CDs like regular pop > artists, they just don't write the material (in most cases). > > I think I've said it before, but it will be a lot more manageable to > maintain discographies of 15 of your favourite performers than > maintain the discography of every Bach CD ever recorded ever in > history - ever. This is because you are reasoning in Composer VERSUS Performer. You still are a slave to the old mp3 ARTIST field. All are important, the composer and the performer and the recording engineer and the place it was recorded, and even the date it was recorded (BTW, this IMO would be almost more important than the performer, there is so much difference between a 1930 performance and a 1980 performance...) Is there something preventing you from recovering the discographies from the ARs? > 2. Any proposal that results in large numbers of existing database > > entries > > being invalid according to the new rules had better include some > > proposal > > for how to bring those entries into compliance. The problem isn't > > solved > > until the data is corrected. Contributors may model new entries > > after the > > invalid data instead of the written rules, making the problem worse. > > If > > fixing the invalid entries can be done in some automated way, that's > > better; > > if it needs manual work, how will the manual work get done? > > I am more than happy to start moving releases to their primary > performer (keeping tracks under the composer). I'm sure some of the > other classical editors would pitch in, too. I don't want people > seeing bad examples and copying them. Don't count me. I won't be happy to do it. I'll try to participate, because data consistency is important, but frankly I believe there are much more interesting and urgent things to do. > > 3. The database has a ReleaseArtist field that needs some value. > > Between > > composer, conductor, orchestra, soloists, chorus directors, > > arrangers, and > > all the other artists who contribute to what appears in the audio > > signal in > > a track, for Classical Music and across the range of users and use > > cases, I > > think the most important single role is composer. If you have to > > pick one, > > I'd pick the composer. > > I wouldn't, that's why I'm proposing this. Bach had absolutely > *nothing* to do with releasing his music in 2006. There were a group > of performers who wanted to play them, so they released recordings. > We've come up with an objective/systematic way to determine who the > most important performer is. I think it's logical to assume that > whoever performs on all tracks was probably the primary performer with > other featured performers filling in the gaps (you can't play a piano > concerto on your new CD without an orchestra). > Nothing to do? If he hadn't composed it in the first place, the release would be full of silence. The inheritors of recent composers (Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Barber...) probably still get something each time a CD of their ancestor is sold. The fact that Bach or Mozart died so long ago that they can't control what is done with their music has only legal and commercial consequences, not artistic. So if we want to use this kind of considerations, please use a contemporary composer. When a CD from a living composer is released, does the composer have something to do with it? -- Frederic Da Vitoria
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
