On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Andrew Conkling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I don't remember if it was here or in IRC, but I recall
> > recently having a discussion on just this part of FeaturingArtistStyle, with
> > regards to how the definition you describe works on classical.
> >
> > And before I explain what I mean, I agree with Andrew; I can live with
> > it if the artist really is featured, but not with the type of thing we
> > normally see using this in classical, where the entirety of ARs is dumped
> > in, as many as will fit up to the character length limit.
> >
> >     * file the track/release under the primary artist, and
> >     * add AdvancedRelationships of the PerformanceRelationshipClass to
> > link to the secondary artists, and
> >     * append the name of the secondary artists to the
> > TrackTitle/ReleaseTitle as follows:
> >           o "Put Your Lights On (feat. Everlast)"
> >
> > My take:
> >
> > Ok, normal release not using composer-as-artist, this works, even though
> > it's kind of confusingly written.  Tom Jones is the album artist, thus the
> > primary, Billy Joel is featured on one track, he's the secondary, he gets a
> > feat.
> >
> > Now, classical (or soundtracks/musicals too, since they also use
> > composer-as-artist), it kind of either breaks, or emphasizes exactly the
> > specific rare type of classical feat Andrew described, depending on how you
> > look at it.  Since the primary now is the composer, not any performer, the
> > orchestra/conductor/etc shifts into secondary.  We don't actually want all
> > that AR info smushed into the track titles, but that's where it either
> > breaks or clarifies.  Because we do have 3 levels of artists here, not 2, I
> > think the best interpretation is to follow the intent of the above
> > guideline, not the strict "secondary always = feat."
> >
> > If, in composer-as-artist releases, we use the tertiary artist, we
> > follow the spirit of the guideline (which was written assuming there is only
> > a primary and secondary artist).  So here, on composer-as-artist releases,
> > only a *specifically mentioned* feat. - a tertiary level artist - would get
> > the feat., and all three levels would go into ARs.  I don't think a soloist
> > rises to the level of being a tertiary artist - unlike non
> > composer-as-artist songs, movements with soloists are perhaps even a
> > majority of all composer-as-artist works.  I'd save is for the real (and
> > rare) classical feat.'s - "Track 6: Foo for cello in D major (feat. Yo Yo
> > Ma)" written by Bach and that one track (but not the entire BSO release)
> > performed by the the BSO and Yo Yo Ma.  Otherwise, every musical, opera, and
> > most everything else non-symphony would have soloists being shifted into a
> > feat., and composer-as-artist releases would simply be overwhelmed by them
> > needlessly.
> >
>
> Yes, we definitely agree; this is what I was intending to clarify here. So
> how would you suggest that be worded in the ClassicalStyleGuide? Do you
> think my emendation is sufficient or do we need something else?
>

Maybe something like

----

If a track indicates that an artist is "featured", and that artist is
'''not''' featured on all tracks of the release, add that information to the
track title using
FeaturingArtistStyle<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/FeaturingArtistStyle>:
*(feat. violin: Tamsin Little)*. This is to be used '''only''' where
"featuring" (or wording to that effect) appears on the liner, and not for
soloists, conductors, or other performers performing on a track without such
indication.

Note: This is only for (feat. ) in the track titles.  All artists, featured
or not, should still be attributed to the track using advanced
relationships, where possible.

----

I left out the release title bit - we already talk about that elsewhere; if
the artist falls under the "feat on all tracks", that other section already
covers it, seems more confusing than anything else to try to re-cover it
here, since we do include the non-feat's in the () in the release titles.

Brian
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Reply via email to