On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:35 PM, monxton <musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org> wrote:
> On 11/06/2011 01:35, Nikki wrote:
>
>> The collaboration relationship is still needed in some cases - if the
>> collaboration has its own name. I suppose we could theoretically merge
>> it with the member relationship (removing the distinction between long
>> term projects and named short term projects) if we really want to get
>> rid of it completely.
>
> It's a pity that the artist credits don't allow us to enter the target
> name for the collaboration in this case.
>
> We can have primary artists {A} and {B} expressed as artist credit {A1}
> {connector} {B1}
>
> but we can't have them expressed as {C}, unless we kludge it.
>
> How far is this the intention of the design and how much a limitation of
> the editor?I would say that's normal. Even if, let's say, "The Great Grand Group" is a collab of Mr. X and The Wonder Y, how would you split that? I like that named collabs are its own artist myself, because that's what people will probably look for. It might be interesting to show them also under the collaborators' release lists too though. > I don't like the idea of allowing collaborations to be expressed as > member-of-band relations. It would seem like an admission of failure for > artist credit. > > > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
