On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:03, lorenz pressler <l...@gmx.at> wrote: > Am 30.01.2012, 17:04 Uhr, schrieb Marco Curti <mcu...@aliceposta.it>: > >> Maybe I've lost something, but I could not understand why we need >> composer at track/recording level, is not the one at work level the >> correct one? >> >> In my opinion composer(s) are related to works, performers to recordings >> and other credits (like producers, art designers,...) to releases or >> tracks in case of 'compilation' of recordings pre released in other >> releases. >> >> Tryng to have some form of 'normalized' composer or performer field at >> release (or track) level will lead for sure in truble, unless we agree >> to use them as a form of 'mnemonic' help to name the release (or track) >> itself, and in this case I think the better way is to use exactly the >> form producers printed on the cover. > > > i agree. why should i bother adding composer at work lvl if i can do it at > release lvl?
Here is the practical problem I see with playing too much with track ACs. If my plays start scrobbling as "Yo Yo Ma - Sonata for cello and piano, Op. 99" either because that's what's stored in ARTIST, or stored in MUSICBRAINZ_ARTISTID, or pulled in by last.fm through their data feed... Well, then I have a big issue with that. Before we make a change like this I want to know that this scenario *will not happen*. -- -:-:- David K. Gasaway -:-:- Email: d...@gasaway.org _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
