Talk:Style/Principle/Error correction and artist intent

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

... about Principles

Note to WikiZens:

These items ArtistIntent and ConsistentOriginalData still need to be explained. I don't have the time to do that now.

Also, please link to StylePrinciple from every guideline. This page NeedsIntertwingling massively. --DonRedman

... about Exceptions

Yary Hluchan posted the following to the MailingList in a discussion about the application of StyleGuidelines. It is a very good example of the reasoning that is intended by the StylePrinciple (Feel free to change this to make it a better example --DonRedman

  • "My problem with this is not that I disagree entirely, but as I see it, the fundamental difference between the "consistency" people like Kiara and myself on one hand, and the "artist intent" people like DJKC and losten on the other, is what is part of a title. The consistency people see remix and version information as additional meta-data that isn't part of the title itself, even if it is added by the artist, with intent, in a particular format." (follow the link above to read the complete mail)

Artist Intent is one of the most powerful arguments we have here so I think we need to define when exactly it applies. In many cases we're claiming "Artist Intent" based solely off an album cover or artist's official page, I know I do it all the time. But this leads to alot of people going against capitalization guidelines because the font on the CD cover doesn't use capitals anywhere, or vice versa. I think we all need to remember that as the most powerful argument in an edit, Artist Intent should be the one requireing the most proof. In many situations the artist intent is obvious such as Linkin Park's Reanimation but we have to differentiate actual Artist Intent from a web or CD cover designer that thinks a certain font "looks cool". --Kerensky97

I think the term we should use is "Artistic Intent". It's a subtle but important distinction: somebody could argue that just about anything an artist does is done with intent, down to the most superficial preference (such as abbreviating "Pt." or leaving four-letter prepositions as lowercase). In reality, it might not be of any concern to the artist; the text is going to have some form, and there's usually no clear way for us to tell how strongly the artist thinks the text has to adhere to that specific style.

"Artistic Intent" shifts the emphasis from the artist to the work itself. We're looking at the art and how it is received by its audience to judge whether these details are really important or not. The artist still has a lot of sway, and can demonstrate artistic intent simply by indicating how the stylistic choice is artistically relevant to the work. And it allows these peculiarities to be safely ignored if the artist doesn't say anything and the audience largely views them as minor graphic design elements.Torc 22:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The original Consistent Original Data needs to move to this page (as discussed on irc on may 3rd, ).

The original wording (from the History:Style Principle) is:

If, however, something is consistently labelled in a different style on official sources, then this classifies as Consistent Original Data and overrules the Style Guidelines.

I've changed that for the Artist Intent page thusly:

If something is consistently labelled on official sources, then you can assume this is intentional.

Which probably is not clear enough, but it's 23:34 CEST and I cannot think of anything better right now :). --warp.