Talk:Who Deserves Credit For A Work

From MusicBrainz Wiki

There is one main flaw to this stated principle. Namely, in many cases, it is (nearly) impossible to figure out how the performer(s) actually is/are. For example, take any release under the X-Ray Dog label. It took massive work simply to identify most of the tracks' composer(s), and even that, there remain over a hundred tracks in that label for which I could not find a composer. I looked for performer info, and it simply does not exist. The same is true for many, many soundtracks - I run into it for Ennio Morricone releases all the time. That said, what we really are doing is compressing "composer", "performer", and "lyracist" all in to a semi-randomly selected "artist" field, as differentiated from the various AR fields. Thus, the main points of contention for SoundtrackStyle and ClassicalStyleGuideline. As a major example of this, "Lerner and Lowe", which anyone who knows the work would assume to be the entry in the "artist" field, by the above definition of "artist", would have every release listed solely under "Frederick Loewe". -- BrianSchweitzer 06:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the credit for a work should go to whoever (or whatever) it is that's printed on the cover... which would match more or less what is done on sountracks, popular, and classical music already. For performer, composer, lyricist, etc. we have ARs to record them in, and many formats have specific tags for comosition, performance, etc. in addition to 'whoever got their name on the cover'. -- MartinRudat 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)