User talk:BrianSchweitzer/Proposal/Soundtrack Style

From MusicBrainz Wiki
  • How should we handle cases such as The Simpsons and South Park, would these go under the category of "Music written for the soundtrack" and be listed under the name of the compsosers (assuming they can be found)? This is especially curious for the Simpsons, who have releases of original material as well as soundtracks for the show. Should Go Simpsonic with the Simpsons be placed under the composer's name and be separated from The Simpsons Sing The Blues (despite the fact that they're concidered as being from the same artist), or should all the Simpsons releases be changed, for consistancy, including the non-soundtrack releases? I think that one of the basic things we need to do is say "what is a soundtrack." There's a basic operational definition in the existing style guidelines, but it needs to be clarified with respect to follow-on and related releases like the ones you mention, as well as compilations of music from several works (these last are compilations, not soundtracks). This gets particularly hairy for some of the anime stuff. There was also some recent discussion of "fictional artists" like the Blues Brothers, which may be relevant here. Another issue that we need to think about is composer vs. composer&lyricist as primary artist, especially for musicals. There are many cases (e.g. Lerner and Loewe, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Rodgers and Hart) where the composer and lyricist worked together as partners, no different from a musical group where some members sing and others play drums. In these cases, I think that making the primary artist be the composer alone is not what people want or expect. I know that there are AudioScrobbler users who insist on the primacy of the composer, but in cases such as these well known partnerships, I think that a separate artist for the partnership is the correct approach. @alex
  • In the light of SG5 and the track artist stuff should we still store the entire score under the name of the composer - even when there are hit songs from a film that are performed by a different artist: http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=105954 Should John Barry or a-ha be the track artist on title track?
  • Having been working with Disney a week or more long. I see serious difficulties with this proposal. Classical is classical. It is handled as it is and I don't feel I have any grasp whatsoever to make a thought about it. However, Disney is "soundtrack" and therefore handled as a soundtrack. The problems with this is Disney songs are often times utlized on various other Various artists releases all over the place. Perhaps I am reading this wrong. But, pre-existing doesn't seem to fit here. More like, these songs were on a Disney soundtrack first, therefore the "opposite" stands. If they are on a compilation after that, they should then all be changed to the composer. We are playing Salmon, swimming up river. For every time we fix one "Alan Menken" there are another five disc's released with A Whole New World, or Circle of Life, or whatever next popular song comes out on a various hit album. Currently, even after Disney is down from 100+ albums to less than 50 There are at least 50 various artists albums with "A Whole New World" on them, and approximately 20 correctly attributed songs. This is just one song I am speaking about. I haven't yet to do a count on Circle of Life, or the other vastly popular songs from the vastly prolific Disney studios. I think Soundtrack should be handled a lot differently. I proposed a change, to attempt to embrace soundtrack and performance artist all in one lump, this at least wouldn't be quite as apparent that this was a broken situation. As of yet I have not seen any true feedback on that proposal. I would ask for a little research to be put into this, or to consider it. I have suggestions, I will take the time with Disney, but there has to be some end in sight, or once more, I am sure not only will Disney never be done, it will constantly be an eyesore to those that are perfectionists. Nyght
  • Personally, I'm of the opinion that most of SoundtrackStyle should just go away. The only time most people look for the composer in a soundtrack is if the soundtrack is instrumental, and in many of those cases the composer is already defined as the PrimaryArtist by other style guides. SailorLeo
    Totally disagree. That may be your main reason, but far and away it's not a universal reason why people would want composer info for a soundtrack. Also, many soundtracks, that composition may contain vocals, and even when it doesn't, for instrumental tracks, it's debatable in many cases that it could be considered "classical", and thus no style guides would otherwise apply. -- BrianSchweitzer 01:26, 06 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm with "SailorLeo" on this. The guideline says "For music written for the soundtrack, Artist should contain the composer, not the performer", but no reason is given. *Why* is the composer more important than the performer when it comes to soundtracks, as opposed to pop albums? When someone buys "The Wizard of Oz OST", they are buying it for Judy Garland, not Harold Arlen and his co-writers. Same goes with Julie Andrews singing "The Sound of Music" or "My Fair Lady". In my opinion, soundtracks don't need a specific style at all. They generally aren't classical albums, so the Artist for tracks should be the performer. Soundtracks should generally continue to be listed as VariousArtist releases, with the bulk of the MBz information coming directly from record sleeves. Where the only info for performer is "Original Cast", then I would allow that composers or their orchestras could be listed, but I would argue that an encyclopaedia of music releases should primarily mirror the records people own, and not be the preserve of people who delight in changing standard data into something esoteric and unfriendly. Each day, correct artists are having their performances nullified by over-zealous auto-editors that don't seem to know the difference between a guideline, a rule, and common sense. --ArtySmokes
    I've posted comments on the mailing list, don't really want to repeat them here again, although I will note that whether people buy soundtracks for Judy Garland or Julie Andrews, the fact remains that they only perform some of the songs on those albums, while the composers were responsible for all of them. One problem I see is that there are a lot of overlapping genres that fall in the general category of soundtracks. Thinking that splitting this (and SoundtrackTitleStyle) up would help, I created MusicalSoundtrackStyle and GameSoundtrackStyle as trials. I'm not sure this is quite the right approach, though, as it leads to a lot of duplication. However, I think it does lead to simpler guidelines than trying to come up with one that handles all the different types (scores, anime/games, musicals, TV/films) with the same set of guidelines. @alex
    OK. SoundtrackStyle doesn't have to be disregarded entirely, but I would like to add certain guidelines, in order to prevent the current set from being foisted upon all soundtrack albums. Primarily, I'm of the opinion that *scores* can take a style akin to the CSG, but where singers (e.g. Julie Andrews, Judy Garland) are clearly listed as performers on the sleeves of records, they should be listed in the Artist field on a per-track basis. It would be acceptable for me to use the composers (musical *and* lyrical) as TrackArtist on songs for which the performers are unclear or listed simply as "Original Cast". It would be wrong to list most OST albums as being by one ReleaseArtist, as by their very nature they are a collaborative effort. Bringing up the topic on the mailing list has, I hope, given pause to the practise of some editors whom have tried to apply the current guidelines to all soundtracks, when they should really be treated on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, Change Artist edits should be put to the vote/discussion before being applied, and it would be good practice to immediately add performance/composition ARs, to prevent data loss. -ArtySmokes
I think posting these examples, and the corresponding Release list links, will clearly illustrate the policy to put soundtracks under composer. On the other hand, it looks like the opposite is happening with Gilbert and Sullivan -- Releases are gathering under the Group Artist, not the Composer. Anyone care to draft some text, or give me talking points for drafting this text? --Jim DeLaHunt 2008-01-08.
Another issue that we need to think about is composer vs. composer&lyricist as primary artist, especially for musicals. There are many cases (e.g. Lerner and Loewe, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Rodgers and Hart) where the composer and lyricist worked together as partners, no different from a musical group where some members sing and others play drums. In these cases, I think that making the primary artist be the composer alone is not what people want or expect. I know that there are AudioScrobbler users who insist on the primacy of the composer, but in cases such as these well known partnerships, I think that a separate artist for the partnership is the correct approach. @alex [Undated comment from 2007 or earlier, copied here from discussion above by JimDeLaHunt on 2008-01-08]
I think this is one area where the more specific soundtrack type guidelines do come in to play. I'm unable to think of any such example for game soundtracks, for example. This seems an issue specific to musical theater, and films sourced from musical theater. However, I disagree with the idea what we ought to keep "composer & lyricist" over just "composer", if that pair is sufficiently well known. If we start down that route, we face one huge problem: define "sufficiently well known". Yes, you have the easy cases, like Gilbert & Sullivan, but they're obviously the ultra-minority. Given that we have ARs for both composer and lyricist, and given that this is really applicable to only one subset of soundtracks, a subguideline to allow certain "composer & lyricist" over "composer" artists would have to be very tightly focused, would be of very limited applicability, and would seem to inevitably lead to various arguments over whether any given pair is sufficiently well known that we ought to permit the application of this subguideline. a lumped together "Richard Rogers" is fine, to me - if I want to know the specific composition details, I ought to be looking at the AR's. Otherwise, I ought to at least be able to trust that if it's a soundtrack, it's composer (ignoring those messy VA soundtracks :P) as artist. This strikes me as similar to the idea further above, "if a performer on a specific track is sufficiently well known, that performer ought to be the track artist". All of these are great in theory - but they essentially take the artist field, which is already a confusing mix for soundtracks, given that "soundtrack" status does encompass at least 5 very different genres of music, and essentially make it a mix of "well, it could be composer, or perfomer, or composer & lyricist, or..." - it takes AR-data and mixes it all up into a mishmash, such that the "artist" field really loses any semblance of actually holding any particular type of data. Keeping it to composer, except for those messy VA releases, which use performer, keeps it relatively clean. (Though I do still wish we could split off those VA performer soundtracks away from SA composer game/musical theater/score/etc...) -- BrianSchweitzer 23:53, 08 January 2008 (UTC)