History:Artist History: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(FWIW, moving some bitroted discussion out of Terminology pages (Imported from MoinMoin)) |
(More stuff (Imported from MoinMoin)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Staled proposals that haven't (yet) come to reality== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
* A proposal for a new [[Artist Type Project|ArtistTypeProject]]. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
==PublisherRelationshipType== |
==PublisherRelationshipType== |
||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
</ul> |
</ul> |
||
==Random== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] |
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:History]] [[Category:Artist]] |
||
Revision as of 14:51, 16 May 2007
Staled proposals that haven't (yet) come to reality
- A proposal for a new ArtistTypeProject.
PublisherRelationshipType
Before the introduction of the label system, some artists were created for publishers. They were indeed companies, and ought to be migrated to Labels. It was even suggested the following:
- The introduction of PublisherRelationshipType implies the existence of a new artist type, which should probably called "Company". This could be handled by the existing "Group" artist type, but I'd suggest that a new type be created. Other types might be created in future, such as "Label". It's also worth considering formalizing the difference between LegalName and PerformanceName this way: which is discussed further on MusicalAssociationRelationshipClass, here, and here.
Random
History:
