Difference between revisions of "History:Classical Release Artist Style"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
(wikification and some rewordings to make things clearer (Imported from MoinMoin))
((Imported from MoinMoin))
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
In cases where a release contains only work(s) performed primarily by a single group or individual, credited prominently on the release, that artist may be designated the [[Release Artist|ReleaseArtist]] if any one of the following conditions is met:  
 
In cases where a release contains only work(s) performed primarily by a single group or individual, credited prominently on the release, that artist may be designated the [[Release Artist|ReleaseArtist]] if any one of the following conditions is met:  
 +
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I remain skeptical that packaging emphasis on the perf is really important. Ultimately what matters to me is whether it intuitively makes sense to file it under a single perf/group, based on the contents and the people involved.  My original language was "can be attributed to a single performer or group." - [[bklynd]]
 +
</ul>
 
# The works are composed by different composers, and the album would otherwise be attributed to [[Various Artists|VariousArtists]]  
 
# The works are composed by different composers, and the album would otherwise be attributed to [[Various Artists|VariousArtists]]  
 
# The tracks on the release, while all composed by one composer, are parts of multiple works, several of which are not present in their complete form or are drawn from different groups ("selections" or "highlights")  
 
# The tracks on the release, while all composed by one composer, are parts of multiple works, several of which are not present in their complete form or are drawn from different groups ("selections" or "highlights")  
 +
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I don't agree with this case.  I posted some examples to mb-style that are of this case but still seem (IMO) to belong under the composer, and I hope people will comment on that or offer counterexamples. - [[bklynd]]
 +
</ul>
 
# The work(s) have all been arranged, remixed, or otherwise substantially modified by the primary performer  
 
# The work(s) have all been arranged, remixed, or otherwise substantially modified by the primary performer  
  
Line 26: Line 30:
  
 
Please avoid creating new [[Artist]]s for collaborations that are not otherwise referred to (e.g. by other releases or [[Advanced Relationships|AdvancedRelationships]]).  
 
Please avoid creating new [[Artist]]s for collaborations that are not otherwise referred to (e.g. by other releases or [[Advanced Relationships|AdvancedRelationships]]).  
 +
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">This point seems like it could be more explicitly worded.  From my understanding, we don't want new "collaborative groupings" (such as "Herbert von Karajan & The Berlin Philharmonic.") -[[bklynd]]
 +
</ul>
  
 
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Style]]
 
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Style]]

Revision as of 20:42, 3 October 2006

Style for determining Release Artists on *classical* Releases

The ClassicalStyleGuide states that the ReleaseArtist of a classical Release should always be the composer. We make an exception with recitals by a single performer:

In cases where a release contains only work(s) performed primarily by a single group or individual, credited prominently on the release, that artist may be designated the ReleaseArtist if any one of the following conditions is met:

  • I remain skeptical that packaging emphasis on the perf is really important. Ultimately what matters to me is whether it intuitively makes sense to file it under a single perf/group, based on the contents and the people involved. My original language was "can be attributed to a single performer or group." - bklynd
  1. The works are composed by different composers, and the album would otherwise be attributed to VariousArtists
  2. The tracks on the release, while all composed by one composer, are parts of multiple works, several of which are not present in their complete form or are drawn from different groups ("selections" or "highlights")
  • I don't agree with this case. I posted some examples to mb-style that are of this case but still seem (IMO) to belong under the composer, and I hope people will comment on that or offer counterexamples. - bklynd
  1. The work(s) have all been arranged, remixed, or otherwise substantially modified by the primary performer

In the first case, the album should be entered with

  • the composers as the TrackArtists for each of the tracks (unless the third case applies)
  • the performer as the ReleaseArtist.

In the second case, the album should be entered with

  • the composer as the TrackArtist for each of the tracks (unless the third case applies)
  • the performer as the ReleaseArtist.

In the third case, the ClassicalStyleGuide does not really apply. We are now more likely in the field of Jazz, electronic or popular music. Therefore the album should be entered as a single artist release with

More Details

Please avoid creating new Artists for collaborations that are not otherwise referred to (e.g. by other releases or AdvancedRelationships).

  • This point seems like it could be more explicitly worded. From my understanding, we don't want new "collaborative groupings" (such as "Herbert von Karajan & The Berlin Philharmonic.") -bklynd