History:Composers As Release Artists For Tributes Proposal

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Status: This page describes a failed proposal. It is not official, and should only be used, if at all, as the basis for a new proposal.

Proposal number: RFC-Unassigned
Champion: None
Status: Failed, due to Abandonment
This proposal was not tracked in Trac.


I would like to propose that we use the artist who is being honored by a tribute (the composer) as the release artist for tribute releases. Here are a few things to consider:

  • We could add "Tribute" as a release type, get rid of the TributeRelationshipType
  • Tributes could be grouped on the composer's artist page (based on the new release type)

Arguments in Favor

  • These tribute releases disappear into the abyss of Various Artists
  • Those who are concerned with tribute releases are generally those who are concerned with the composer
  • Easier access to tribute releases instead of having to link through the bare-bones ARs (just name, not other info)

Arguments Against

  • The tribute ARs already provide a direct link from the composer page (though admittedly, UI quirks may make this kind of awkward - by all means an UI issue, not a data/style problem), hence there is very little gain in having them listed as releases under the artist entry instead
  • Having these listed as releases instead actually has the major drawback of "drowning" tributes into regular releases
  • This proposal creates yet another discrepancy in the way we handle ReleaseArtists, and opens up for ugly things... (eg: see "Monk on Monk")
  • Assuming that people digging tributes are more concerned by the composer than the performers is somewhat a wild assumption
  • Though this proposal partly (tries to) address some of the above issues (grouping tributes on the artist page together), having it implemented would actually require quite a lot of work (add a new ReleaseType, redesign part of the artist page), and a deep impact on the database


I'm not too sure I remember if this was ruled out on the style ML, or just went forgotten. For now, I'm marking this page history assuming the former. If the later and I'm wrong, and this is still considered a viable proposition that will receive active support, please state so and/or change the card header to WorkInProgressHeader, remove the history category, and take ownership for this proposal. -- dmppanda 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)