History:Featuring Artist Style

Style for Featuring Artists

Ordering of ExtraTitleInformation which includes FeaturingArtistStyle, PartNumber, TrackVersion can be found under TrackTitle.

Official Guideline

This guideline applies to cases in which one or more artists are featured on a track or release by another artist, but not equally as they would be in a collaboration.

That is, they are given credit on the cover or track listing of a release by another artist in a manner which elevates their contribution above normal liner note credits. Often, the word "featured", "feat." or "featuring" proceeds their name(s).

In the event of this:

• file the track/release under the normal primary artist, and
• add AdvancedRelationships of the PerformanceRelationshipClass to link to the featuring artists, and
• append the name of the secondary artists to the TrackTitle/ReleaseTitle as follows:

• "Put Your Lights On (feat. Everlast)"

An artist being featured or not can vary for the same track, depending on the context. For example, The song "Under Pressure" may have been initially credited as a collaborative effort by David Bowie and Queen (e.g.), but may be credited differently on their respective compilations. e.g., a David Bowie compilation might give Queen a featuring credit (e.g.), rather than a additional primary artist credit, or might not credit them outside of the liner notes at all (e.g.). Use FeaturingArtistStyle or CollaborationRelationshipType as appropriate, but do not attempt to unify all instances to the same format.

Details and Discussion

• The TrackArtist/ReleaseArtist is the main artist a track/release is credited to. This means, the artist mentioned on the release cover (in most cases the front cover), package or any other labelled package like entity that describes the release (e.g. release page for online releases).
• For additional contributors who didn't perform on the track, use the various AdvancedRelationships to define their roles in relation to the track. Those can be contributors to the technical production process (mixers, producers, record engineers, etc.), remixers and others. The different roles are explained in CompilationRelationshipClass, CompositionRelationshipClass, ProductionRelationshipClass, RemixRelationshipClass. Note, that composers are often the main artists of classical releases (see ClassicalStyleGuide) and remixers or compilers can also be main artists if they fit into 1.
• If a track features both "Foo" and "Bar", it should be entered as "... (feat. Foo & Bar)". For more than two: "... (feat. Foo, Bar, Baz ... & Quux)".

---

Comment: You've dropped out the second part of the current FeaturingArtistStyle, "If no artist can be considered secondary...", which describes what to do in the event of an equal collaboration.  I think it's needed here, because I don't see it described elsewhere.  Maybe in ReleaseArtist?  If so put a reference to that.  CollaborationRelationshipType doesn't tell the story about creating a CollaborationArtist, that's for sure.  —JimDeLaHunt 2008-02-06 

• IMO the previous guidelines was incorrect and shouldn't have been here in the first place. I would be happy to create a CollaborationArtistStyle but it would be little more than "If two or more artists are credited equally as primary artist on a release, without using a new group name, represent them as a new artist "Artist X & Artist Y" (or, for multiple artists: "Artist X, Artist, ... & Artist Z")". We need to move away from trying to work out who contributed what to a release, and instead look at how they're credited. —Gecks 2008-02-07
  • Indeed, that part of the guideline dates from before collaboration artists (with AR's) were possible. There is no reason in the world to keep it here. -- KrazyKiwi 2008-02-07

Comment: I'd like to see some text at the beginning saying that this does not apply when ClassicalStyleGuide is in use. Note that CSG and ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle already takes a different position from ReleaseArtist and FeaturingArtistStyle on how to handle ReleaseArtist for collaborations. ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle is about to discourage FeaturingArtistStyle altogether, I expect. How about this text, after second paragraph of "Official Guideline". —JimDeLaHunt 2008-02-06

• This guideline applies to most MusicalGenres, but it does not apply to entries covered by the ClassicalStyleGuide. Collaboration takes a different form in ClassicalMusic. See the ClassicalStyleGuide, and especially ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle and ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle, for guidance.
  • Well, I would disagree with dropping FeaturingArtistStyle from the CSG. I think it still has a place there, but I've said my piece on the list. —Gecks 2008-02-07
    • Do we really need to say "Except for CSG" here? It'll apply to every style guideline. It'd be more succinct to put on the CSG "...and ignore every other guideline MB has".-- KrazyKiwi 2008-02-07
      • I agree, but more because using (feat.) is already not part of the current (unofficial) CSG - the only place within CSG it does occur is the messy release title exception in CSG - and that too is just waiting on a database / interface change to go away. I'd think it'd be rather easiest to leave CSG out here, and just add in to the title section of newCSG "until the db can do better, this guideline overrides FeaturingArtistStyleAmendment" or some such. It's cleaner, and makes it so when such a db interface does happen, we only have one guideline, not two, in need of updating. -- BrianSchweitzer 17:50, 07 February 2008 (UTC)
      Yes, I think we really need to say "Except for CSG" here. One of the problems MB poses for contributors is that the style guidelines are often inconsistent and ambiguous. Without an "Except for CSG" disclaimer, then a contributor reading this guideline but not the CSG may not know the rules are different there. A contributor who reads both may not be sure which takes precedence. If both refer to the other and both say that CSG (actually, ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle) takes precedence where CSG applies, then MB is more consistent and less ambiguous. — JimDeLaHunt 2008-05-14

Comment: This text doesn't define the term "name-check". It would be helpful if it did. — JimDeLaHunt 2008-05-14