Difference between revisions of "History:Getting Rid Of Featuring Artist Style"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
(first draft. needs a lot of new content! (Imported from MoinMoin))
 
(added a little bit more structure (Imported from MoinMoin))
Line 5: Line 5:
 
The idea to create this page comes from [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-October/021682.html a post from DonRedman on mb-users] (start of discussion [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-October/021661.html here]).  
 
The idea to create this page comes from [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-October/021682.html a post from DonRedman on mb-users] (start of discussion [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-October/021661.html here]).  
  
-- Problems --
+
==Problems with the current Guideline==
 +
 
 +
The current [[Featuring Artist Style|FeaturingArtistStyle]] has a couple of severe issues. This section should identify them:
 
* Applying [[Featuring Artist Style|FeaturingArtistStyle]] makes information disappear. Converting '''A & B - Track Name''' to '''A - Track Name (feat. B)''' doesn't necessarily mean artist A is the primary artist and B is a sort of guest artist.  
 
* Applying [[Featuring Artist Style|FeaturingArtistStyle]] makes information disappear. Converting '''A & B - Track Name''' to '''A - Track Name (feat. B)''' doesn't necessarily mean artist A is the primary artist and B is a sort of guest artist.  
 
* A search for '''A & B''' doesn't list artists that have tracks '''Track Name (feat. B)'''.  
 
* A search for '''A & B''' doesn't list artists that have tracks '''Track Name (feat. B)'''.  
 
* ...  
 
* ...  
  
-- Solutions --
+
On the other hand the current Guideline is not completely void of sense. the pro's for it are:
 +
* The herarchy between the [[Core Entities|CoreEntities]] Artist-Album-Track is kept (well, at the expense of one artist being completely dropped out of this hierarchy). Most media players categorize tracks this way.
 
* ...  
 
* ...  
  
-- Discussion/Comments --  
+
==Proposed Solutions==
 +
 
 +
This section should help to get a cleareer picture of the proposed solutions and their inconvenients. IIRC there are two possible solutions:
 +
* Store ''all'' performance roles with [[Advanced Relationships|AdvancedRelationships]] of the [[Performance Relationship Class|PerformanceRelationshipClass]].
 +
* Create [[Artist Cooperation|ArtistCooperation]]<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s for "A feat. B" and relate tracks to this artist by means of the [[Core Relationship|CoreRelationship]] (that is store it as the [[Primary Artist|PrimaryArtist]]).
 +
* ...(are there more proposals?)
 +
 
 +
Now we would need to describe these proposals in detail and then sum up all arguments for and against them.
 +
 
 +
----Authors: Everybody :-)
  
----Author: [[User:Zout|Zout]]
+
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Discussion]]
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Discussion]] [[Category:Discussion]] [[Category:Discussion]]
 

Revision as of 16:24, 20 October 2005

Getting Rid of Featuring Artist Style

This page tries to sum all problems of and possible solutions to the FeaturingArtistStyle.

The idea to create this page comes from a post from DonRedman on mb-users (start of discussion here).

Problems with the current Guideline

The current FeaturingArtistStyle has a couple of severe issues. This section should identify them:

  • Applying FeaturingArtistStyle makes information disappear. Converting A & B - Track Name to A - Track Name (feat. B) doesn't necessarily mean artist A is the primary artist and B is a sort of guest artist.
  • A search for A & B doesn't list artists that have tracks Track Name (feat. B).
  • ...

On the other hand the current Guideline is not completely void of sense. the pro's for it are:

  • The herarchy between the CoreEntities Artist-Album-Track is kept (well, at the expense of one artist being completely dropped out of this hierarchy). Most media players categorize tracks this way.
  • ...

Proposed Solutions

This section should help to get a cleareer picture of the proposed solutions and their inconvenients. IIRC there are two possible solutions:

Now we would need to describe these proposals in detail and then sum up all arguments for and against them.


Authors: Everybody :-)