History:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork Proposal

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 21:48, 28 August 2016 by CallerNo6 (talk | contribs) (CallerNo6 moved page Proposal:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork to History:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork Proposal: https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/3675767/)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


Status: This page describes an active advanced relationship proposal and is not official.



Proposal number: RFC-Unassigned
Champion: None
Current status: Unknown



Cover art-related Relationships proposal

I propose a few enhancements to the general "cover art" category; the current three relationships are (in my experience) not very pliable to what's actually on many covers (i.e., on the covers I've seen).

First, I suggest to group all such roles under a general "artwork" category. (Or class, I don't know which is the preferred term.)

Below is a list of roles that should be in the category. The list contains the previously existing relationships (I assume they were added for good reasons), and a few more that I encountered on covers. Anyone who has encountered others should add them here. The list is hierarchical, I believe that's possible, right?

  • artist or URL provided art direction on release or track
  • release or track has art direction by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided design for release or track
  • release or track has design by artist or URL (this is broken from "art design / illustration", I don't see why they should be together.)
    • artist or URL provided graphic design on release or track
    • release or track has graphic design by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided executive design on release or track
    • release or track has executive design by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided layout for release or track
    • release or track has layout by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided artwork for release or track
  • release or track has artwork by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided cover art for release or track
    • release or track has cover art by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided illustration for release or track
    • release or track has illustration by artist or URL (this is broken from "art design / illustration", I don't see why they should be together.)
    • artist or URL provided photography for release or track
    • release or track has photography by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided front cover painting for release or track
    • release or track has front cover painting by artist or URL
  • I've actually seen this on a release wiki:release:36cbbb31-c6eb-4452-b072-d495f4faa309; other similar albums (where the same artist created painted artwork from the cover) had only "cover art by". I don't see any harm adding "painting" -- it's the same with photography and illustration -- but if we multiply this for any back/front cover, booklet, etc., this could become huge. See the "Domains" proposal below.
  • artist or URL provided typography for release or track
  • release or track has typography by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided cover/artwork concept for release or track
  • release or track has cover/artwork concept by artist or URL
  • I don't know if it's worth it to differentiate these two, but I'm wary of another "art design/illustration" problem, so it may be a good idea to separate them.