OK gang, I'm pissed off.
For about the third time in a week, I've come across Mo automodding
away "collaborative" artists on compilations and in doing so losing
valuable data, and polluting database values.
http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=857331http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605I'm sick of it. I want the damned style guide changed, and now.
For the uninitiated, here are my two previous threads on the subject:
April '05:
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-April/020491.htmlMay '05:
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-May/000107.htmlOnce again, my arguments:
1) ID3 tags and MP3 players (both hardware and software) have a field
for "Title" and a field for "Artist". In 99% of cases, we should be
populating these with the Title and Artist shown on the CD case.
2) The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place because
there was no way to link artists to collaborations. Now there is.
It's AR. It works.
3) In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a different DB
schema that can assign more than one artist to a track. But we're not
in the future, we're in the present. And presently, the best way to
store this data, SO THAT IT CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use
AR to specify collaborations.
4) Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random, stuffing
the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR THIS TO
HAPPEN in "The Future".
Please, for my sanity's sake, so that I don't want to punch the
otherwise hugely helpful mo in the groin, can we change the
styleguide?
Thanks,
Rod.
--
:: Rod Begbie ::
http://groovymother.com/ ::
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
