> Can't we have both feat. and AR on the same track? Then we
> can have both searchable infomation and relationship levels
> for now until the new tagger's done.
>
> Also, relationship levels are sometimes difficult to figure
> out, so this lets you stick a "feat." in for now and wait for
> someone else with more expertise to add in supplementary
> information. Then there's no information loss, and we can
> modify SG5 in the meantime to stop the "compounding problems".
>
> -0.75, SC member. (for now, until someone explains to me why
> we can't have
> both.)
Yes we already have both. There are some who for whatever reason feel that
(feat. X) is no longer needed since AR is in place. However, there are
several issues mentioned in the wiki doc that others (myself included) feel
warrant the use (feat. X). An recent example I came across can not be
accurately expressed with AR at all
(
http://musicbrainz.org/showmod.html?modid=3622985). Since AR is at the
track level, I had to associate both performers to the track but each
performer only performs one of the two songs on the track. There's no way in
AR to make that distinction.
________________________________
Cristov (wolfsong)
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Sir Winston
Leonard Spencer Churchill
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
