« Return to Thread: For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
Re: For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
by Brian G
::
Rate this Message:
I've run into similar problems and it's pretty annoying and frustrating.
the wiki has the best definition of collaboration and sadly the style
guide is kind of backwards and spotty in comparison.
why isn't there an AR for tracks to artists called "featuring"?
Rod Begbie wrote:
>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=966605
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=857331
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
>
>I'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.html
>May '05: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-May/000107.html
>
>Once 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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
the wiki has the best definition of collaboration and sadly the style
guide is kind of backwards and spotty in comparison.
why isn't there an AR for tracks to artists called "featuring"?
Rod Begbie wrote:
>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=966605
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=857331
>http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=track&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
>
>I'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.html
>May '05: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-May/000107.html
>
>Once 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
>
>
>
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
« Return to Thread: For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
