RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Alex Mauer
This is RFC STYLE-257.

It expires on 2013-10-15.

This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack
style guideline,
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack

Currently the Soundtrack style for tracks says:

"If the cover lists specific artists for each track, the listed artist
should be placed in the Artist Credit field. Otherwise, use the release
artist. For releases with no per-track credits, use the composer for
each track instead. If the composer is unknown, use [unknown]."

This is confusing, because it gives two things to do if there are no
per-track artists.

So, I propose the following correction:

"If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist
should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no
track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release
artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is
unknown, use [unknown]."


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

CallerNo6
On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:

> This is RFC STYLE-257.
>
> It expires on 2013-10-15.
>
> This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack
> style guideline,
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack
> [snip]
>
> "If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist
> should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no
> track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release
> artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is
> unknown, use [unknown]."
>

+1

Alex / caller#6


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Rachel Dwight

On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:13 PM, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>> This is RFC STYLE-257.
>>
>> It expires on 2013-10-15.
>>
>> This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack
>> style guideline,
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack
>> [snip]
>>
>> "If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist
>> should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no
>> track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release
>> artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is
>> unknown, use [unknown]."
>>
>
> +1

+1 as well. I'm sick of being forced to use the composer on artist credits even though there are vocalists (as in the case of musical theatre and film soundtracks).

>
> Alex / caller#6
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

CallerNo6
On 10/08/2013 02:14 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote:

> On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:13 PM, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>> This is RFC STYLE-257.
>>>
>>> It expires on 2013-10-15.
>>>
>>> This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack
>>> style guideline,
>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> "If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist
>>> should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no
>>> track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release
>>> artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is
>>> unknown, use [unknown]."
>> +1
> +1 as well. I'm sick of being forced to use the composer on artist credits even though there are vocalists (as in the case of musical theatre and film soundtracks).

As I read it, this only addresses a typo:

        "For releases with no *per-track* credits" --> "If there is no *release* artist"


Alex / caller#6

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Rachel Dwight

On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:37 PM, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 02:14 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:13 PM, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/08/2013 12:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>>> This is RFC STYLE-257.
>>>>
>>>> It expires on 2013-10-15.
>>>>
>>>> This proposal is to correct some confusing wording in the soundtrack
>>>> style guideline,
>>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Soundtrack
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> "If the cover art lists specific artists for each track, that artist
>>>> should be placed in the track's Artist Credit field. If there are no
>>>> track artists, use the release artist instead. If there is no release
>>>> artist, use the composer for each track instead. If the composer is
>>>> unknown, use [unknown]."
>>> +1
>> +1 as well. I'm sick of being forced to use the composer on artist credits even though there are vocalists (as in the case of musical theatre and film soundtracks).
>
> As I read it, this only addresses a typo:
>
> "For releases with no *per-track* credits" --> "If there is no *release* artist"
>

A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits. That's my point.
Under the standing guideline we have to put the composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on the tracks themselves.

>
> Alex / caller#6
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Alex Mauer
On 10/08/2013 04:43 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote:
> A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits.
> That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the
> composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even
> though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on
> the tracks themselves.

Te next sentence says  “If there is no release artist, use the composer
for each track instead.” So composer will still usually be the track
artist when we don’t have per-track credits.

Soundtrack Style actually already recommends using the performer for the
recording artists: “The Recording Artist field should list the most
important performers who appear on that specific recording” — that’s
recordings, not tracks.

This proposal isn’t changing anything substantial, just fixing some bad
wording.



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Rachel Dwight

On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 04:43 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote:
>> A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits.
>> That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the
>> composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even
>> though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on
>> the tracks themselves.
>
> Te next sentence says  “If there is no release artist, use the composer
> for each track instead.” So composer will still usually be the track
> artist when we don’t have per-track credits.

Then I'm switching my vote to -1.

>
> Soundtrack Style actually already recommends using the performer for the
> recording artists: “The Recording Artist field should list the most
> important performers who appear on that specific recording” — that’s
> recordings, not tracks.
>
> This proposal isn’t changing anything substantial, just fixing some bad
> wording.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

I mean, that doesn't *change* that bit, so surely this doesn't make it any worse?

On 9 Oct 2013 01:26, "Rachel Dwight" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 04:43 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote:
>> A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits.
>> That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the
>> composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even
>> though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on
>> the tracks themselves.
>
> Te next sentence says  “If there is no release artist, use the composer
> for each track instead.” So composer will still usually be the track
> artist when we don’t have per-track credits.

Then I'm switching my vote to -1.

>
> Soundtrack Style actually already recommends using the performer for the
> recording artists: “The Recording Artist field should list the most
> important performers who appear on that specific recording” — that’s
> recordings, not tracks.
>
> This proposal isn’t changing anything substantial, just fixing some bad
> wording.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Rachel Dwight

On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:

I mean, that doesn't *change* that bit, so surely this doesn't make it any worse?



It doesn't make it any better either. The current system creates soooo much inaccuracy.
However it does help a tad in the case of hidden or semi-hidden per-track credits, as one soundtrack I know of (the Avenue Q Broadway cast recording) has a list of vocal credits on the track names inside the booklet. Under the previous guideline we were restricted to what was printed on the front cover; would credits inside the booklet or in another inconspicuous place count as per-track now?

On 9 Oct 2013 01:26, "Rachel Dwight" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 04:43 PM, Rachel Dwight wrote:
>> A lot of musical theatre soundtracks don't have per-track credits.
>> That's my point. Under the standing guideline we have to put the
>> composer as the artist on all recordings in such a release even
>> though actors and musicians other than the composer are featured on
>> the tracks themselves.
>
> Te next sentence says  “If there is no release artist, use the composer
> for each track instead.” So composer will still usually be the track
> artist when we don’t have per-track credits.

Then I'm switching my vote to -1.

>
> Soundtrack Style actually already recommends using the performer for the
> recording artists: “The Recording Artist field should list the most
> important performers who appear on that specific recording” — that’s
> recordings, not tracks.
>
> This proposal isn’t changing anything substantial, just fixing some bad
> wording.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Kuno Woudt
In reply to this post by Alex Mauer
On 08.10.2013 21:50, Alex Mauer wrote:
> This is RFC STYLE-257.

+1

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

Staffan Vilcans
In reply to this post by Rachel Dwight

Rachel Dwight skrev:

> However it does help a tad in the case of hidden or semi-hidden per-track
> credits, as one soundtrack I know of (the Avenue Q Broadway cast
> recording) has a list of vocal credits on the track names inside the
> booklet. Under the previous guideline we were restricted to what was
> printed on the front cover; would credits inside the booklet or in another
> inconspicuous place count as per-track now?

I would hope not. Then we would end up with a lot of artist credits like
"John Smith, Jane Doe, Johnny Walker, Harry Davidsson, David Smythe, Olaf
Whatever and ensemble". Better put those as performers.

--
http://www.interface1.net


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-257: Correct mistake in soundtrack style

LordSputnik

+1


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style