RFV: Featured artists clarification

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

RFV: Featured artists clarification

August Janse
Clarifies which creditings should be standardized and which should not. Has been changed to also remove an outdated point regarding classical music. Also minor fixes.

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

Re: RFV: Featured artists clarification

rossetyler
Thanks for championing this cause.
Improvement here is long overdue.
As I mentioned in RFC, I believe the best improvement would be to scrap this guidance altogether.
I understand, however, that that is beyond what you are trying to do - which is to keep the accepted guidance but make it better.

I have been negligent in not reviewing your changes as I was holding out hope that guidance would just go away.
I have read it now.
As I understand it, the guidance is

    1. All presentations (abbreviations, etc.) of the English word "featuring" shall be normalized to "feat." in an Artist Credit (AC) join phrase.
    2. All other join phrase words, including synonyms and translations of this word (featuring), are not subject to this ("feat.") normalization.

Correct?
If so, I think the above guidance is more clear.

Also, I would think that our guidance would include the reason(s) why "featuring" is so special that it needs to be normalized while all other words are not.
Without this rationale, I am afraid, this guidance is just dogma.

In RFC, the only rationale that I heard was that "featuring" is a common AC join phrase and many MB taggers like to script such artists out.
Certainly, this normalization makes it easier to do so.
If this is the case the guidance should say so.
If there are more/better arguments, they should be made as well - in the guidance.

However, if our rationale for this normalization is to make such MB taggers happy, why is it being limited to just English?
It seems to me the same rationale should apply equally to all languages.
Shouldn't we want to make everyone happy?

Don't get me wrong - I am not for expanding this guidance, I am for eliminating it altogether.
It's just that the guidance does not match the rationale/intent (that I have heard).
Keeping this antiquated, pre-AC guidance, IMO, is still silly dogma.

On 12/13/2013 05:35 AM, August Janse wrote:
Clarifies which creditings should be standardized and which should not. Has been changed to also remove an outdated point regarding classical music. Also minor fixes.



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

Re: RFV: Featured artists clarification

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren



On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Ross Tyler <[hidden email]> wrote:
However, if our rationale for this normalization is to make such MB taggers happy, why is it being limited to just English?
It seems to me the same rationale should apply equally to all languages.
Shouldn't we want to make everyone happy?

It effectively does. The thing is that our guidelines say to expand abbreviations, so for other phrases, if they're joined with an abbreviated join like "X w/ Y", we are supposed to expand that to with *anyway*. But that would make all "feat." and "ft." turn into "featuring", which is ugly, unwieldy and rarely used, so we standardise to "feat." instead.

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

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

Re: RFV: Featured artists clarification

rossetyler
On 12/13/2013 08:38 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Ross Tyler <[hidden email]> wrote:
However, if our rationale for this normalization is to make such MB taggers happy, why is it being limited to just English?
It seems to me the same rationale should apply equally to all languages.
Shouldn't we want to make everyone happy?

It effectively does. The thing is that our guidelines say to expand abbreviations, so for other phrases, if they're joined with an abbreviated join like "X w/ Y", we are supposed to expand that to with *anyway*. But that would make all "feat." and "ft." turn into "featuring", which is ugly, unwieldy and rarely used, so we standardise to "feat." instead.

So I have the guidance right? Just English, just this one word? All in order to not burden English readers?
Surely then, this guidance does a disservice to readers of other languages that, I am sure, have translated words that are similarly "unwieldy".
I'm sorry, this is inconsistent and subjective guidance (singling out this one word in this one language) that is capricious and arbitrary.

My objections aside, if this is is to be our guidance, then it should be stated unequivocally (as I have suggested) along with the reasoning.

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

Re: RFV: Featured artists clarification

swisschris
Sorry for coming in so late, but maybe we should go back to RFC and rethink the whole thing: I understand and share Ross Tyler's concerns about making a guideline singloing out just one word. Right now what seems to be the consensus about the general guideline "use whatever link-term is written on the packaging" (and expand abbreviations according to the general MB guideline) is hidden way down in "Details". Why not start (right after the initial phrase defining "featured artists") with this general guideline, allowing us then to formulate "Exceptions" from this rule, like the case of "Featuring/featuring/Feat./feat./feat/ft./ft" or maybe also "Versus/versus/vs./vs/v./v", which are to my knowledge the two link phrases a) most commonly used (and by far not only on english releases) and b) coming with a variety of abbreviations, which makes normalizing a good thing. Should we stumble over similar cases in other languages, these could easily be added as additional exceptions.

Chris/Chabreyflint


On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Ross Tyler <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 12/13/2013 08:38 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Ross Tyler <[hidden email]> wrote:
However, if our rationale for this normalization is to make such MB taggers happy, why is it being limited to just English?
It seems to me the same rationale should apply equally to all languages.
Shouldn't we want to make everyone happy?

It effectively does. The thing is that our guidelines say to expand abbreviations, so for other phrases, if they're joined with an abbreviated join like "X w/ Y", we are supposed to expand that to with *anyway*. But that would make all "feat." and "ft." turn into "featuring", which is ugly, unwieldy and rarely used, so we standardise to "feat." instead.

So I have the guidance right? Just English, just this one word? All in order to not burden English readers?
Surely then, this guidance does a disservice to readers of other languages that, I am sure, have translated words that are similarly "unwieldy".
I'm sorry, this is inconsistent and subjective guidance (singling out this one word in this one language) that is capricious and arbitrary.

My objections aside, if this is is to be our guidance, then it should be stated unequivocally (as I have suggested) along with the reasoning.

_______________________________________________
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: RFV: Featured artists clarification

"Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen"
Den 14-12-2013 13:24, SwissChris skrev:
> Sorry for coming in so late, but maybe we should go back to RFC and
> rethink the whole thing: I understand and share Ross Tyler's concerns
> about making a guideline [...]

This RFC is not making (or even changing!) a guideline, it's rewording
an already existing one.

I don't think this needs to go back to RFC. The guideline isn't being
worded more poorly with this RFC which is due to pass in ~24 hours, so
let's get the improvement from this one through instead of having to
wait the 9+ days for a follow-up RFC to get accepted.

I do agree with your suggestion for how to restructure/-layout the
guidelines though and would be happy to see such an RFC get submitted to
further improve on the work from this one, but there's no need to wait
until that RFC is ready for the improvements from this RFC to get applied.

TL;DR: Let this RFC pass and make a new one to further improve the
guideline.

--
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso


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

signature.asc (919 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: Featured artists clarification

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

Pretty much exactly what Freso said, with my style leader hat on. For further improvements please send a second RFC in a couple days :)

On 14 Dec 2013 15:05, "Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Den 14-12-2013 13:24, SwissChris skrev:
> Sorry for coming in so late, but maybe we should go back to RFC and
> rethink the whole thing: I understand and share Ross Tyler's concerns
> about making a guideline [...]

This RFC is not making (or even changing!) a guideline, it's rewording
an already existing one.

I don't think this needs to go back to RFC. The guideline isn't being
worded more poorly with this RFC which is due to pass in ~24 hours, so
let's get the improvement from this one through instead of having to
wait the 9+ days for a follow-up RFC to get accepted.

I do agree with your suggestion for how to restructure/-layout the
guidelines though and would be happy to see such an RFC get submitted to
further improve on the work from this one, but there's no need to wait
until that RFC is ready for the improvements from this RFC to get applied.

TL;DR: Let this RFC pass and make a new one to further improve the
guideline.

--
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso


_______________________________________________
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: RFV: Featured artists clarification

drsaunde
In reply to this post by August Janse
> Also, I would think that our guidance would include the reason(s) why
> "featuring" is so special that it needs to be normalized while all other
> words are not.
> Without this rationale, I am afraid, this guidance is just dogma.
>

The problem here is that we are dealing with a genre specific concept (hip-hop, although later adopted by dance, techno & pop), and the commenters are those who do not edit hip-hop.  So I am confused why the need to apply standards to an area of the database that people are not involved with.

That being said, the "reason" for the featured artist standardization, is that for many many hip-hop releases, there is no consistency on the style used to credit featuring artists WITHIN THE SAME RELEASE.

Very often you have for example "feat." on the back cover, "f/" on the CD and "featuring" in the booklet.
The standardization was to prevent the confusion this obviously causes.

drsaunde

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

Re: RFV: Featured artists clarification

August Janse


2013/12/15 David Saunders <[hidden email]>
> Also, I would think that our guidance would include the reason(s) why
> "featuring" is so special that it needs to be normalized while all other
> words are not.
> Without this rationale, I am afraid, this guidance is just dogma.
>

The problem here is that we are dealing with a genre specific concept (hip-hop, although later adopted by dance, techno & pop), and the commenters are those who do not edit hip-hop.  So I am confused why the need to apply standards to an area of the database that people are not involved with.

That being said, the "reason" for the featured artist standardization, is that for many many hip-hop releases, there is no consistency on the style used to credit featuring artists WITHIN THE SAME RELEASE.

Very often you have for example "feat." on the back cover, "f/" on the CD and "featuring" in the booklet.
The standardization was to prevent the confusion this obviously causes.

drsaunde

_______________________________________________
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