LordSputnik wrote: ym wrote: LordSputnik wrote:
However, MusicBrainz isn't just an encyclopaedia, it's a music tagging database.
That is completely not true. a database cannot be used for tagging. it is used for holding data. picard is used for tagging and anyone can customize their tags only if the database holds the correct information.
But you have to admit, more people use MusicBrainz (via Picard/Banshee/Rhythmbox/other media software) to tag their music collections than they do to look up information for their own personal knowledge.
I never said the opposite of this. What I said was, it is not a database issue. If any of those software want to customize the artist, that's their job not the database's.
The track artist will be applied to the artist field of the music file when tagging, so that should be as it appears on the release - you should see the same thing in your music player as if you looked on the back of the CD.
So what you say is we should force the music players not to display anything else than the "artist" column? Well, that won't be happening sorry.
If you are saying that we should also think about the players that can only read what is on the artist, yes indeed we should, but not at database level, at tagger level. Picard or any other music tagger, should handle those, not musicbrainz database.
The recording artist should be the principle artist(s) who recorded the song. It makes no sense, ever, for a recording artist to be the composer, unless the composer also performed on the recording. Additional artists can be credited via relationships (eg. played instrument on).
IMHO, recordings should not have artists, but works and TrackLists, should have... Because; every work must have at least one creator (artist(s)), every performance must have at least one performer (artist(s)), but for recordings it's different, recording shows the recorded material, so if you want to label an artist there, those should be the recording engineers, not the performer artists. Since, engineers are part of advanced relationships (which I agree), so we shouldn't have artists in recordings. So, as I said earlier, we must strictly define "work", "performance" and "recording" before anything else.
I see "Work" as a synonym for "composition". For example, as in "The Complete Works of Shakespeare". The work artist should be the artist who wrote the song.
Yes, as I said, I see them like this too, but it is not clear in MB definitions and practice (even at database level).
Works should be linked to Recordings via the "performance of..." relationship.
That relationship is (or is going to) change to "recording of" relationship.