Re: Composition/Performer/Production ARs at Release or Track level? - PROPOSAL
2008/1/2, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...>:
> Ok, we just had a lengthy debate on this in IRC, which has, I think, helped
> to clarify the issue.
> ( starts around
> Essentially, I think this whole thing falls into one of two views. Problem
> is, those two views are 100% incompatible. I think we REALLY do need to
> decide that one or the other is the viewpoint we're using, however, as this
> is causing more and move confusion as to which ARs people should be adding,
> which ARs are correct or wrong, etc.
> Viewpoint 1:
> A release is the sum of its tracks.
> An AR added at the release level is valid if and only if it applies to
> all tracks.
> Thus: ARs can therefore not be "vague" or "fuzzy" - they either are
> factually correct for the entire release, or they should be in annotations
> until someone else can update them.
A Release is definitely something more than the sum of its tracks IMHO.
> Viewpoint 2:
> A release and its tracks are two entirely separate considerations.
> An AR added at the release level is valid if is says something about at
> least one of the tracks on the release.
> Thus: ARs at the release level can be "fuzzy" - if you know someone
> played alto sax on some track, but you don't know which track(s), then it
> can be added at the release level for someone later (who has better info) to
> move to the proper track(s).
An AR on the release level has an entirely different meaning of the
same AR applied at track level.
Producer A produced the recording sessions that gave track A, B & C
(using the links on the tracks)
Producer B produced the reissue *release* containing A, B & C.
Heriting/propagating either way (from track to release, or from
release to tracks) in such a case just sounds bad to me, as they
really mean two different things.
> Now I personally have always thought akin to #1. A release is, to me,
> essentially a collection of specific versions of tracks in some particular
> order on various forms of media. Thus having release level ARs be those
> which applied to all tracks made sense, especially before we had batch AR
> ability, when actually adding the same AR to every single track took
Well, again, it doesn't make any sense to say that Artist A provided
photography for track A...
You (usually) provide photography for a *release* (but maybe this
discussion excluded that AR).
Same goes for the AR "liner notes": usually (semantically) valid for
releases, and shouldn't be propagated to tracks... (because that would
have a different meaning).
> However, perhaps it is time to use the 2nd viewpoint instead, now that we
> can do ARs in batch. It was argued to me in IRC that this at least gets the
> release to show under the artist, rather than trapping the data in an
> annotation, when the editor does only have fuzzy info. This kind of makes
> sense to me.
I would largely prefer to have such "fuzzy" data into annotation.
If people know only something fuzzy about a release, why would we
desire it to be half-correctly represented in the db?
But I guess this is a matter of how one thinks about the database as a whole.
My own (personal) view is "have it straight or have it in the annotation..."
> HOWEVER! If we're really going to interpret release level ARs this way,
> allowing for people to add release level ARs for "I know John played on some
> tracks on this album, but I don't know which particular tracks", let's say
> Right now, half of us are voting against such ARs, while the other half of
> us are adding them. Right now, many of us are adding release level ARs,
> rather than adding those same ARs to every single track, when they DO have
> the info to be able to say that AR does apply to every single track.
> So, if one person is adding "fuzzy" release level ARs, and another person is
> adding non-fuzzy ARs at the release level, but could add them at the track
> level, we're left with any given release level AR being of rather low DQ -
> it *could* apply to the entire release... or it *could* just be that
> someone didn't know which tracks to apply it to.
> So I've been somewhat convinced, and I suggest, let's use viewpoint 2 as the
> official guidance for how to handle ARs:
> Release level ARs are not now or ever to be inherited to tracks.
> Release level ARs are allowed to be, and always ought to be viewed as
I don't agree on that, as explained earlier: some release level AR
(namely producer, can perfectly and entirely make sense applied at the
release level, and not being "fuzzy" - as I said "Artist A produced
for reissue release B").
> However, track level (and for later, track master ARs) are *never* to be
> Finally, apply ARs to every track you can, if you have the info - ie: from
> this point on, if an AR applies to all tracks, it ought to be applied to all
> tracks, and not just to the release.
I don't agree either (for the same reason above...).
> (Any time I say AR here I mean performance and production ARs, not the ones
> that inherently have nothing to do with tracks, such as the coverart AR.)
Well, maybe you need to be a bit more specific then. I see a problem
at least with the producer AR - while I agree with your view about
perf and composer ARs (though for the later there are some corner
cases as well - eg: when a "composer" link apply to a work that is
splitted in different tracks for example).
Hope that helps,