#musicbrainz

(and the other edit it links to)

brianF: I hope you are watching overtime

into the 2nd now :)

oh, sorry, no, lol

ojnkpjg: I agree with you...the "feat." should only be used when they are credited as such

agreed

ok, i'm glad i'm not on crack.. i thought that was the general guideline regarding feat. these days and i was kind of surprised to see it 0-2

well, they're now 4:2 :P

my sense is, the less we overload the titles, and the more we can use the ARs we have, the better

yep

there was just nowhere else for the info originally

I'd actually love to do away with "feat" altogether - seems to me it become obsolete when the AR went in

right

although some cases (mostly hip-hop) the "feat." artist are credited in the main track list..and I think those should stay

yeah, me, too

i'm ok with it if it's in an official track listing

drsaunde: why? We're still crediting them, but via AR. the liner does it that way cause liners don't have ARs...

not liner...the main tracklisting on the back or on the actually CD...happens a lot and those should remain

I'm ok with it, but I still think it'd be nice to get rid of "feat" altogether...

oh, that's what I meant when I said liner - the packaging materials

for me, it's a matter of prominence

if the "feat. X" is as prominent in the listing as the rest of the title, i'd leave it

well...by liner i that that means the inlay...which is always more detailed

the AR isn't prominent enough?

if it's an asterisked note, or something, or listed under the title, i'd remove it

ah, I tend to say liner and mean any of the packaging for whatever media :P

ojnpjg; agreed

but my question is, liners use (feat. so and so) cause of the limitations of the medium

in a relational database, why not use those relationships and get rid of the (feat)?

yeah, sometimes

but sometimes i think they're there intentionally

but you wouldn't say it's part of the title itself, would you?

they use feat. to indicated featured artists, artists who aren't featured are listed in the normal credits

i'm not sure in some cases

wouldn't that be the difference between "artist plays on" and "artist additionally plays on"?

i've never really understood what the additionally attribute meant

no...additional is only used when the credits specify additional

the degree of prominence?

oh, I always took it as an indication of prominence

some credits use the word "additional" to describe a credit...that's the only time additional should be used in MB

ok

Hmm, that's not the way I've used it.

how do you use it?

i'm pretty sure i've never used it

I've not seen that kind of restriction anywhere either.

i've used it many times..but only when credited as such

that'd cause it to make sense to me, though

(drsaunde's explanation, i mean)

There are restrictions like that when it comes to say producer vs co-producer

but I never saw them w/regard to "additional"

So I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's used it some other way.

yeah...co-producer is a big pet peeve of mine..many people use it when there's more than one producer, and that couldn't be more wrong

yup

drsaude: next time you need to win that argument, go to the imdb glossary. They're talking more about video than audio, but they have a great (and concise) definition of the difference.

that's why i could never make sense of additional: the presence of more than one entity seemed to imply it

but if it's just a way of duplicating credits on an album, it makes sense

alfredsson scores

sorry Buffalo

see, I saw it as three levels: main prominence = artist and liner listing as &. feat = "performed on" and low promience = "additionally"

:(

yahoo seems to have lost their feed - still showing 2 seconds into OT

BrianFreud: I think I've used it that way.

BrianFreud: Not more than once or twice, but I've added someone as "additionally guest performed" or something like that.

Would it make sense then, if we theoretically wanted to utterly get rid of "feat", to add a "is featured on" AR?

i don't like the whole concept of "guest" that's just as abused as co-producer

is the producer a guest? is a long-time contributer a guest? does it really make sense to add anyone as a guest when the main artist is a single person?

I've used it

example: the guy who came in for 2 days out of a 20 day session just to play harp on Something in the Way on Nevermind

he's an additional guest performer

well yeah..there are obvious guest situations

but there are many which shouldn't be..and are entered as such anyway

I've used it pretty much on live situations.

Where the guest is obviously a guest.

Flea playing with Pearl Jam type of thing

yeah...those qualify as obvious (IMHO)

Right.

back to the other a moment - would you think a "is featured on" AR would be useful - it seems needed if "performed on" isn't enough

i don't...i'd rather have those in the track title when they are specifically used...mostly for hip-hop in my case

The most annoying thing for me about those ARs is the wording.

well, that seems more a case for tagging - right now we have to have plugins to remove feat. imho, it ought to be an AR, then it can optionally be added

brian: for example this great release: http://musicbrainz.org/release/f3d273f7-e660-4a...

there ought not to be a need to have to remove info from track names - only to allow to option to add it

If "Billy Preston performed Let It Be", then what the hell is it doing on the Beatles discography.

an album by producers..the guest rappers are featured and I'd like to seem them on my tracks

8)

"is featured on" AR <-- OMG YES

BADLY

drsaunde: What would be wrong then with something like %title% if(%feat%, %feat%) ?

the wordign on AR'sareatroucious

then you can have it

forexample 'has cover' has thereverse 'is coverd by' ??

should be 'has coverversion'

seems backwards that people have to remove it, in a day when we have an AR system begging to use it

oneday i'm goignto go overhe enitre AR tree and rewrite the whole shebang

so that the grammar MAKES SENCE

:)

thats hip-hop style...to generally remove them would force hip-hop to have its own guidlines like classical and that would be a nightmare

and tries to meulate music-liners as much as spoiible

drsaunde:why?

"A is featured on X"

'yes recording produced' or whatever really means something else than it sounds. but it has that in the text

if you want to tag with feat, you use %title% if(%feat%, %feat%)

BrianFreud: do you know hip-hop

?

I know it - not a huge fan, but I know it

but feat isn't just in hip-hop

i'vrseen all the time on that show before the series I watch come on. it's got 'soem artist feat. some other artist' right in the title

but especially there

it shouldn't be remove

it's never used wiotuth the feat

(albeit in the *artist* name but..)

right - it's "A featuring B" on "song" - not "A" on "song (feat B)"

hm, i think i see it both in track and in artist names.

warp: yes

but it shouldn't beremoved then if it's like that

sure - I'm talking though generally, not just hip-hop

and yesplease I want a 'is featured on' AR

yes but there is a difference

rock and grunge it's normally on the liner that way just cause the liner has no better way to say it

in hip hop and all lthat jazz, 'versus' and 'presents' means something else too

right

not really

they're in the liner because it's not really a big artist intent thing

basically rock and grunge and that jazz has a singular 'band' entety

that entity might change over time ,but the band entity is the band entity

well, when rock and grunge want the same type of credit that hip-hop uses featuring for, they normally have something like "with special guest"

see Deep purple fex

howver they might have 'guest musicians' or someone "featured" drums on one track

that's different

in hip hop, and trqnce, the artist intent is completely different

right

and nothing says you can't still do it there, if you want to

it's usually a singular perosn, or 2-3 people, they wanted this guest musican to be 'feat' because he does something special

like some rapper doing something else

I'm just suggesting an AR for all the cases where that's not really the intent

right

Queen/George Michael example

or (imaginary example here): take if rap group x has a track where they wanted an opera singer to guess on it? the they have some crazy remixer come down and remix the hell outa everything, they 'fea't the remixer, because that guy did almost asmuch as everyone else

lots opf stuffss

sure

George Michael FTLLL!!!

. D:

lol, I knew you'd love that example :P

much hate