Can artist intent be claimed for the way featured artists are credited?

I get that the artist can choose to capitalize song titles, album titles or even their names unconventionally, but can they force MusicBrainz to leave the “featuring xy” part in the title instead of crediting the featured artist correctly?

Here is an example.

In principle, artist intent can be claimed for anything, except not wanting to be on MusicBrainz. It is weird though to apply this to the way featuring artists are credited, and also rather annoying I think.


silly question, here…
Is Lilly Allen actually an artist on the song, or is that the track title?

You know, sort of like when a band is named “free beer” or “live sex show” - because putting that on the marquee will draw a lot of people.


I asked myself the same so I listened to the track. Vocals are mainly a woman talking (could be an interview of her or someone else) but at the end there is a part of an acapella of her actual songs.

I actually doubt that the artist has the rights to use her vocals (and especially release them under a creative commons license), but that’s another discussion.

I don’t agree with this. The process of adding a tracklist to MB can be seen to have two steps:

  1. Enter the data as it appears on the release.
  2. Apply the style guidelines.

Artist intent can override step 2, you ignore the style guidelines (or part of the guidelines). Artist intent doesn’t override step 1. See this edit for an example of what I mean, and this comment from @reosarevok

Artist intent works for “do I standardise this ALL UPPERCASE text or is it supposed to be like that”. It doesn’t work for “let’s ignore the actual release credit in front of our faces”.

1 Like

Back to my example the artist left another note:

The (feat. Lily Allen) in the song title is part of the joke of the track. This album in general is not really music so much as it is a parody on the structure of the release of music. The track contains a Lily Allen sample, which is marked on the recording page, but that is the extent of her “participation”.

I guess I’ll cancel my edit and leave artist intent intact even if I think it’s silly.

I know that I brought up the “is that the title” comment, but just for sake of discussion, here is another possibility to look out for in the future.

I have seen people argue over “is it a John Smith song or is it a Little Jimmy song” because of the way some places list multi-artist songs.

In theory, an artist could be insistent that it be written “John Smith featuring Little Jimmy” simply because they do not want to risk it going into the wild with the wrong information.

The only logically consistent way of dealing with problems like this is to defer to artist intent. That is the compromise you have to reach when you are trying to cram infinite possibilities into a rigid database. Indeed, this is the point of the annotation field.

Annotations are text fields, functioning like a miniature wiki, that can be added to any existing artists, labels, recordings, releases, release groups and works.
Their purpose is to add information that usually doesn’t fit into the strict structural data schema of MusicBrainz (be it due to technical limitations that may be addressed later, or because the information in itself has to be free-text).

1 Like

5 posts were split to a new topic: MusicBrainz and the “right to be forgotten”

Another artist referring to artist intent despite the feat. being clearly credited everywhere including cover art:

1 Like