Classical releases vs. non-classical artists

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f076aa3a638> #<Tag:0x00007f076aa3a0e8>


Looking at the Björk discography I noticed an album called “Distant Light”. I thought it might be an official Björk album I hadn’t heard of but it is actually a tribute, with four Björk covers and a few “covers” from other artists.

Since this is a classical release this album is credited to Björk as a composer, and now appears between her other albums as a Björk album, which it isn’t, except the classical guidelines say this is what a composer should be credited like, and since Björk is technically the author of these songs she is credited as a composer and therefore these credits are valid.

This wouldn’t be a problem if this album was marked as an unofficial Björk album or something but this is not an option in MusicBrainz, instead having to mark the album as unofficial rather than the artist credits. This is a suggestion, of course.

I feel like this needs a solution because I’m pretty sure this is not really a Björk album, and this is not wanted. This also leaves the potential of polluting a more popular artist’s discography list with non-official albums just because they’re classical and mainly feature covers of that artist.

Any help?


“Polluting” seems a bit of a strong word, but there is a similar effect on the Duke Ellington discography and I agree that it’s less than ideal. It’s all the more disorienting because there are both “classical” and “jazz” releases consisting entirely of Ellington works; due to the different style guidelines, the classical ones appear on his discography but the jazz ones don’t.


Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I see that album as undeserving, or something, of the title of a Björk album. But it’s still not a Björk album.

I guess the issue could be that the database does not distinguish the composer from the performer, or a performer from an artist? I can’t fix that though.