I wouldn’t add 不自然なカルテット as a release artist. There’s nothing on the cover art to indicate this. But I would definitely add performance credits, with an edit note explaining where you got your information from, which I’m guessing is an email exchange with the artist in this case.
2 Likes
I came across a release which on its tracklist, next to an artist also mentions their circle in parentheses.
This is the release in question and it puts circle names into join phrases.
What should be done with those circle names in parentheses? Should we use join phrases? Should they be omitted?
Using join phrases just seems hacky to me.
I’d like to know what other editors think…
In my case I would use ‘Artist as credited’.
I too think it is messed up to use join phrases. I also think that adding the group/circle name listed in parentheses to the credits is not appropriate because the group itself is not participating in the release/recording, so this is what I would do.
3 Likes
Thanks a lot for the reply.
Indeed, many times the circle credited in parenthesis consists of multiple members who may not have participated, which is why I actually used to omit those parenthesis.
Also I ran into an edge case where there’s two track artists, belonging to the same circle:
In track artist credits this would appear as if only “昼” is a member of the circle:
IMO, those parenthesis should always be omitted since they just serve as a
way of linking artists to their respective circles, which MB already does with Artist-Artist member/founder relations.
1 Like
I’ve added a small section on the wiki about linking arrangements to their source materials. Feel free to review it 
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Doujin_music
I also considered adding a thing or two about “based on” vs. “arrangement of” relations, tho I’m not sure about the consensus on that.
In its guidelines, “Based on” relation requires works to be considered new compositions and not just arrangements. Would it be enough to have different composers credited on a booklet to warrant a “based on” relation?
1 Like
Oh yeah, that’s amazing. Thanks for the work. Makes it easy to guide people to the style.
I was pointed here from Edit #117635610 - MusicBrainz so here’s my 2c on circles like DiGiTAL WiNG, 幽閉サテライト, Yonder Voice, 暁Records etc who have varying combinations of members credited in specific roles for each track: they should be considered bands in the same way as e.g. Nightwish (Similarly to how e.g. Nightwish - Decades 1996-2015 does not credit Tarja, Marco, Anette nor Floor as track artists but instead the band as a whole. The jacket notes also contain specific role credits for everyone, much like Doujin releases often separately credit arranger/performer/vocalist/lyricist). Thus track artists should by default be the circle under whose name the release is made as a whole.
I suppose these groups do technically fall under the “track credits on the back cover are not suitable for MusicBrainz track artists” rule suggested on the wiki page linked by @rufus64 but for me thinking of circles like that analogously to western bands really makes it click.
By this logic I’d argue that even though DiGiTAL FLOWER BEST (from the linked edit) is a “DiGiTAL WiNG feat. Hanatan best” compilation album as described by its discography page, it should still get DiGiTAL WiNG (as a band) as the track artist since each track has separately listed arranger, and lyricist credits, with a small “All Vocal 花たん/YURiCa” at the very top of the back cover of the physical release.
A more confusing case is SYNC.ART’S - Cantante which I originally entered with “SYNC.ART’S feat. Misato” as the release artist but “SYNC.ART’S” as track artists since the front cover says “SYNC.ART’S feat. Misato Toho Best Album” in large letters (as can also be seen on the circle’s discography page) and tracks are listed on the back and on the discography page with separate credits for each role. However, the spine clearly reads only “SYNC.ART’S Cantante -カンタンテ- SACD-5041” so I’m inclined to also change the release artist to SYNC.ART’S for consistency.
Adding to the previous comment (separately, since that one already got rather long and these are different scenarios), a couple of cases that caused me some headaches in the past:
ALiCE’S EMOTION - FORLANE | REI which has singular people named for each track both on the back cover and the discography page, but the jacket actually lists detailed roles. The “track credits on the back cover ARE suitable for MusicBrainz track artists” rule does fit here, so even though I’m not a fan of using vocalists as track artists, I have to agree that it makes sense in this case.
Rolling Contact - HEAVEN’s SOUND 01 clearly has Rolling Contact as the release artist all over the disc and the discography entry. The track listing on the back cover does not give track artists (it’s a solo release of a one-person circle after all), however the corner of the back cover as well as the obi have the following credits printed on them:
Music Create 天音 (Rolling Contact)
Jacket illust. (もんちい(PoM)) and
Produced by Rolling Contact
The discography page similarly says “Arrange, Design : 天音 (Rolling Contact)” without specific credits on the track listing.
I have previously entered the track artists as 天音 but it’s not specifically given in the track listing, so it’s not unambiguously what the artist intended to be used. As I interpret it, 天音 and Rolling Contact would either fit equally as track artists under the proposed rules.
Personally I don’t feel strongly about either option in the Rolling Contact case, but I remember seeing both approaches taken in their releases that have been entered into MusicBrainz, and it would be nice to unify them insofar as that is feasible.
Doujin (touhou in particular) circles tend to leave us with just arranger credits and no proper track artists.
Now, these are the official guidelines:
Track artists should follow the release artist, except where another artist is credited in the track listing of the release
The problems arise when people import releases from databases that aren’t so strict about track artists (vgmdb and touhoudb for example) without checking the official sources.
However, I’d argue that on Rolling Contact releases “Music Create 天音” would translate to MB as “track artist”.
I’ve had similar doubts with 荒御霊 releases, a one-person circle by 和泉幸奇. They’re typically credited as “トラック製作” (track producer) or just “製作” on their website and on CD sleeves. Some examples.
I ended up adding “producer” relations and thought of falling back to the circle as the track artist.
Can someone look at this merge edit into Various Artists? It seems to follow the labels other releases but I’m not sure if it’s right.
1 Like
Had some second-thoughts about that edit. Tehnically the release isn’t explicitly credited to “Various Artists” on the product, in which case the release artist should be the circle as per DMSG.
On the other hand, if the album is labeled as a solo, the release artist shouldn’t be the circle but the solo artist.
Similarly, should release artist, if the release is a compilation and no one is explicitly credited on the product, fall under Various Artists?
As a sidenote, there’s already tons of Discogs-imported doujin compilations that are all under Various Artists.
1 Like
@rufus64 Ack, I’ll standardize on Rolling Contact album artist / 天音 track artist as I work my way through my backlog.
Meanwhile I’ve encountered another fun case: Edit #118761757 - MusicBrainz where we have another one-person circle, but with a lot of guest artists. I’m inclined to go with the “not suitable for MB → fall back to circle credits” rule.
I’m also a bit torn on artist relationships on that one as well as on this other album from the same circle since there’s a generic “Music” credit, but there are multiple specific roles credited for each track so just using “Music” as the track artist doesn’t work. I’ve interpreted “Music” as “composer”+“arranger” relationships, but in this release it was tagged as “producer”. Now “producer” is a commonly used term for the author of music purely created with digital tools, but it does not seem to match the MB definition.
@yaniel I think that in both of those cases "Music: " credits are the most fit for MB track artists. No need to fall back to the circle.
“Artist” is a generic term in a same way the "Music: " credit is on those releases. It heavily resembles it.
I don’t see any problems with that, it’s just they way the track list is laid out. (albeit a bit unusual).
Hope that helps!
1 Like