You need to consider the current users of the data
It is true, I’m thinking maybe we need Audio drama category releases to return data to taggers a different way? Then we could enter data correctly - all the right Works, Releases, Release-groups and Series (and subseries).
Any time you run forward you have to consider the current users.
We’d all love everything to fit into a perfect database, but trouble is the world doesn’t always fit.
The database is access remotely by many people through the api and other tools. Many of them won’t even know we created an Audio Drama type yet as that is so new. So expecting them to all change how they ask for the Artist is a bit of an extreme wish.
The Release Artist has always been that Author. This does not stop the work being created and then the Writer correctly credited at a Works level too. But is is not more constructive to start with what we have here already and morph from there?
The Audio Book does “Author narrated by Person”. Changing Audio Drama to “Author performed by actors” brings in both standards at the same time.
I have to go out, but I have many examples in the Douglas Adams side where you see the same recordings remade and chopped up in different ways. Works get tricky as some recordings may be split into dozens of parts on one Release, but a single part of on other releases.
There are many headaches to address to make this consistent. But throwing out everything and starting again is not really a good option.
So what we need is an extra artists field to “Audio Drama” releases named “Performers”? If I opened an issue about this would you be a proponent?
That is why I’m suggesting the exiting API should lie by default to not kill any taggers.
Sometimes it’s the only way :/ but I hope this is not true. Right now your suggestion to me is kind-of like this, made those initial releases and stuff and it seemed fine (to other people) and now I’d have to create so many edits to remedy this - it’s just annoying to everyone who would have to review them because most of them would end up in review queue.
Style / Release - MusicBrainz says:
Pseudo-release should be used for translations or transliterations that do not appear on an actual release (even if they appear on an official site).
We already have this:
https://musicbrainz.org/relationship/628a9658-f54c-4142-b0c0-95f031b544da
https://musicbrainz.org/relationship/888a2320-52e4-4fe8-a8a0-7a4c8dfde167
The “Artist” field is describing a credit, not who’s actually performing (or otherwise involved) with the recording or release—even though that is who is far most often credited.
4 Likes
That is true though when creating a full-length pseudo-release for taggers?
So you think too that people performing should be placed into relationships and the writer credited only?
Maybe there’s a better solution here than continuing the crutch (for taggers) and hiding big of part who actually make an Audio Drama enjoyable? The API responder most certainly already does transformations on the data, it wouldn’t be too hard to make it first check if the release has an author, return that as an artist, if not then return the Artists.
But you already have performers - at the track level. Just like the guy who plays the Violin. He is a performer.
Good Omens shows this well. Complete with Works. Log in - MusicBrainz
Not sure how that will work. If a function call has been returning the Artist of “Good Omens” for the last decade as the Author of the book, how will it know to start “lying”?
This ^^. That is how I have understood it from the guidelines.
With that example the data returned will be identical because the track’s have a writer that is the same as the release’s artists.
No “tagger” would create a pseudo release as they have something to “tag”. But please don’t turn this into some attack on taggers. Lets us stay focused. 
I am pointing to the API that is used by many different people to look up data here. And Audio Dramas have always previously returned the Author as shown on the cover. As shown in the store it was sold from.
Lets please drop the “tagger” word from the discussion as it is not about them. It is about the data already here at MB for the past decade and more.
I want to work with you and others at finding a happy solution.
So one should credit for example “Lance Parkin, Terry Molloy and Nicholas Briggs” in the case of 1.3. I, Davros: Corruption - I, Davros - Big Finish?
The Release should mirror the physical Release.
Even with your Virtual Releases as you have added them the shop is crediting the Author.
Release is a CD, A LP, A Cassette, An actual thing. And people refer to that thing in certain ways.
When the BBC lookup the barcode of a Dr Who release it should be returning the same data it has returned for the past decade that would have the Artist set in the same way it always has been.
It is at Recordings and Works level the Performers come in. As @Freso is also confirming.
1 Like
Just thought of an even better example. Shakespeare and his plays. When his play is performed as an Audio Drama on the Radio it is the writer who is credited as the main Artist. And the actors are the performers.
This is like the Terry Pratchett \ Double Adams examples I gave earlier.
The Doctor Who series is an interesting one as it has many writers that change over the different series. Though each series tends to have core writers. And these are very important to the fans.
If something is to be designed to update the style guide it must cover the many differing examples we already have in the database. 
Exactly, unless there’s a pseudo-release with at least one recording for example MB Picard will refuse to tag any media. The problem is worse with a few free releases of audio dramas being merged into a single file - can’t be tagged or fingerprinted even when there’s a release with a tracklist. That’s the problem I proposed a solution for.
You’re the one mentioning we can’t properly enter people making the audio drama because some software is buggy and can’t handle crediting people nicely.
Previously you implied that the cover art shows who’s the most important on a release and who should be credited. In this case the cover art contains only one starring voice actor slash performer, totally leaving out the writer. In addition to that, not every release has a physical release. What then?
Yes, we’ve established that MB credits things a bit weird for audiobooks - I’m quite certain no audiobook leaves out the real reader(s) from the credits on the book either.
And if writer relationship exists on the track or release then the API could return the exact same artists and we could enter data into the database the “Classical” method and everyone would be happy. Every tagger keeps working, everyone gets credited, every player continues as expected, data in the database fits better with the model.
You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding me to try and prove a point. Please stop talking about Audiobooks as at no stage am I trying to use Audiobooks as examples. Many of the plays I am referring to came from books, but the examples all have multiple actors.
I am trying to show other examples of Audio Dramas that need to be taken into account. Especially based on how MB already does things.
Not sure what you mean here. If you are talking about the fact an audio drama gets multiple official Releases, then that is fine for MB to handle. Some releases are a single recording, some split into many slices. That is the point of the Releases to show the different ways something is packaged.
Douglas Adams works have been redone a number of times over the decades. His name is always on the box, but the actors playing the parts change over the decades.
I own many different Audio Dramas in many formats. From the Goon Show on Vinyl through many Douglas Adams plays, numerous Doctor Who. And so on. As the decades have changed the way these are packaged are changed. And MB has documentation of that along the way. Decades of it here at MB already. Even before I nagged to get Audio Drama as a specific sub-type.
No, I am pointing out that currently there are people who are NOT taggers who are using the data base from remote calls via the API. They will have been looking up data for many audio dramas for many years. The API is used from many different places. It is not that their software is “buggy”, they are following the standard that MB has been using for years.
The MB API does allow for performers and @Freso has pointed to how they are credited. I don’t see why this is wrong? The Good Omens AUDIO DRAMA example above shows a huge list of credits at Release level.
Currently if someone wants to know who a performer is on a release they will look up the performers through the API. Your proposal to change them to Artists is a bit confusing.
With an Audio Drama like Good Omens the cast list is huge. Do you propose to put ALL of those onto the Release Artist? That seems too many.
I am waffling too much. Sorry. Not the best for these discussions. I agree with you something needs to be done to improve how Audio Dramas are stored, but not replacing them with a Classical Standard that also doesn’t fit.
Even with the Classical Style that does not list every performer as “Release Artist”. It just lists the important people. I don’t do much Classical but that was pointed out to me that the “Release Artist” is “Composer; conductor, orchestra, solist”. That shows the importance of the writer.
I might accidentally sometimes confuse the two because English isn’t my primary language and Big Finish hasn’t decided on the term either, sorry.
No worries mate. You probably speak better English that I do and I was born a native. 
My “simple” definition would be. Audiobook has a single narrator who speaks all parts. An Audio Play will have multiple people playing separate roles. (If I can find that old thread there are some other good definitions in there too)
Just thought you were using that word as you were thinking I am confusing terms. I am more on your side than you give me credit for.
It doesn’t matter what is using the API, they’d get the same data if they use the same API version.
Because in my opinion Audio Dramas are very much like movies without picture (people without aphantasia probably have some mental images as well). When movies are credited then usually actors get just as much credit as the people writing them. It would make sense to credit them as Artists.
How would that work? When I look at Release Artist on Doctor Who: Shada I currently see the authors.
With all the new Dr Who items you have added that Release Artist now instead has the actors in there instead of the Author.
This means a current call to the API would give differing types of results.
Decade old entry in MB database
Your new Release
See what I mean about the large differences in what would now be returned?