Returning to this topic … while I appreciate the work @Avamander has done adding all the Big Finish releases; I disagree with their decision to add all performers (as well as the writer) to the artists credit.
To my thinking, the Artist Credit should be a human readable format allowing you to identify a release. This should (IMO) reflect the advertised artist credit designated by the recording label (e.g. what is displayed on the cover and/or website; while I understand your argument that sometimes this is unclear, with Big Finish it is absolutely clear (again IMO) that they want to credit the album (for eg https://musicbrainz.org/release/ec41f37a-8084-48b7-aaad-d924c339d4ca ) to “Lalla Ward, Luise Jameson and John Leeson” … I agree that the author should also be credited. This credit is clear not only on the website and printed material from the CD releases, but (consistent with releases where I have access to the downloads) reflected in their own tagging of the tracks.
There is no need to have all the performers in the artist credit as they are performers - if spoken vocal credits are updated for each performer (at a release level or - where multiple stories featuring different performers are on one release - track level); if people wish to update their own files with the full list of performers this can be done by the computer; however you cannot get an automated task to look at the long list of artist credits and say “oh yes Alan Barnes is the writer and the ‘stars’ are Lalla Ward, Louise Jameson and John Leeson” … its (IMO) the difference between human readable information, and machine parsable data.
Okay … so this issue has come up again as I believe the format used for Big Finish releases (every performer listed in the artist credit) makes a Artist Credit which is no use in a human readable format and as such I started editing Gallifrey: Chapter 1 “Weapon of Choice” here … Edit #70284260 - MusicBrainz
By “human readable format” I’m talking the way in which (most) people will use the data. The Artist Credit (IMO) needs to be somewhat concise. I admit I haven’t read the whole of this thread; but I see that classical music was raised as an analogy - well in that situation its clear; you don’t list ever single performer in the Artist Credit but the composer, orchestra, conductor and any principle performers - well with an audio drama you can follow the same pattern.
So in that edit above … @Avamander responded
with Big Finish it is absolutely clear
Well no, I definitely saw BF releases where this strategy didn’t work. The current style is the only one that worked consistently on every single one of the thousands of releases made by BF.
I would be interested in what releases don’t match this strategy. And with EVERY strategy there are going to be outlier cases.
if people wish to update their own files with the full list of performers this can be done by the computer;
Equally as difficult as having the computer tag your files using only the “starring artists”, or the audiobook style.
Incorrect: using Picard for example its impossible from the current Artist Credits “Alan Barnes, Lalla Ward, Louise Jameson, Hugo Myatt, Seán Carlsen, John Leeson, Trevor Littledale, Miles Richardson, Daniel Hogarth, Andy Coleman, Stephen Mansfield, Lynda Bellingham & Helen Goldwyn” to automatically pick out Alan Barnes as the writer and Lalla Ward, Louise Jameson and John Leeson as the “featured” or “starring” actors.
But should most of the performers be removed from the Artist Credit, I can still scroll down to the Performer [spoken vocal] tag and find all the performers, and should you so desire easily use a script to recreate your Artist Credit using eg…
the difference between human readable information, and machine parsable data.
Either I’m not a human or it’s human readable, I’ve used the current credits for nearly a year now and it’s really good.
With respect… it appears its “really good” for you.
But a question: seriously do you really browse looking for what recording Joseph Lidster is on?
From a RDBMS point of view what you’ve done is shoehorned data where its not meant to be … the artist credit is a 1:1 relationship - 1 recording had 1 credit; while performers are a 1:Many relationship - 1 recording has many relationship. When you take the data outside of MusicBrainz web interface Alan Barnes, Lalla Ward, Louise Jameson, Hugo Myatt, Seán Carlsen, John Leeson, Trevor Littledale, Miles Richardson, Daniel Hogarth, Andy Coleman, Stephen Mansfield, Lynda Bellingham& Helen Goldwyn is a different “artist” to Stephen Cole, Lalla Ward, Louise Jameson, Daniel Barzotti, Daniel Hogarth, Lucy Campbell, Seán Carlsen, Joseph Lidster, Robert Dick, John Leeson, Miles Richardson, Jane Goddard. Trying to find related releases is difficult in that situation.
In addition; if you load those recordings into a music manager; it will see each Big Finish recording as having a different artist - that just doesn’t (IMO) make sense. If anything there should be less people in the artist credit not more … for e.g. arguable with the main Doctor Who range it makes sense to have just the doctor and companions - that way all releases with Peter Davidson and just Sarah Sutton are together.
Generally, this is a topic that should be discussed in the community forum for everyone to see and give their input on. If there’s a clear-cut style guide, every release can be nicely updated according to that. Alternatively, we open an issue in Picard’s issue tracker and request relationship-based credits and everyone’s happy.
I agree: best to discuss it here.