Hi all, I need more eyes on these edits. I am applying classical guidelines to Jess Gillam’s albums, which I had assumed to be entirely uncontroversial.
Interesting subject. I am not taking sides here, I don’t know how this should be handled, but classical label alone is not a perfect indication of a classical release, see Release group “Barbara” by Alexandre Tharaud - MusicBrainz and Release group “Night of Hunters” by Tori Amos - MusicBrainz . I probably wouldn’t set any of these as classical (no classical composer at all), but they illustrate the fact that the border between what is classical and what is not is getting blurry.
Perhaps this case is similar to Lindsey Stirling? I’d expect the tracks/recordings to list her first when she’s the primary performer regardless of the work she’s covering be it Leonard Cohen (Hallelujah) or Tchaikovsky (Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy), and she is. I’d rather see the soloist here and agree with the original track listing. The composers for each track, of minor interest, could be observed with Relationship records.
…
As a newbie, I think the Classical guidelines, which recommend one credit only the composer on each track, misses the forest for the trees. Presumably this guideline is there to support (more legacy) user experiences handling compilation albums where a legacy player is grouping music by the track artist. Down the road, Picard could let users choose what’s important for them.
For soloist centered albums, e.g. The Art of Cecilia Bartoli, should emphasize the soloist not the composer as they are the unifying theme of the album. What I’d prefer for each track is “Bartoli; < composer >” alas it’s just “< composer >” . That said, in these albums the composer is what varies by track, so I’m alright if it’s just “< composer >” but the rationale would be different: list track level differences of what varies across the album.
For operas, the classical guidelines obscure the primary association of a soloist to a given track. I think this should be done in a way a contemporary album would “feature” an artist. For example, when Bartoli is the featured soloist for Batti, batti, o bel Masetto in Don Giovanni, I’d rather see “Mozart; Bartoli, (other track soloists)” or just “Bartoli” as “Mozart” is already the 1st artist on the Album.
If you want a general rule, I think what’s important at the track level credits are salient differences from the album credits. If the composer is listed first on the album, that’s great, it’s good enough, no need to duplicate on each track. Across “Batti, batti” recordings what matters more to a listener is the soloist. A compatible upgrade would be “< composer >; soloists…” where soloists are the featured artists on that track.
Longer term, perhaps Relationships could resolve this challenge by eliminating the Artist fields and simplifying the information model. Make Artist credits derived and calculated via algorithm, perhaps with a flag on Relationship if it’s “on the album cover” or “on the track listing”. Then Picard could be updated to specify what algorithm is preferred. Anyway, these are just my naive thoughts seeing MusicBrainz for the first time about 2 weeks ago.
…
Is there anyway to request review/approval for an edit? I’m unable to complete rip of an Opera since I had to correct a track listing, Edit #152006655 - MusicBrainz.