how would i represent the relationship between, for example, a producer’s beat and an artist’s song using that beat? i’ve been using the “based on” work-work relationship. is that okay to do? the reason i want to represent this is i think it would be interesting to see all the songs with the same beat.
to be clear, im mostly referring specifically to situations where the producer had no part in any of the creation process past selling/posting the beat/instrumental. i don’t know if that matters.
@UltimateRiff: i definitely agree. i don’t know which one would be appropriate either… “karaoke” would kind of fit but not perfectly. “samples” is a pretty good option too
Revisions are usually made only by the creator of the original work. Do not use this relationship to link to arrangements, completions, reconstructions or any other work by a third person.
and i don’t know if i’m that confident it fits this any better than “based on” for cases like these
A revision is a very specific thing, which is usually done by the original composer… but is occasionally (rarely) done by others. E.g., IIRC some composers have had their students do revisions of their works for them. It doesn’t mean that revisions are only made by the original author, but in 99+% of cases they are.
The case of lyrics being added to an instrumental or a beat is definitely not a revision of the original work, but rather a case of “based on” (or maybe even more generically just “version of”).
I haven’t seen anyone use the word “composition” to refer to lyricists rather than composers in the context of music. Is that what the word means here?
vocals are definitely an instrument that has a composition; acapella(?) tracks can still have composers after all. i think it’s not really about the lyrics even though that is what i asked in the title haha, oops, but the vocals. there’s an entirely new instrument in the mix that the original composer had nothing to do with
It seems like Relationship type / Composer - MusicBrainz contradicts what you’re saying by clearly delineating that lyrics aren’t included in the definition of “composer”.
But supposing that MusicBrainz’s usage of “composition” does include lyrics in this case - then if we place the word “composition” with “lyrics”,
The new work must be a new composition, not just an arrangement or the same music with different or translated lyrics.
in other words,
The new work must be having new music or new lyrics, not just an arrangement or the same music with different or translated lyrics.
Then what is the point of the words after the comma? Obviously, there is no case where “the same music” would be “new music (composition)”. However, in what case would “different or translated lyrics” not be considered “new lyrics (composition)”?