Trivia about recordings being displayed together with actual credits?


#1

When looking at the available information on a recording, you will find the information that is directly relevant to how that song/track came about.
Items such as artists, performers, composer, engineer, recording studio/venue etc.
But I sometimes also notice information showing up that is not relevant to the origin of the song/recording, and could be considered ‘trivia after the fact’.
I am referring to items such as ‘sampled by’ or ‘later parody versions’.

Me raising this is probably more about ‘the looks of things’ than it being a real issue, and you could argue that these trivia are in a way ‘relations’, but I do find it a bit weird to have these trivia references incorporated together with the real credits.

No specific suggestions for improvement, but at least I got it off my chest :wink:


#2

I agree. I think things like that clutter up the release. I’d like to be able to filter them out.


#3

For display of releases I agree, but as it’s displayed on the recording this seems like relevant info. (Isn’t “parody versions” a work relationship though?)


#4

Are you all aware of this ticket?

Whether work relationships should be shown on recording pages is certainly debatable, too


#5

Aren’t gwork credits (lyrics and compo) a must-have?
As for trivia relationships, I like them but they should be separated by a horizontal bar or something, ya know?


#6

I think that, on the release page, those matters relevant to the release should be shown (so yes to work, composer and part of), but other matters not relevant to the release (e.g. other arrangements of the same work) should ideally be (optionally) filtered out.


#7

My feelings exactly. Relationships that would naturally transfer from the work should be shown, not those that aren’t relevant to the specific release/recording.


#8

I agree that just because the data is in the database it should not be displayed by default. There should be options to turn on \ off this kind fluff. It makes a mess of the more popular tracks like Hey Jude as I often don’t need to know that a track was covered by some obscure artist on some odd release somewhere.

This is brilliant information - but it has its place. The quoted ticket above was a good example.


#9

I would say that “upstream” relationships (is based on, translated version of) should be shown on the release (and recording) page but “downstream” relationships (later versions, included in medleys, sampled by) should not. Hopefully the data model already reflects this in the directionality of the relationships, but I haven’t checked.


#10

Regrettably, this seems not always to be the case. I discovered (or rather, my plugin discovered it by going into an infinite loop :frowning: ) that the “medley” relationship between works seems to be implemented in the opposite sense (see Circular relationships in the database - aaagh!). In other words “is referred to in medleys” is an “upstream” (direction: backward) relationship.