Using [unknown]


#1

Greetings,

I can understand using the [unknown] artist in places where you absolutely need to give an artist. But for ARs like here:


What would be the purpose? Signal that there is an orchestra on the recording, although we known nothing about it?

Specifying [unknown] as the second recording artist like here


seems even stranger to me. Maybe someone’s reads the second bullet point of https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Classical/Recording/Artist so this is required? I understood it to say, that only if no performer is known, we use [unknown].


#2

IMO it’s ok because it indicates what instruments are performed, it’s valuable information.


#3

Editors often use [unknown] on relationships when release liner notes mention something like “conductor for this recording is unknown”. We also use [unknown] with relationships to store data about performed instruments, vocal, orchestra and conductor. For example if there’s 2 known recordings by the same artist, vocal with orchestra and another with vocal and piano, you could identify these easily if [unknown]-relationships exist.


#4

That’s something I’ve done before but I stopped because I agree it is not particularly useful :slight_smile: If you see those around, you can always remove [unknown] from the recording credit I guess.


#5

My take away is:

On


the liner notes I have say “(with orchestra)”, so the orchestra=[unknown] relation is sound. The conductor is not – nothing in the liner notes indicates a conductor. I will remove the latter.

I will remove [unknown] as a recording artist on releases I touch, like