• progcode over 5 years ago

    progcode edited over 5 years ago
    This issue has been brought up numerous times with much discussion and ultimately the guidelines never get changed to address it.

    Please read the recent history of Pink Floyd
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=4807775#latest

    Now please read this thread with nik's comments:
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/521512639469733cfcfa74b5

    In these comments he is making a distinction between crediting classical composers this way, and otherwise polluting a main artist page like The Beatles with albums on which they do no appear as anything other than composers.

    I have looked at a lot of the other threads about this, and there have been many suggestions about ways to improve the situation.

    But with none of those suggestions ever getting implemented, and the guidelines never being changed, what is the RIGHT thing to do?
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    Thanks for bringing it into the forum

    Nik posted a year ago in that thread that "would adjust the guidelines such that it was so".

    However in Discogs rule concerning artist (http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-artist.html) there is nothing said that Perform or Plays can't be used to link artists:

    "Names are entered as they appear on the release. Use the join field to link multiple artists as they are linked on the release"

    Logically it follows:

    Artist: TRAO
    Link: Performs
    Artist: Pink Floyd
  • dr._phibes_02 over 5 years ago

    The thing is, the CD presents cover versions of Pink Floyd songs, that are written by, the lyrics are by, and the music is by Pink Floyd, but Pink Floyd (nor one of their members) does not appear on the release.
    The release is appearing on the main artist page of Pink Floyd (at the end of Albums).
    A typical tribute album, played by other musicians.
    I think, it does not belong there.
    The artist name Pink Floyd should be entered within the title, but not as a main artist name (to avoid appearing on their main page, cause they are not performing...).

    An interesting case, anyway.
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    dr._phibes_02
    A typical tribute album, played by other musicians.
    I think, it does not belong there.

    In a rather long discussion it was not possible to list Mike Oldfield as part of the title of this release:
    http://www.discogs.com/Mike-Oldfield-Piano-Ensemble-Tubular-Bells-Part-1/release/1430459

    He had to be listed as artist of that release.

    He doesn't play on the release, or has any involvment in that release except having written the music. The album is played by other musicians, but his name is stated on the sleeve, just like Pink Floyd is stated on this other release.

    Rules must be enforced in general.
  • dr._phibes_02 over 5 years ago

    I understand that you want to have the rules updated or modified, to avoid such cases. I want to, too.
    Where's Nik?
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    dr._phibes_02
    I understand that you want to have the rules updated or modified, to avoid such cases. I want to, too.
    Where's Nik?

    Yes, I do

    In my opinion the best thing would be if this kind of releases where there is a non-performing artist, could be separated from the artists album listing.

    There are now sub-sections for Albums, Compilations, Misc, etc. How about adding a sub-section for Tributes or something like that?

    I think most of us are interested to know about Tribute albums, but that we would like to have them separated from the main album listing of the artists being covered.
  • Hieronymus2001 over 5 years ago

    Ridiculous really... I don't think neither Pink Floyd or Mike Oldfield, should be credited as artists on these releases.
    A writers credit, yes... As artist, no.
    But you're right, a little consistency in the rules are desirable.
  • Mop66 over 5 years ago

    I thought some minutes about it. Here is my take on it:

    Main artist: Rock Anthem Orchestra, The
    Main title: Performs Pink Floyd
    Subtitle (to be put in parentheses therefore): Welcome To The Machine

    That 'Welcome To The Machine' is a subtitle only is backed by the fact that it is only mentioned on the front and in smaller font. The CD and rear omit this subtitle. This makes it more clear that "Performs Pink Floyd" is the actual title and not a reference to a second main artist. What could be discussed is to make "The Rock Anthem Orchestra Performs Pink Floyd" the full main title and extract the main artist from this which would still be only The Rock Anthem Orchestra.
  • Hieronymus2001 over 5 years ago

    Mop66
    Main artist: Rock Anthem Orchestra, The
    Main title: Performs Pink Floyd
    Subtitle (to be put in parentheses therefore): Welcome To The Machine


    Sounds good.
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    Mop66
    Main title: Performs Pink Floyd


    In this other case, would you set the title as "Mike Oldfield Tubular Bells" ?

    http://www.discogs.com/Mike-Oldfield-Piano-Ensemble-Tubular-Bells-Part-1/release/1430459
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    I think the guideline should be something like this:

    If the name of an Artist appears on the cover of a release but that Artist is not a performer on the release, then that Artist name should not be shown in the Artist field of the release. Their name should only be included where applicable in the Title field, the Credits field, or in the Notes field.

    [We could even make a distinction for ancient music where the composer is credited as the main artist:]

    The exception to this is for Classical and other similarly ancient music attributed to a Composer as the main Artist. If there are no recordings in existence of the Artist performing their own material because the Artist died before recorded music came into being, then their name can be shown in the Artist field. If there is actual real-world potential for the main Artist to be the performer of any recorded works, then they should only be listed as the main Artist if they are involved in the performance somehow.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    What this would mean of course would be that any modern orchestral album attributed to John Williams (4) for example could only be listed with him as the main artist if he was actually involved in the production.

    I think this is very sensible.
  • dr._phibes_02 over 5 years ago

    I think Mop66 is right.
    Main artist can only be "Rock Anthem Orchestra, The".
    The title can be discussed, either:
    - Performs Pink Floyd (subtitled: "Welcome To The Machine")
    - The Rock Anthem Orchestra Performs Pink Floyd - Welcome To The Machine

    or main artist "Rock Anthem Orchestra, The" in joiner "Performs Pink Floyd" - Title "Welcome To The Machine"...
  • Hieronymus2001 over 5 years ago

    progcode
    If the name of an Artist appears on the cover of a release but that Artist is not a performer on the release, then that Artist name should not be shown in the Artist field of the release. Their name should only be included where applicable in the Title field, the Credits field, or in the Notes field.


    Nicely put... This is exactly the way it should be.
  • brunorepublic over 5 years ago

    progcode
    If the name of an Artist appears on the cover of a release but that Artist is not a performer on the release, then that Artist name should not be shown in the Artist field of the release. Their name should only be included where applicable in the Title field, the Credits field, or in the Notes field.

    [We could even make a distinction for ancient music where the composer is credited as the main artist:]

    The exception to this is for Classical and other similarly ancient music attributed to a Composer as the main Artist. If there are no recordings in existence of the Artist performing their own material because the Artist died before recorded music came into being, then their name can be shown in the Artist field. If there is actual real-world potential for the main Artist to be the performer of any recorded works, then they should only be listed as the main Artist if they are involved in the performance somehow.


    That sounds quite complicated. First, you'd need to know whether a composer ever actually appeared on recordings credited to them. Second, this would potentially remove modern composers (Steve Reich, for example) from releases widely held as their own because they only composed them, and not conducted or performed on them. Third, what about all the Milli Vanilli type scenarios, where the artist(s) on the sleeve had nothing to do with the music, and the actual performers were deliberately uncredited?

    The thing about the Pink Floyd release is that while the band had nothing to do with it, it was still effectively marketed as a Pink Floyd release, and likely would've been filed under "Pink Floyd" in any record store. For reasons which escape me now, I bought Various - Pink Floyd Redux back in the day. It was aimed at Pink Floyd fans, always filed under "Pink Floyd", and never marketed as a "Various" compilation. The focus of the release is the songs of Pink Floyd, not the performers.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    Yes, it is complicated. And I addressed that complication somewhat in my follow-up about John Williams (4). Apart from not liking the complication, I'm not seeing a compelling argument.
  • Mop66 over 5 years ago

    dr._phibes_02
    The title can be discussed, either:
    - Performs Pink Floyd (subtitled: "Welcome To The Machine")
    - The Rock Anthem Orchestra Performs Pink Floyd - Welcome To The Machine

    It cannot be 'The Rock Anthem Orchestra Performs Pink Floyd - Welcome To The Machine' as there is no dash on the release, so why introducing one? What you indicate by using the dash is that is is a subtitle and there is a guideline about how to credit subtitles, which is by using parentheses.This was just discussed and confirmed by a majority here: http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/526f73f9ea62111e9385b9ad
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    For bootleg releases we can add unofficial release in the format, and then that album is put in that subfolder.

    The quickest fix I can see is if "Tribute" could be added as a format option, and any album/compilation tagged with that would automatically be added to the Misc section, and not the general album or compilation listing of the artist.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    It couldn't be a tag, it would have to be a field to indicate which Artist the tribute applies to. In your example the release was attributed to two artists, one of them is the performer and one is the one receiving tribute.
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    progcode
    It couldn't be a tag, it would have to be a field to indicate which Artist the tribute applies to. In your example the release was attributed to two artists, one of them is the performer and one is the one receiving tribute.

    But a tribute implies that there is somebody doing the tribute and somebody receiving it.

    Such a release would end up in the Misc section of both parties as I see it.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    Numanoid
    Such a release would end up in the Misc section of both parties as I see it.

    And that is the problem. For the Orchestra this is one of their main Albums, not a Misc.
  • syke over 5 years ago

    Numanoid
    The quickest fix I can see is if "Tribute" could be added as a format option, and any album/compilation tagged with that would automatically be added to the Misc section, and not the general album or compilation listing of the artist.


    and how would that "fix" work for the actual Orchestra playing the music? You'd remove the record from their discography as well

    Numanoid
    Such a release would end up in the Misc section of both parties as I see it.


    why? Such a release can easily be an album or a compilation or an Ep or a single or a maxi single or a sampler and as such would not go into the misc section
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    progcode
    And that is the problem. For the Orchestra this is one of their main Albums, not a Misc.

    But it would be a case of look and feel again.

    In the sense that tribute more or less only would apply to "modern music"

    Classical music is a little special in this regard, and I wouldn't tag the LSO performing a Bach concerto as a Tribute.
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    syke
    why? Such a release can easily be an album or a compilation or an Ep or a single or a maxi single or a sampler and as such would not go into the misc section

    So how do you suggest it be done?

    I'm my experience any release whatever format tagged with unofficial release goes to that sub-listing
  • syke over 5 years ago

    Numanoid
    I'm my experience any release whatever format tagged with unofficial release goes to that sub-listing


    so you want to tag an official release with the unofficial tag just so it gets moved to another section?

    Numanoid
    Classical music is a little special in this regard, and I wouldn't tag the LSO performing a Bach concerto as a Tribute.


    and how is it different if the LSO performs the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd? How do you know its a tribute and not a normal release?
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    progcode edited over 5 years ago
    syke
    so you want to tag an official release with the unofficial tag just so it gets moved to another section?


    No he means he wants a new tag called Tribute that behaves the same way.

    I think it would be necessary to have it be a field that indicates for which artist the Tribute is being paid. Otherwise, the orchestra or tribute band would not have the album show up in their main releases.
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    syke
    so you want to tag an official release with the unofficial tag just so it gets moved to another section?

    No, that was meant as an example. As bootleg releases tagged with unofficial release in format are moved to that particular sub-listing if they nevertheless also are tagged as albums, eps etc, why shouldnt also a proposed "Tribute" format selection also not lead to that any release tagged with that goes directly to Misc ?

    How do you know its a tribute and not a normal release?

    The Discogs mantra is that we enter what is stated on the sleeve/disc, if Tribute isn't stated on the release, I guess it isn't a tribute.
  • syke over 5 years ago

    progcode
    No he means he wants a tag that behaves the same way.


    which still wouldn't work with moving albums out of the album section
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    syke
    which still wouldn't work with moving albums out of the album section

    Well, any album tagged with unofficial goes to that sub-listing I guess
  • syke over 5 years ago

    Numanoid
    The Discogs mantra is that we enter what is stated on the sleeve/disc, if Tribute isn't stated on the release, I guess it isn't a tribute.


    well, then we're back at square one the release in the OP as that doesn't state "tribute" anywhere (as most records like that don't)
  • syke over 5 years ago

    Numanoid
    Well, any album tagged with unofficial goes to that sub-listing I guess


    yeah but only because it is UNOFFICIAL. what you are proposing is splitting up official albums beteween two (or more) sections. how would that help?
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    syke
    well, then we're back at square one the release in the OP as that doesn't state "tribute" anywhere (as most records like that don't)

    Many do though, like this Pink Floyd tribute: http://www.discogs.com/Various-Pickin-On-Pink-Floyd-A-Bluegrass-Tribute/release/5048526
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    Here is another one:
    http://www.discogs.com/Various-A-Tribute-To-U2-Zoovenir/release/4278279

    Maybe U2 should be listed as artist for that as they are stated as only artist on sleeve?
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    I am saying that if it was a field, to specify the artist being performed, then in the Artist page for the "real" band Pink Floyd, it would only show up under their Misc albums section.

    I think "Original Artist" is the best descriptor for the field.

    For the orchestra or tribute musicians, it would show up on their Artist page in their regular list of whatever format applies.
  • syke over 5 years ago

    Numanoid
    Here is another one:
    http://www.discogs.com/Various-A-Tribute-To-U2-Zoovenir/release/4278279

    Maybe U2 should be listed as artist for that as they are stated as only artist on sleeve?


    Numanoid

    Many do though, like this Pink Floyd tribute: http://www.discogs.com/Various-Pickin-On-Pink-Floyd-A-Bluegrass-Tribute/release/5048526


    those are Various releases and don't end up in anyones albums section anyway, so they are not part of the problem you are talking about.

    and btw progcode, the Pink Floyd tribute you added yesterday and numanoid linked above needs artists per track
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    syke
    and btw progcode, the Pink Floyd tribute you added yesterday and numanoid linked above needs artists per track

    Read the scanned liner notes. They don't show an artist per track. Just musician credits. The credits are entered as they are written.

    The other option I think you might be proposing there would be to enter the musicians in the order of the musician credits, but the titles aren't listed that way on the release.
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    syke
    those are Various releases and don't end up in anyones albums section anyway, so they are not part of the problem you are talking about.

    It says U2 Zoovenir in big letters on sleeve?

    How is that different from Mike Oldfield Tubular Bells when played by somebody else?
    http://www.discogs.com/Mike-Oldfield-Piano-Ensemble-Tubular-Bells-Part-1/release/1430459

    As the tracks on that U2 tribute are made specifically for that release, I guess it is rather an album than a compilation.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    syke
    those are Various releases and don't end up in anyones albums section anyway, so they are not part of the problem you are talking about.

    Actually mine is listed as "Various" by following one guideline RSG §2.3.1.

    But if you follow this guideline RSG §2.2.1 then the main artist for mine should be Pink Floyd. Which I am opposed to.

    In mine I actually think the main artist should be logically inferred to be David West (3) as supported by the evidence in the liner notes. Even though he is never billed as the main artist.

    But that is a sidetrack off the main topic here.
  • syke over 5 years ago

    Numanoid
    As the tracks on that U2 tribute are made specifically for that release, I guess it is rather an album than a compilation.


    doesn't matter what it is, it won't appear in any artists album/singles/misc section. it will only appear in the appearences section. so this is not the point rigt now. and no "A tribute to U2" will not make U2 a main artist as nik has stated repeatedly.

    progcode
    Actually mine is listed as "Various" by following one guideline RSG §2.3.1.

    But if you follow this guideline RSG §2.2.1 then the main artist for mine should be Pink Floyd. Which I am opposed to.


    that is about the main artist. not the artist per track. a various release needs main track artists.
  • Numanoid over 5 years ago

    syke
    doesn't matter what it is, it won't appear in any artists album/singles/misc section. it will only appear in the appearences section. so this is not the point rigt now. and no "A tribute to U2" will not make U2 a main artist as nik has stated repeatedly.

    I don't think Nik has been in that release thread?

    We need general rules that is easy to follow, Nik shouldn't have to go in and make decision about a release here and there.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    progcode edited over 5 years ago
    @ syke:
    I would be happy to talk to you about the other release that you brought up in the history of the release or in another thread.

    Edit: I've edited the release and quoted you briefly in the history there.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    So, back to the topic of THIS thread :)

    I am saying that if it was a field, to specify the artist being performed, then in the Artist page for the "real" band Pink Floyd, it would only show up under their Misc albums section.

    I think "Original Artist" is the best descriptor for the field.

    For the orchestra or tribute musicians, it would show up on their Artist page in their regular list of whatever format applies.
  • TwinPowerForce over 5 years ago

    I wonder if a tribute credit (like a DJ Mix) shouldn't be the best solution.

    Personnaly I love covers and many times I discover bands by their covers, when I made a list like this, it took me many times because on 90% there is no writing credits on them and it's hard to find (try to find a tribute to Love or The The released on bandcamp (ie without writing credits) or even a DIY punk tribute to them)

    I know many persons don't agree about crediting the original artists/tribute (saw it on many threads) but it would be more easy to find some releases (it's not evident (the first/logical step you'll easily take) to find Ramones covers by searching writing credits for Jeffrey Hyman)

    Of course, I don't think this tribute credit should go to classical (as well as contemporary music and soundtrack writers which are a kind of modern classical) and I'm not against the current guideline (ie main artist is the artist billed as such) (because if we follow some propositions given by some users in this topic, compilers, DJ mixers, reggae producers, songwriters anthologies, ... shouldn't be considered as main artists) but when I see that DJ Mix don't appear in albums or compilations sections of artists but only in the Mix category, I think the 'tribute' (or 'cover' or 'original artist of' or anything else like that) could be a good compromise/idea
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    There was never a resolution here, either.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    The Rock Anthem Orchestra ‎Performs
    Pink Floyd
    Welcome To The Machine

    Semantically and grammatically, "Pink Floyd" is the object being performed.
    Objects in general are not artists.
    Subjects are artists, i.e. The Rock Anthem Orchestra.

    On a hypothetical release entitled for instance
    David Gilmour Plays
    Guitar

    … "Guitar" is the grammatic object just as well.
    It would never occur to us wanting to link it to Guitar, wouldn't it?
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    I agree with you loukash
  • dr._phibes_02 over 5 years ago

    "Semantically and grammatically, "Pink Floyd" is the object being performed.
    Objects in general are not artists."

    This is exactly the explanation we need for the problem - subject / object.
    Thanks!
  • Hieronymus2001 over 5 years ago

    loukash
    Semantically and grammatically, "Pink Floyd" is the object being performed.
    Objects in general are not artists.


    +1
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    loukash edited over 5 years ago
    loukash
    Objects in general are not artists.

    dr._phibes_02
    This is exactly the explanation we need for the problem - subject / object.

    Frankly, I wasn't entirely right nonetheless. :)
    On a release likeBernstein* Conducts New York Philharmonic* - Symphonic Dances From West Side Story / Symphonic Suite From On The Waterfront, the orchestra is a "grammatic object" as well.
    But at the same time it's also a performing subject on that release, that's why it's still a linked artist.

    "Pink Floyd" is not a performing subject on Pink Floyd, it doesn't even have a "Written-By" credit (its members do). That's what makes the difference, and that's where the line should be drawn; although that line will still remain fuzzy.

    In other words:
    Context matters™. :)

    Edit:
    Changed example, because the Ančerl submission has used a totally made up joiners which I had to fix according to the submitted images. D'oh.

    Interestingly while looking for a better example I've stumbled upon this:
    http://www.discogs.com/search/?q=leonard+bernstein+conducts&type=all
    As you can see, the dilemma whether "Artist" or "Title" exists here as well. Some composers are listed just as part of the title, others as main Artists.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    In general I think we all agree that if the name of a band is being used prominently on the cover to try to sell copies of a record on which they themselves have no involvement, that band should not be listed as the Main Artist. But the guidelines as they are currently written require us to do just that.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    progcode
    I think the guideline should be something like this

    Replying to your PM:
    Actually I have had a completely different idea, first outlined in http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/52151ab69469733cfcfbdeef#5217baecc131f325be156b9c (and repeated in a couple of other threads but I don't remember which ones)

    loukash
    Arguing about the symptoms apparently leads nowhere.

    @Discogs staff:
    Please eliminate the cause instead!

    Solution:
    Main artist attribute

    Same as with labels/companies, there should be a menu for each main artist field where you can select the appropriate attribute.
    E.g. "Active Performer" and "Passive Artist".

    Example:

    [menu item: Passive Artist] Antonín Dvořák [joiner:] ,
    [menu item: Active Performer] The Czech Philharmonic Orchestra [joiner:] Conductor
    [menu item: Active Performer] Karel Ančerl

    With such attributes, releases can be easily sorted into each artist's corresponding discography "subsection".
    If there were only two attributes anyway, it could be also solved just with a simple checkbox or radio buttons to enable/disable either status.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    And we still have no decision about this I guess. Do we need a SR?
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    SR sent. This issue still is unresolved.
  • dr._phibes_02 over 5 years ago

    [quote=progcode][/quote]

    SR sent. This issue still is unresolved.

    Thank you. It needs to be resolved now...
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    progcode
    This issue still is unresolved

    Have you counted the pro/contra linked artist score?
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    progcode edited over 5 years ago
    I think this is accurate:

    Linking Pink Floyd as one of the Main Artists on The Rock Anthem Orchestra - Pink Floyd

    For:
    Numanoid
    brunorepublic

    Against:
    progcode
    dr._phibes_02
    Uncle_Heinerich
    Mop66
    loukash
    typoman2
    Elukkae
    1skinnylad
    syke
    marcelrecords
    taklit-sarut

    ???:
    TwinPowerForce
  • dr._phibes_02 over 5 years ago

    +1, absolutely correct in my opinion.
    Please let this be removed from the PF discogs site as main artist.
  • typoman2 over 5 years ago

    Here's another +1 for the Against tribe …
  • Elukkae over 5 years ago

    +1 for AGAINST.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    Before management responds to the SR and weighs in with their decision here, I want to stress that in addition to a decision we need guideline clarification.
  • 1skinnylad over 5 years ago

    I'm suppose these days not too fussed either way, having followed this thread, but a long time ago, it used to irritate me that my fave artist, Kate Bush, had so many 12" modern DJ mixes (usually of Running Up That Hill) attributed to her on her artist page, in the main sections of, apparently according to Discogs, as her own releases, simply because she was made as the sole Main Artist". She had nothing to do with any of them bar her music being sampled (perhaps at a vague stretch, a "bit-of-a-songwriter" credit, really. I think this reflected what's come up here under discussion/proposal. So accordingly, I also
    +1 For from me,
    I'm much in line with what loukash explains about object / subject, in agreement with what's proposed by OP progcode. But I suspect there's enough folk here Against, to not permit changes to the RSG in the end, despite SRs, and it does create an awkward issue for classicals.

    Btw, if the "Main Artist" is unknown, what's wrong with just using "Unknown Artist", and leaving any other assorted accreditations to the "Tributed" band to other categories of a credit role function, if and only if they are actually mentioned in a performing role on the release (eg songwriter credits, in which case, often wouldn;'t they end up as a person's credit role rather than the famous band they were in?)
  • syke over 5 years ago

    I fully agree with loukash here
  • marcelrecords over 5 years ago

    syke
    I fully agree with loukash here


    I agree with syke who agrees with loukash.
  • Fauni-Gena over 5 years ago

    I think nik has already address this issue adequately:
    nik

    Discogs doesn't need to make an either / or choice, we have a 'Composer' credit and a fully working composition section of the artists pages.

    For any other genre, when the release says "Joe Bloggs sings / plays / murders A.Composer", the composer is not treated as a main artist.

    Classical release have a different and somewhat common take on main artist billing, where the composer is often billed as the main artist, or one of the main artists along with the soloist / orchestra / conductor etc. That is fine, but if push comes to shove, we shouldn't start to expect to see the composer as main artist where, on other genres we catalog, that would not be done.

    Source: http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/521512639469733cfcfa74b5#521512639469733cfcfa741a

    Based on that I would say it's clear that Pink Floyd should not be a main artist in this case.
  • Elukkae over 5 years ago

    Fauni-Gena
    Based on that I would say it's clear that Pink Floyd should not be a main artist in this case.


    Well found, thanks. That was a good and very clear statement from nik, and this is a schoolbook example of such a case.

  • progcode over 5 years ago

    progcode edited over 5 years ago
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/521512639469733cfcfa74b5#521512639469733cfcfa741a
    nik
    I agree with Kergillian's take on this.

    Internaut
    in a specialized magazine such as Gramophone the index in each issue is sorted by composers, not performers.

    nik
    Discogs doesn't need to make an either / or choice, we have a 'Composer' credit and a fully working composition section of the artists pages.

    For any other genre, when the release says "Joe Bloggs sings / plays / murders A.Composer", the composer is not treated as a main artist.

    Classical release have a different and somewhat common take on main artist billing, where the composer is often billed as the main artist, or one of the main artists along with the soloist / orchestra / conductor etc. That is fine, but if push comes to shove, we shouldn't start to expect to see the composer as main artist where, on other genres we catalog, that would not be done.

    This is the full reply from Nik being quoted. The first line is also important in the context of the whole message. So I went back to Nik's previous message in the thread and read everything Kergillian said in between.

    This stood out to me:
    Kergillian
    If a composer is part of the title, we should not add them as a main artist or track artist.

    Correct? That certainly makes the most sense to me...

    This is written in the part of the thread for which Nik was seemingly expressing agreement.

    This also would eliminate Pink Floyd from the Main Artist on this release.

    See this image of the cover:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=4807775

    I think the Main Artist should be The Rock Anthem Orchestra
    and the Release Title should be "The Rock Anthem Orchestra Performs Pink Floyd".

    "Welcome To The Machine" is the first in the list of example songs being advertised on the cover. It is not part of the Release Title at all. It just seems to be because of its larger font size and placement above the different background. It says:
    "Welcome To The Machine
    Time • Wish You Were Here • Money & Many More"

    And "Welcome To The Machine" is not shown in any other part of the release except the track listing. It is not on the disc label. Nor is it on the back cover, save for being in the track list.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    ^^ Message edited above to support the proposed Main Artist and Release Title.
  • Fauni-Gena over 5 years ago

    progcode
    I think the Main Artist should be Rock Anthem Orchestra, The
    and the Release Title should be "The Rock Anthem Orchestra Performs Pink Floyd".

    Looks right to me.
  • perlator over 5 years ago

    progcode
    I think the Main Artist should be Rock Anthem Orchestra, The
    and the Release Title should be "The Rock Anthem Orchestra Performs Pink Floyd".

    Actually the title should be just "Pink Floyd" (RSG §3.1.6). But Pink Floyd as a main artist would be perfectly fine for this release, if the db would not suffer from a major design flaw. (Performing) artist discographies should be filtered using artist credits, not based on the main artist category alone. The latter is mostly based on cover design, which follows economic aspects and does not necessarily reflect a performing role of the artists involved.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    progcode edited over 5 years ago
    perlator
    Actually the title should be just "Pink Floyd" (RSG §3.1.6).

    You make a good point. I would be fine with that. Do we have agreement from others here?

  • Elukkae over 5 years ago

    'Pink Floyd' sounds right for the title; or 'Performs Pink Floyd'.

    perlator
    (Performing) artist discographies should be filtered using artist credits


    This I don't quite understand. Lineups change constantly... how would this work? 'Boney M' is Boney M regardless who's in it.

  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 5 years ago

    The Main Artist for The Rock Anthem Orchestra - Pink Floyd is "Rock Anthem Orchestra, The"

    The title is "Pink Floyd ‎(Welcome To The Machine)"

    Please see the guideline RSG §3.1.6.

    Do not transcribe words that serve as an introduction and are not intended to be part of the title:

    Ziltoid The Omniscient (Title appears on release as: Devin Townsend Presents - Ziltoid The Omniscient )


    perlator
    Pink Floyd as a main artist would be perfectly fine for this release, if the db would not suffer from a major design flaw. (Performing) artist discographies should be filtered using artist credits, not based on the main artist category alone. The latter is mostly based on cover design, which follows economic aspects and does not necessarily reflect a performing role of the artists involved.


    I am not sure it is fair to say there is a "major design flaw" in the database. We try to reflect the truth of the release. Part of that truth is the artist on the cover. It could be argued that poor sleeve design / wording is the flaw we are trying to fix. The Rock Anthem Orchestra - Pink Floyd is an example, what the heck is 'Welcome To The Machine'? Is it a subtitle for the release? Why isn't it printed on the CD? The whole thing smacks of a scam to get people to buy it thinking it is a Pink Floyd release TBH :-)
  • Mop66 over 5 years ago

    nik
    The Main Artist for Rock Anthem Orchestra, The Performs Pink Floyd - Welcome To The Machine is "Rock Anthem Orchestra, The"

    The title is "Pink Floyd ‎(Welcome To The Machine)"


    About 60 posts above:
    Mop66
    Main artist: Rock Anthem Orchestra, The
    Main title: Performs Pink Floyd
    Subtitle (to be put in parentheses therefore): Welcome To The Machine


    Ouch, almost ;-) did not realize 'Performs' to be an introduction and to fall under guideline RSG §3.1.6.
  • perlator over 5 years ago

    nik
    I am not sure it is fair to say there is a "major design flaw" in the database.

    Admittedly, a bit of an exaggeration. But a design flaw it is, because it relies on the cover design to adhere to certain conventions. If those conventions are not followed (deliberately or not) the data from the release cannot be entered as is. See my pet peeve, Fauré Quartett - Popsongs. The way this had to be represented in the db, due to obvious concerns for the artist discographies, completely misses the concept of that release.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    nik
    I am not sure it is fair to say there is a "major design flaw" in the database.

    If a problem arises repeatedly with unique and different items, then usually there must be a faulty common factor somewhere.

    The only common factor I see here is the Discogs Main/Track Artist concept.
    The flaw.

    nik
    It could be argued that poor sleeve design / wording is the flaw we are trying to fix.

    That would be the worst argument I've read from you in quite a while, wouldn't you have used the conditional verb… ;)

    Please fix the cause.
    Don't blame the symptoms.
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    I appreciate the assistance with this nik.

    I do still think the Main Title should not include "(Welcome To The Machine)". As I explained above:
    progcode
    "Welcome To The Machine" is the first in the list of example songs being advertised on the cover. It is not part of the Release Title at all. It just seems to be because of its larger font size and placement above the different background. It says:
    "Welcome To The Machine
    Time • Wish You Were Here • Money & Many More"

    And "Welcome To The Machine" is not shown in any other part of the release except the track listing. It is not on the disc label. Nor is it on the back cover, save for being in the track list.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 5 years ago

    progcode
    I do still think the Main Title should not include "(Welcome To The Machine)". As I explained above:

    "Welcome To The Machine" is the first in the list of example songs being advertised on the cover. It is not part of the Release Title at all. It just seems to be because of its larger font size and placement above the different background. It says:
    "Welcome To The Machine
    Time • Wish You Were Here • Money & Many More"

    And "Welcome To The Machine" is not shown in any other part of the release except the track listing. It is not on the disc label. Nor is it on the back cover, save for being in the track list.


    Sorry, I missed that. I can see what you mean there. It is really bad layout for sure, quite ambiguous, but yes I can see that it is likely to be part of that list of tracks, so I am ok with it not being a sub-title.

    perlator
    it relies on the cover design to adhere to certain conventions. If those conventions are not followed (deliberately or not) the data from the release cannot be entered as is. See my pet peeve, Fauré Quartett - Popsongs. The way this had to be represented in the db, due to obvious concerns for the artist discographies, completely misses the concept of that release.


    You are right. In some cases, we need to interpret what the layout isn't telling us :-)

    loukash
    If a problem arises repeatedly with unique and different items, then usually there must be a faulty common factor somewhere.

    The only common factor I see here is the Discogs Main/Track Artist concept.
    The flaw.


    I think the problem is rare enough to be considered mostly a flaw with ambiguous or poorly worded release artwork, rather than Discogs needing to be more complicated.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    nik
    In some cases, we need to interpret what the layout isn't telling us :-)

    ^^ Quote bookmarked for future use! ;)

    nik
    I think the problem is rare enough to be considered mostly a flaw with ambiguous or poorly worded release artwork, rather than Discogs needing to be more complicated.

    And I am repeatedly telling you that adding a Main/Track Artist attribute switch "Active Performer" and "Passive Performer" (or how ever they should be labelled) will not make Discogs "more complicated".
    How is it "more complicated" than e.g. a sheer endless list of obscure credit roles, about a half of it listing instruments even I have never heard of?

    nik
    In some cases, we need to interpret what the layout isn't telling us :-)

    Yeah, right.
    Not "more complicated", eh? ;)
  • Mop66 over 5 years ago

    nik
    Sorry, I missed that. I can see what you mean there. It is really bad layout for sure, quite ambiguous, but yes I can see that it is likely to be part of that list of tracks, so I am ok with it not being a sub-title.


    Did not realize this...I'd love to see the spines.
  • DonHergeFan over 5 years ago

    DonHergeFan edited over 5 years ago
    loukash
    And I am repeatedly telling you that adding a Main/Track Artist attribute switch "Active Performer" and "Passive Performer" (or how ever they should be labelled) will not make Discogs "more complicated".

    I like this idea.
    But what to do then when

    - the main artist is a "unreal artist" (like Adam Austin)
    - the main artist is no performer of the release but no other artist is given
    - the main artist is "Unknown Artist", "Various", "No Artist" or "Anonymous"?
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    nik
    Sorry, I missed that. I can see what you mean there. It is really bad layout for sure, quite ambiguous, but yes I can see that it is likely to be part of that list of tracks, so I am ok with it not being a sub-title.

    Edited title per Nik.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    DonHergeFan
    But what to do then when
    - the main artist is a "unreal artist" (like Adam Austin)

    That doesn't make a difference. "Adam Austin" is apparently a moniker for a performing entity, so it's an "active" performer, regardless who the real person(s) behind this moniker is.

    DonHergeFan
    - the main artist is no performer of the release but no other artist is given

    If the only listed main artist is a composer, then s/he will be tagged as "passive performer".

    The active/passive attribute does not make any difference for the release itself.
    It's only a tool to allow proper sorting on artist pages, without having to worry if a mentioned artist is now an "artist" or a "part of the title".
    Which is the issue discussed herein from the very start.
    (Speaking about "complicated"…)

    So, applied to this Pink Floyd topic, it would allow Pink Floyd to be listed as "main" artist as well, but with the "passive" attribute it would sort the release in a separate section on the http://www.discogs.com/artist/45467-Pink-Floyd discography page, so that the release does not appear under http://www.discogs.com/artist/45467-Pink-Floyd#t=Releases_All&q=&p=1

    This is exactly the same principle as if we're applying the "Unofficial Release" format attribute to keep bootlegs etc. separated from the official releases.
    The only difference is that we'd have to apply that tag elsewhere because "active" and "passive" main artist is not a release format…

    ~~~

    Seriously, nik: such an enhancement won't make Discogs any "more complicated" than it already is.

    Make the feature's default setting "active performer" and 99% of all new submissions won't be even affected.
    For the rest, there will be simply a new tool to move a release into the appropriate discography section of an artist. Add a brief explanation to the guidelines and an example to the Quick Start, and that's it.
  • DonHergeFan over 5 years ago

    loukash
    If the only listed main artist is a composer, then s/he will be tagged as "passive performer".

    And if we don't know, what the Main Artist did on the release?
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    DonHergeFan
    if we don't know, what the Main Artist did on the release?

    Then we'd leave the default setting as is, i.e. the same as it already works now.
    The release would be listed in the artist's main discography section.

    If it eventually turns out that the main artist was "just" a composer and the release was played by a different (albeit unknown) subject, you'd simply check the "[√] Passive Artist" tick box next to the Main Artist field to make the release appear in the artist page's corresponding section.
    Optionally you may also want to add credits like "Composed By [Uncredited] – Main Artist's Name" and "Performer – Unknown Artist", to describe the release more accurately.

    That's what we're trying to do here all the time: to describe a release as accurately as possible.

    So the primary idea is to have such a tool when needed.
    But the attribute doesn't need to be enforced if not clear.
  • perlator over 5 years ago

    nik
    You are right. In some cases, we need to interpret what the layout isn't telling us :-)

    I would rather say that we are forced to omit what the layout (of the release) actually is telling us. All for the sake of display, i.e. certain releases not appearing among lists of other releases.
    The absurdity of this approach can be demonstrated with
    Sergei Rachmaninoff* - The Complete Recordings
    Sergey Rachmaninoff actually has a performing artist discography. It is currently being "polluted" by hundreds of releases with his name on the front cover, but someone else playing the piano. So your solution is to remove him as a main artist from hundreds of releases, except those that have him credited for piano, because of
    nik
    a flaw with ambiguous or poorly worded release artwork
    ?
    Wouldn't it be much simpler to filter out all releases on his artist page that have him not credited for piano, and put them in a different section for 'Passive Appearance' or 'Interpretation' or whatever it may be called ? I thought we are supposed to separate data entry from display issues, because the programmers take care of the latter ?

  • loukash over 5 years ago

    perlator
    Sergey Rachmaninoff actually has a performing artist discography. It is currently being "polluted" by hundreds of releases with his name on the front cover, but someone else playing the piano.

    Great example to demonstrate the practical usefulness of my Active/Passive Artist attribute proposal.

    perlator
    Wouldn't it be much simpler to filter out all releases on his artist page that have him not credited for piano

    I think we've discussed it already elsewhere, so once again:
    No, it wouldn't.
    Simply because 1) credits are not mandatory, and 2) such indirectly conditional filters are prone to errors resulting from many fuzzy areas.

    perlator
    I thought we are supposed to separate data entry from display issues, because the programmers take care of the latter ?

    That's why attaching an attribute directly to the affected field is a better solution.
  • perlator over 5 years ago

    loukash
    That's why attaching an attribute directly to the affected field is a better solution.

    I don't mind tbh. Any feasible solution will do. And if the attribute actually works by injecting a performer credit into the release data.
    loukash
    Simply because 1) credits are not mandatory, and 2) such indirectly conditional filters are prone to errors resulting from many fuzzy areas.

    afaik the artist pages are what they are because of such filters. If you have an attribute, you'd have to filter for that.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    perlator
    afaik the artist pages are what they are because of such filters. If you have an attribute, you'd have to filter for that.

    That's correct.
    As you know, sorting per credits happens already by parsing the credit roles attached directly to each respective artist credit.

    My point is that such a filter should be applied directly, not indirectly based on conditions from a different and essentially unrelated section.

    A condition formula like "IF ( Artist1 ≠ Instruments_and_Performance AND Artist2 = Instruments_and_Performance ) THEN Artist1 = Passive_Section" isn't a generally workable solution with literally millions of possible variants and relationships between Artist1 and Artist2 (and Artist3, Artist4, etc.).

    The straight and simple solution is always the best way to go:
    IF Artist1_Passive_Checkbox = 1 THEN Artist1 = Passive_Section
  • progcode over 5 years ago

    Just fyi, as I predicted early on in this thread, this issue is being related now to the situation with John Williams (4).
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/525ed951d07b095fdf0e11d4#52d56d0da86b6d08ff7873c4
  • perlator over 5 years ago

    loukash
    A condition formula like "IF ( Artist1 ≠ Instruments_and_Performance AND Artist2 = Instruments_and_Performance ) THEN Artist1 = Passive_Section" isn't a generally workable solution with literally millions of possible variants and relationships between Artist1 and Artist2 (and Artist3, Artist4, etc.).

    I don't see why it would be so complicated. It boils down to a simple comparison involving one artist. But of course the difference is that in your approach passive artists would be flagged, in mine it would be active artists. This would work out of the box for the Rachmaninoff example above, but might require adding Performer credits for other artists, especially for groups. So how about the best of both worlds ( nik are you still with us?):
    Place a checkbox on the submission form, next to the main/track artist fields. Default is unchecked. A checked box inserts a credit passive=artist_name into the release credits. This credit will not show on the release page, but it might render artist_name in a different color or typeset. A conditional embedded in the artist page code will place all flagged releases by artist_name in the passive section.
    Changes to the submission form, release page and guidelines would have to be implemented soon, those to the artist pages can wait. This would not require any new functionality. Nor would it introduce any more complexity, after all its just another credit that defaults to nil for most releases in the popular genres.
  • perlator over 5 years ago

    So, should Rachmaninov be removed as a main artist from
    Ravel* / Rachmaninov*, Michelangeli*, Philharmonia Orchestra, Ettore Gracis - Piano Concerto In G Major / Piano Concerto No. 4 In G Minor
    as he is not the performer, but Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli is ?
    And should Ravel be removed as well? His performing discography is shorter, but it exists
    Maurice Ravel - Maurice Ravel Plays Ravel
    as some of his performances were recorded on piano roll.
    Note the two different main artist credits on that release.
  • tarantoga over 5 years ago

    I see that Rachmaninov and Ravel have now been removed from the main artists on Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Philharmonia Orchestra, Ettore Gracis, Rachmaninov*, Ravel* - Concerto No. 4 In G Minor / Concerto In G Major and a few more releases.
    While I understand the reasoning behind this when reading this thread, I don't agree with removing them in such cases.
    Firstly, it's against what we are doing on classical releases (crediting the composer as a main artist when he is credited on the front sleeve).
    Secondly, if the reason for not crediting the composer as a main artist is because he is also a active performer on other releases in the database, then we're opening up a can of worms, IMO. There may be recordings of almost all composers that lived from about 1880, on which they have actively performed - either on early cylinders, piano rolls or similar media. So that would mean removing the composers (Ravel, Debussy, Rachmaninov, Wagner, Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich and many, many more) as main artists from all releases in the database. Additionally, in some cases we just don't know if there have actually been performer sound recordings by a specific composer/artist.
  • muntz over 5 years ago

    you can't say perlator didn't ask first...
    that's utter nonsense
  • tarantoga over 5 years ago

    muntz
    that's utter nonsense

    Sorry, I don't understand.
    Which is nonsense? Removing the composers as main artists or my arguments?
  • Elukkae over 5 years ago

    perlator
    So, should Rachmaninov be removed as a main artist from
    Michelangeli*, Philharmonia Orchestra, Ettore Gracis - Ravel Piano Concerto In G-Major, Rachmaninov Piano Concerto No. 4 In G-Minor
    as he is not the performer, but Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli is ?
    And should Ravel be removed as well? His performing discography is shorter, but it exists
    Ravel* - Maurice Ravel Plays Ravel
    as some of his performances were recorded on piano roll.
    Note the two different main artist credits on that release.


    I don't think the removal was appropriate, as 1) there was no support for the question above, and 2) it really does not make sense in these cases.

    This should be investigated further and re-evakuated by the staff regarding classical releases. There are countless examples i can think of in contemporary music, too - the first names I checked, Magnus Lindberg and Kaija Saariaho perform too, as do most composers of electronic music. A can of worms is a mild expression, if we start altering all these.
  • perlator over 5 years ago

    tarantoga
    Secondly, if the reason for not crediting the composer as a main artist is because he is also a active performer on other releases in the database, then we're opening up a can of worms, IMO.

    Of course we do. But nobody seems to be listening.
    tarantoga
    So that would mean removing the composers (Ravel, Debussy, Rachmaninov, Wagner, Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich and many, many more) as main artists from all releases in the database. Additionally, in some cases we just don't know if there have actually been performer sound recordings by a specific composer/artist.

    Exactly.
    nik
    I think the problem is rare enough to be considered mostly a flaw with ambiguous or poorly worded release artwork, rather than Discogs needing to be more complicated.

    The problem is not rare at all. In fact "ambiguous or poorly worded release artwork" (artwork that does not meet the criteria of the discogs main artist assumption) is pretty common in certain genres.
  • muntz over 5 years ago

    tarantoga
    Which is nonsense? Removing the composers as main artists or my arguments?

    removing the composers as main artists, of course, i thought that was obvious enough

  • tarantoga over 5 years ago

    perlator
    nobody seems to be listening.

    So removing the composers in those releases was meant as a wake up call? ;-)
    Anyway, let me just say I wholeheartedly agree with loukash active/passive performer proposal as an elegant solution for these issues. I don't think this would be 'complicated' at all.
  • perlator over 5 years ago

    tarantoga
    So removing the composers in those releases was meant as a wake up call? ;-)

    It certainly worked that way :-) But I was in fact only following nik's advice from this thread.
    nik
    You are right. In some cases, we need to interpret what the layout isn't telling us :-)

    Elukkae
    I don't think the removal was appropriate, as 1) there was no support for the question above,

    There was no answer. Does that mean no support? Tacit support ? Or tacit rejection ?
    Elukkae
    2) it really does not make sense in these cases.

    What is the deciding factor whether it makes sense or it does not ? Rachmaninov was as much a composer as he was a performer (a pianist and conductor). Why should we mix his main artist discography, when we keep that of other artists strictly for their performing roles ?

  • Elukkae over 5 years ago

    perlator
    Elukkae > I don't think the removal was appropriate, as 1) there was no support for the question above>
    There was no answer. Does that mean no support? Tacit support ? Or tacit rejection ?


    I think it means "an unclear case, no actions yet". But of course since things were stuck in an unsatisfactory status the wake-up seems to work.

    perlator

    Elukkae > 2) it really does not make sense in these cases.>
    What is the deciding factor whether it makes sense or it does not ? Rachmaninov was as much a composer as he was a performer (a pianist and conductor). Why should we mix his main artist discography, when we keep that of other artists strictly for their performing roles ?


    I think the deciding factors have already been discussed when ways of working for submitting classical music has been decided here. Because that genre is so composer-oriented, composers are credited as main artists. Being a "main artist" in the case of Rachmaninoff etc. is more composing than performing, and we shouldn't remove that credit if the person is also a performer (which is probably true in hundreds of cases, especially in contemporary music). But I guess you are not really proposing that either, but are using these cases to show the contradiction in guidelines (or in the solution proposed in this thread by nik).

    I do understand the problem regarding the PF case which ignited this discussion. Different rules for different genres sounds like a tempting solution, but that is a rather swampy terrain to step on, there are probably thousands of releases which are impossible to define being "classical" or "jazz" or whichever.

Log In You must be logged in to post.