• dolphyfan over 2 years ago

    I thought this was settled? Yet there are still two different listings for this same release.

    Rutherford Chang is an artist who had an installation called "We Buy White Albums", which featured his collection of 2000+ copies of The Beatles - The Beatles. A separate part of the artwork was a 2xLP comprised of 100 unique "White Albums" recorded on top of each other. Four sides, same song order as the original (as that was the source) but 100 ply deep. In the beginning the 100 copies are in sync but slowly drift out of sync into a sonic trainwreck barely intelligible as the Beatles work. This is a unique work created by Chang, and clearly not a "Beatles" release. It was released in an edition of 800.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/arts/design/artists-obsession-with-beatles-white-album-on-display.html

    The recording by Rutherford Chang is listed in the DB as Rutherford Chang, The Beatles - We Buy White Albums and Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums. It is the same record. One is listed as unofficial and blocked on discogs (which is patently absurd) while the other is readily available if one has the cash.

    There was a fair amount of discussion on the release page but it remains as two releases listed under two different artists (Chang; Beatles). How do we clean up the confusion?
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    Merge 'em. Keep data from Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums.
  • anagrama over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    Merge 'em. Keep data from Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums.


    +1.
    Having it listed as an unofficial Beatles album is insanity - it's clearly an art piece created by Rutherford Chang.
  • dolphyfan over 2 years ago

    Inviting danielgr, michaeli1, vinylenoch, soulchap, squadoosh for their thoughts on the subject?
  • soulchap over 2 years ago

    There was a huge uproar about this. The Beatlemaniacs claimed it as their own. I fear that if a merge were floated or even approved, all heck would break loose.
    I say, let both entries stand, time will tell. Let those who want to call their record a Beatles album live in their own bubble and keep the option open for the rest of us to credit Rutherford Chang as the principal artist on this.
    Or, if we do merge, I vote - strongly - for Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums - I recently found this entry and moved my 'have" to this one.
  • dolphyfan over 2 years ago

    soulchap
    I recently found this entry and moved my 'have" to this one.

    I did the same, and I'm in the merge camp. This is no more a work of The Beatles than is R. Mutt's "Fountain" a work by American Standard or Kohler...

    https://www.wikiart.org/en/marcel-duchamp/fountain-1917
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    Merge 'em. Keep data from Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums.


    This has already been settled in another forum thread, It is The Beatles - The Beatles
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/5295c277c131f365a027a179?page=2

    They need to be merged with The Beatles - The Beatles one as the one to keep.

    If anything Chang can be credited as an additional artist - however, he is more of a remixer than the main artist as he had nothing to do with creating the music, he just layered them (again like a remixer)

    The main problem is this is also an art piece, however, discogs doesn't care about it as an art piece and only cares about the music side of it.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    soulchap
    There was a huge uproar about this. The Beatlemaniacs claimed it as their own. I fear that if a merge were floated or even approved, all heck would break loose.
    I say, let both entries stand, time will tell. Let those who want to call their record a Beatles album live in their own bubble and keep the option open for the rest of us to credit Rutherford Chang as the principal artist on this.
    Or, if we do merge, I vote - strongly - for Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums - I recently found this entry and moved my 'have" to this one.


    we can't keep both
  • phallancz over 2 years ago

    For some audio context here is a link to what side A sounds like: https://soundcloud.com/dustandgrooves/white-album-side-1-x-100
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    phallancz
    For some audio context here is a link to what side A sounds like: https://soundcloud.com/dustandgrooves/white-album-side-1-x-100


    anyone commenting on this should own it and hopefully already listened to it.
  • phallancz over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    anyone commenting on this should own it and hopefully already listened to it.

    Most likely your going to need to have staff input on this thread, considering they already have ruled Rutherford Chang, The Beatles - We Buy White Albums their preferred choice five years ago, they will need to now change their minds, which will only work if you gather favour with other users in forum that will most likely never heard the recording, but can still opine about it.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    phallancz
    vinylenochanyone commenting on this should own it and hopefully already listened to it.
    Most likely your going to need to have staff input on this thread, considering they already have ruled The Beatles - The Beatles their preferred choice five years ago, they will need to now change their minds, which will only work if you gather favour with other users in forum that will most likely never heard the recording, but can still opine about it.


    I agree with the staff ruling as one who owns this and has read the guidelines and the previous thread on this
  • maldoror over 2 years ago

    maldoror edited over 2 years ago
    vinylenoch
    If anything Chang can be credited as an additional artist - however, he is more of a remixer than the main artist as he had nothing to do with creating the music, he just layered them (again like a remixer)

    The main problem is this is also an art piece, however, discogs doesn't care about it as an art piece and only cares about the music side of it.


    I agree with this. In Discogs anything remixed or mashed up without authorisation gets marked as unofficial. I am not saying I agree with it but an exception cannot be allowed because some consider this a different or higher art-form.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    however, I am open to having each side as untitled and the original track titles as sub-tracks
  • suddenlythisoverview over 2 years ago

    I don’t own the album, but I did see the art exhibition in New York. For me it’s clearly a distinct recording (a re-recording). I vote for Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums.
  • dolphyfan over 2 years ago

    I own it, and have listened to it. I've also talked with the artist about it and have aired the entirety on the radio. Anyone who thinks this is a Beatles album hasn't heard it.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    dolphyfan
    soulchapI recently found this entry and moved my 'have" to this one.
    I did the same and am in the merge camp. This is no more a work of The Beatles than is R. Mutt's "Fountain" a work by American Standard or Kohler...

    https://www.wikiart.org/en/marcel-duchamp/fountain-1917
    vinylenochshould own it and hopefully already listened to it
    I own it, and have listened to it. I've also talked with the artist about it and have aired the entirety on the radio. Anyone who thinks this is a Beatles album hasn't heard it.


    Discogs doesn't care what the "artist" thinks, discogs has guidelines that we follow, did you read the previous thread that settled this?
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    I should add the person who created the new listing was upset that the previous thread didn't agree with him and broke discogs guidelines by creating a new listing, he was clearly told he could take it to the forum and ignore that
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    also inviting Opdiner loukash ChampionJames Eviltoastman marcelrecords Mop66 since we are rehashing this
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    I also posted a link to this discussion on each listing as required
  • dolphyfan over 2 years ago

    If this were a Beatles album, and Chang has released it you'd think that lawyers for the Beatles estate would be all over this. They aren't, because this is a case of the fair use doctrine of copyright law. It is an appropriation of a work in whole or in part to create a completely new work. Most people, if they dropped a needle on the half-way point on any side, would not recognize what they were listening to without having heard the first part of the side. Nowhere on the sleeves nor the labels does it say The Beatles, except for where the previous owners have written "those words" in their own hand. The labels have all but been completely blacked out with magic marker, leaving just enough information to identify the source IF you already knew that information. There is no track listing and the sides aren't even labeled A and B or 1 and 2. A good cover band doing a tribute "White Album" would be more arguably a Beatles record because you could compare the original and the copy and say it sounds the same. That's nowhere near the case here. I respect the guidelines but this interpretation seems misplaced.

    I will reread the earlier thread later on.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    vinylenoch
    I agree with the staff ruling as one who owns this and has read the guidelines and the previous thread on this


    I still do as well. And, unless the audio was licensed, it's unofficial I think.

    dolphyfan
    Anyone who thinks this is a Beatles album hasn't heard it.


    I have it, and it's identifiably Beatles, just heavily messed with. And unless Nik changes his mind, that's where it goes I think.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    dolphyfan
    They aren't, because this is a case of the fair use doctrine of copyright law. It is an appropriation of a work in whole or in part to create a completely new work.


    That doesn't work - hence the many thousands of sampling cases. Courts have ruled on this countless times.

    Fair use: "in its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work."

    https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

    It's often claimed it allows a work to be appropriated to create a new work. It does not unless you are parodying. Is this a parody? That's a big jump and I doubt you'd succeed in that claim here. A court would need to decide. I also doubt Universal (it's not up to Apple or the band as they don't own the audio on this, UMG does) would bother suing here, it's not costing them anything for this to exist, quite the opposite it improves the cultural footprint of their asset.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    vinylenochI agree with the staff ruling as one who owns this and has read the guidelines and the previous thread on this

    I still do as well. And, unless the audio was licensed, it's unofficial I think.

    dolphyfanAnyone who thinks this is a Beatles album hasn't heard it.

    I do, and it's identifiably Beatles, just heavily messed with. And unless Nik changes his mind, that's where it goes I think.


    I think the remaining questions are about how to add a credit for Chang and if the tracks should be listed differently
  • suddenlythisoverview over 2 years ago

    We better reclassify all the Christian Marclay then too. /s

    There’s Discogs guidelines, which are fine in most cases, and then there’s actually understanding the context of a record.
  • soulchap over 2 years ago

    This isn't a remix. It isn't a mash-up.

    vinylenoch
    we can't keep both

    Why not?
    I really cannot think of any other recording about which people have established these kinds of polarized opinions (relative to database usage.) The database remains open to editing by all, so unless a "judge" is brought in to have final say (how bout it, nik?), I think it makes sense to slice the baby in half. After all, it is not a baby, it is an abstract idea, this database. This issue will not go away because, perhaps, neither option is entirely satisfactory. There are limits to what the programming can do.

    I would just ask you this: Do you really think that having this stand in the database as Rutherford Chang, The Beatles - We Buy White Albums is of any use to anyone who is actually interested in this particular release? Is it of any use to anyone who is, perhaps, doing research on sound art, or collage music or sound phenomena, in general? Is it of any use to anyone who is interested in The Beatles, who would like to learn more about their music or their history? Is it of any use to anyone who would like to learn about the growth and development of a hive-mind, crowd-run, wiki-based web portal? Is it of use to anyone who would like to buy or sell this (even if it were flagged as not available to sell here)?

    No. It is a useless entry. It only satisfies the rules, and even that only nominally.

    Take a listen to this piece by Terry Riley, one of the more innovative explorers of tape-spliced composition, Terry Riley - Early Works For Tape And Electronics, the first side. In it, Riley uses this release as the source of his invention: The Harvey Averne Dozen - You're No Good / Make Out ; he recorded it to tape and then cut the tape into pieces and reassembled it, played parts of it over and over again and recorded his own playback.

    Do you think the former entry is incorrect? Should it have been filed in as a Harvey Averne Dozen "remix?" In my opinion, no, it is a Terry Riley composition. And this release is a Rutherford Chang composition.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    suddenlythisoverview
    There’s Discogs guidelines, which are fine in most cases, and then there’s actually understanding the context of a record.


    Discogs wins here every time, as does an aforelinked management ruling. Context is for notes. I know little about Christian Marclay except that from what I understand he often works with recording artists and owners and https://www.discogs.com/artist/65707-Christian-Marclay would seem to support that, so it's quite different if so.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    soulchap
    This isn't a remix. It isn't a mash-up.

    vinylenochwe can't keep both
    Why not?
    I really cannot think of any other recording about which people have established these kinds of polarized opinions (relative to database usage.) The database remains open to editing by all, so unless a "judge" is brought in to have final say (how bout it, nik?), I think it makes sense to slice the baby in half. After all, it is not a baby, it is an abstract idea, this database. This issue will not go away because, perhaps, neither option is entirely satisfactory. There are limits to what the programming can do.

    I would just ask you this: Do you really think that having this stand in the database as The Beatles - The Beatles is of any use to anyone who is actually interested in this particular release? Is it of any use to anyone who is, perhaps, doing research on sound art, or collage music or sound phenomena, in general? Is it of any use to anyone who is interested in The Beatles, who would like to learn more about their music or their history? Is it of any use to anyone who would like to learn about the growth and development of a hive-mind, crowd-run, wiki-based web portal? Is it of use to anyone who would like to buy or sell this (even if it were flagged as not available to sell here)?

    No. It is a useless entry. It only satisfies the rules, and even that only nominally.

    Take a listen to this piece by Terry Riley, one of the more innovative explorers of tape-spliced composition, Terry Riley - Early Works For Tape And Electronics, the first side. In it, Riley uses this release as the source of his invention: The Harvey Averne Dozen - You're No Good / Make Out ; he recorded it to tape and then cut the tape into pieces and reassembled it, played parts of it over and over again and recorded his own playback.

    Do you think the former entry is incorrect? Should it have been filed in as a Harvey Averne Dozen "remix?" In my opinion, no, it is a Terry Riley composition. And this release is a Rutherford Chang composition.


    nik already ruled on this

    I can't make any judgments on things I don't own
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    soulchap
    No. It is a useless entry. It only satisfies the rules, and even that only nominally.


    Read the other thread, that is not what was decided.

    soulchap
    so unless a "judge" is brought in to have final say (how bout it, nik?),


    He did - other thread.
  • Plastic-Man over 2 years ago

    Not particularly helpful but Fuck The Beatles, they are not a sacred cow.
  • soulchap over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    other thread

    Well, apparently it is not decided finally.
  • suddenlythisoverview over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    suddenlythisoverviewThere’s Discogs guidelines, which are fine in most cases, and then there’s actually understanding the context of a record.

    Discogs wins here every time, as does an aforelinked management ruling. Context is for notes. I know little about Christian Marclay except that from what I understand he often works with recording artists and owners and https://www.discogs.com/artist/65707-Christian-Marclay would seem to support that, so it's quite different if so.


    Yes, it’s abundantly clear that you’re not familiar Christian Marclay.

    It’s interesting to me that the debate here is divided between a few pedants and others who actually are interested in the record in question.

    You actually list on your bio the number of points you racked up on your previous profile. Absolutely no one cares about points. They mean nothing.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    suddenlythisoverview
    Yes, it’s abundantly clear that you’re not familiar Christian Marclay.


    So what, we are talking how this site treats this record pursuant to its guidelines. If you'd bothered to read this thread rather than slipping into puerile abuse, you'd have noted I have this, so I am interested.

    suddenlythisoverview
    Absolutely no one cares about points.


    And one suspects, given the above, that nobody cares about your opinion. We are discussing this, not taking childish pot-shots at each other. The difference seems to elude you.

    If you can't discuss this like an adult, don't bother please.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    soulchap
    Well, apparently it is not decided finally.


    Not by a few here, but by management. You could invite Nik here to reconsider but that's the only real option now I'd think.
  • suddenlythisoverview over 2 years ago

    Keep racking up the points here. Big accomplishment. Real grown up. Real cultured.

    Do you even have the record in question?
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    suddenlythisoverview
    Keep racking up the points here. Big accomplishment. Real grown up. Real cultured.

    Do you even have the record in question?


    what do plan to accomplish by insulting others?
  • suddenlythisoverview over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    suddenlythisoverviewKeep racking up the points here. Big accomplishment. Real grown up. Real cultured.

    Do you even have the record in question?

    what do plan to accomplish by insulting others?


    Do you have the record?

    I’m sure I’m not accomplishing anything here accept expressing frustration at the typical pedantry here.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    suddenlythisoverview
    vinylenochsuddenlythisoverviewKeep racking up the points here. Big accomplishment. Real grown up. Real cultured.

    Do you even have the record in question?

    what do plan to accomplish by insulting others?

    Do you have the record?

    I’m sure I’m not accomplishing anything here accept expressing frustration at the typical pedantry here.


    Have you even read this thread? I have mentioned I own this
  • suddenlythisoverview over 2 years ago

    I’ve read the thread. Don’t worry. Why would anyone take your opinion seriously if you’re not actually familiar with the record? Do you think you actually get this?
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    suddenlythisoverview
    I’ve read the thread. Don’t worry. Why would anyone take your opinion seriously if you’re not actually familiar with the record? Do you think you actually get this?


    Go away, you vacuous nitwit. The points may or may not indicate that I have contributed to this site. Something you, in the past 11 years, have not done at all. Zero, zip, nil. A major player who clearly has substantive opinions and much to add to this site.

    You have nothing worthwhile to offer on this thread, and clearly less than nothing to offer the site apart from bandwidth consumption by adding a pointless profile a decade back. Why on earth would we worry what you think?
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    soulchap
    This isn't a remix. It isn't a mash-up.


    That could be argued I agree. That doesn't make it official though. Mash-ups exist outside copyright unless they are licensed.
  • suddenlythisoverview over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    suddenlythisoverviewI’ve read the thread. Don’t worry. Why would anyone take your opinion seriously if you’re not actually familiar with the record? Do you think you actually get this?

    Go away, you vacuous nitwit. The points may or may not indicate that I have contributed to this site. Something you, in the past 11 years, have not done at all. Zero, zip, nil. A major player who clearly has substantive opinions and much to add to this site.

    You have nothing worthwhile to offer on this thread, and clearly less than nothing to offer the site apart from bandwidth consumption by adding a pointless profile a decade back. Why on earth would we worry what you think?


    Sounds like you’re an expert.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    suddenlythisoverview
    I don’t own the album, ... For me it’s clearly a distinct recording (a re-recording). I vote for Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums.

    This and only this. This art needs documenting properly.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    suddenlythisoverview
    Sounds like you’re an expert.


    I suspect everyone posting here is substantially more of an expert here than someone who has tagged themselves as this week's forum troll. If you look upthread you'd note that you are the only poster who has contributed zero to this thread apart from a vacuous self-anointment as an expert and a derisive slight at anyone who questions it.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    Discogs doesn't care what the "artist" thinks, discogs has guidelines that we follow, did you read the previous thread that settled this?


    "Clearly the artist is challenging us to question the relationship between the release and the owner of the release, time and decay, repetition and interpretation, musician and curator, the object and the cataloger.

    Due to this, I feel the correct way to catalog this is to enter it in every way possible at the same time, in one submission." Nik.

    This has not happened.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    Due to this, I feel the correct way to catalog this is to enter it in every way possible at the same time, in one submission." Nik.

    This has not happened.


    Which is the point I made above, we need to decide how to credit Chang: primary artist, remixer, something; since The Beatles as a primary artist and the Title is correct per nik
  • brunorepublic over 2 years ago

    We have an entire style on discogs called Vaporwave, nearly all of which consists of re-edited and processed work by other artists, and I highly doubt they were all done with authorization.

    So if this is a Beatles release, by precedent we need to start going through all the Vaporwave releases and changing the artist on each track to whomever created the source material.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    brunorepublic
    We have an entire style on discogs called Vaporwave, nearly all of which consists of re-edited and processed work by other artists, and I highly doubt they were all done with authorization.

    So if this is a Beatles release, by precedent we need to start going through all the Vaporwave releases and changing the artist on each track to whomever created the source material.


    I am not familiar with that genre at all but it looks like those are complete reworkings whereas this is just the same songs layered over one another
  • Farjenk over 2 years ago

    The Beatles (2), anyone?
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    Title is correct per nik

    Well I'm scratching my head at that comment as he is saying something is correct but we need to somehow change it? But never mind. I think there's too much heat and not enough light so far in the thread, I'd like to see the arguments for / against collated before debate. I listened to this this morning (soundcloud link) and it was very interesting!
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    Farjenk
    The Beatles (2), anyone?


    For unofficial releases? Why not?!
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    vinylenochTitle is correct per nik
    Well I'm scratching my head at that comment as he is saying something is correct but we need to somehow change it? But never mind. I think there's too much heat and not enough light so far in the thread, I'd like to see the arguments for / against collated before debate. I listened to this this morning (soundcloud link) and it was very interesting!

    nik was saying that the listing was correct for The Beatles but we should add Chang in some manner
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    EarjerkThe Beatles (2), anyone?

    For unofficial releases? Why not?!


    I looked the Beatles (2) listing, is it for unofficial Beatles or a different band, there is no info on the page
  • brunorepublic over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    I am not familiar with that genre at all but it looks like those are complete reworkings


    No, not totally reworked. Most of them just have some edits, some effects added (reverb, EQ, delay, phasing), and then everything is pitched down, usually about 5 semitones. When sped back up, the source material is obvious.

    There was considerable objection to adding the style in the first place, because many felt it was nothing more than 80s Smooth Jazz tracks slowed down. Well it turns out there's a bit more to it than that, but not much more.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    I looked the Beatles (2) listing, is it for unofficial Beatles or a different band, there is no info on the page


    The actual cassette lists the band members, john, paul, ringo etc. I know nothing about it though.
  • maldoror over 2 years ago

    maldoror edited over 2 years ago
    hafler3o
    Due to this, I feel the correct way to catalog this is to enter it in every way possible at the same time, in one submission." Nik.

    This has not happened.

    I think it has, Main artist The Beatles, Other artist Rutrherford Chang, there is not much more to add

    brunorepublic
    We have an entire style on discogs called Vaporwave, nearly all of which consists of re-edited and processed work by other artists, and I highly doubt they were all done with authorization.

    So if this is a Beatles release, by precedent we need to start going through all the Vaporwave releases and changing the artist on each track to whomever created the source material.


    The main difference is the ones you refer to market the release as theirs, I don't see Rutherford Chang's name anywhere on this release, it does clearly state The Beatles on the cover however. There is no need for slippery slope arguments in this debate.

    soulchap
    Take a listen to this piece by Terry Riley, one of the more innovative explorers of tape-spliced composition, Terry Riley - Early Works For Tape And Electronics, the first side. In it, Riley uses this release as the source of his invention: The Harvey Averne Dozen - You're No Good / Make Out ; he recorded it to tape and then cut the tape into pieces and reassembled it, played parts of it over and over again and recorded his own playback.


    Again Terry has marketed this as his album and composition, Rutherford has not done so, it states The Beatles on the cover.
  • soulchap over 2 years ago

    maldoror
    There is no need for slippery slope arguments in this debate


    Aha, so you agree there is a slippery slope! 8^)

    I don't think marketing has anything to do with this and I think you've missed the point of his composition of the overlaid graphics for the jacket. It was not made in order to allow people to mistake this for a poor pressing of the White Album.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    soulchap
    maldororThere is no need for slippery slope arguments in this debate

    Aha, so you agree there is a slippery slope! 8^)

    I don't think marketing has anything to do with this and I think you've missed the point of his composition of the overlaid graphics for the jacket. It was not made in order to allow people to mistake this for a poor pressing of the White Album.


    that is an art piece to this, discogs, again, cares about the actual music part
  • dolphyfan over 2 years ago

    dolphyfan edited over 2 years ago
    maldoror
    it does clearly state The Beatles on the cover

    Where does it say "The Beatles" in any manner other than various owners writing it in marker? It's not anywhere on the sleeve, nor on the labels. If I take any random record and sleeve and scrawl "The Beatles" on it, does that make it their record?

    For that matter, it doesn't say Rutherford Chang, either. It does, however, have stamped on it "University of San Francisco Library". Perhaps they should get credit?
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    maldoror
    I think it has


    Not even close to 'every way possible in one submission'.

    For me this is similar to Duchamp's 'Fountain'. Alteration of a 'ready-made'. We can still 'see' a urinal and say it's by R. Mutt if we want to. This item is a completely new objet d'art. The Beatles records are the 'keys' of an artistic instrument, selected and (de)tuned with care.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    If the process were repeated with "We buy albums with coffee stains on the cover" I seriously doubt anyone would have a problem with Chang as main artist.
  • maldoror over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    For me this is similar to Duchamp's 'Fountain'. Alteration of a 'ready-made'. We can still 'see' a urinal and say it's by R. Mutt if we want to. This item is a completely new objet d'art. The Beatles records are the 'keys' of an artistic instrument, selected and (de)tuned with care.

    That's fine if you consider it as a piece of art, and I might even agree with you. However, for discogs purposes we see it as a piece of music. The only context to consider is why is it a valid discogs release? Because it contains audio. What is the audio? Overlaid Beatles recordings. Who is the main artist on the cover? The Beatles. Can we add extra credits? Yes it has been sufficiently documented in the news and on Chang's website. Chang's credit should be [uncredited].

    soulchap
    I think you've missed the point of his composition of the overlaid graphics for the jacket. It was not made in order to allow people to mistake this for a poor pressing of the White Album.

    I didn't miss it because I wasn't looking for it. I am looking at it as an audio release without any of the context. If someone picked this up in any store at random how would they interpret it?

    dolphyfan
    Where does it say "The Beatles" in any manner other than various owners writing it in marker?

    Exactly where you said. The various owners of the source art are not in consideration here. Chang chose those pieces to use for the artwork of this unauthorised release.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    maldoror
    I didn't miss it because I wasn't looking for it. I am looking at it as an audio release without any of the context. If someone picked this up in any store at random how would they interpret it?


    Not as 'The White Album' from the cover. Nor did my wife recognise the section including 'while my guitar gently weeps' or 'honey pie' from the audio, it sounds more like Merzbow! I think we do a little more discerning than just picking something up to 'interpret' it, and I'm glad you used that word as this does require 'interpreting', not just a quick turn of the handle.
  • Violent-Power over 2 years ago

    maldoror
    However, for discogs purposes we see it as a piece of music. The only context to consider is why is it a valid discogs release? Because it contains audio. What is the audio? Overlaid Beatles recordings. Who is the main artist on the cover? The Beatles. Can we add extra credits? Yes it has been sufficiently documented in the news and on Chang's website. Chang's credit should be [uncredited].


    Yeah, agreed with this.

    I do however thing the tracklist is probably incorrect as it is, since this tracklist is not readeable on the release, and we can't really identify all tracks from the audio.

    Also this probably doesn't belong in the same MR as other versions of the White Album since is has completely different art and audio.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    Violent-Power
    Also this probably doesn't belong in the same MR as other versions of the White Album since is has completely different art and audio.

    Crikey! Yes that has to be the case.
  • baldorr over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    suddenlythisoverviewI don’t own the album, ... For me it’s clearly a distinct recording (a re-recording). I vote for Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums.
    This and only this. This art needs documenting properly.


    +1

    I realize this is overturning a staff ruling from before, but this really should be a separate release from the Beatles.
  • Violent-Power over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    Crikey! Yes that has to be the case.


    No need to be smug. It currently is in the same MR and should be removed from there imho. Different discussion from what the main artist and title should be.
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    So much to catch up and comment on!

    1. I agree, this is not a Beatles record.

    2. That there was discussion 5 years ago, does not mean there can't be discussion again; and a changed opinion from the staff.

    3. If you haven't heard the record, you shouldn't be contributing to the discussion. There is little trace of the Beatles in the audio. Yes, it is built from Beatles music, but you can't even really hear that. Since someone above provided a link to listen at, it's not much effort to get informed before joining the discussion.

    4. It's not a remix. It's not a mash-up. It's also definitely not a version of the _White Album_ itself. Even if you thinks it's an unofficial Beatles release, you have to figure out what to call it. Essentially you'd be creating a new release---a new creative work---to be credited to the Beatles, but marked as unofficial, which was creatively directed by someone who is not a member of the Beatles.

    5. The Beatles and co. are litigious (ask Steve Jobs). Rutherford Chang's exhibition was not an under-the-radar affair. It was covered in countless newspapers with international distribution. It's safe to assume its existence was known to the people with the rights to sue. But there was no publicly disclosed lawsuit.

    I think we need to look at how Discogs defines something as unofficial (in section 6.15 of the guide):

    "We use the 'Unofficial Release' and 'Partially Unofficial' descriptions to tag and separate the releases that may not adhere to usual copyright law/s."

    As was pointed out by others, this record hopefully falls under fair-use standards for appropriating for creating new artistic works.

    In 6.15.3 there is a list of items that should be marked unofficial: "Bootleg: Unauthorized recordings of live performances/broadcasts. Counterfeit: Recordings which are copied or distributed without authority, and which are packaged to resemble the original as closely as possible. Pirate: Recordings which are copied or distributed without authority, and which are usually packaged differently to the original."

    This is not a bootleg of the _White Album_ or of a reworking of the _White Album_ by the Beatles. This is not a bootleg of a live performance. This is not a counterfeit because it is not a copy of the _White Album_, and is manifestly made /not/ to resemble the original. This is not pirated because, again, it's not a copy of the _White Album_.

    6.15.4 Lists further items that can be classified as unofficial: "releases made in territories that did not regulate copyright laws at the time the releases were made; releases made in compliance with local copyright laws that are not otherwise approved by rights holder(s); releases that contain unlicensed tracks; and other types of releases that may violate copyright and rights holder protections."

    This release is from the US, which regulates copyright laws. The rest of the concerns essentially fall under the discussion of whether this is sonically a new work (fair-use practices).

    Discogs ends by noting that the above lists are not all inclusive. But it sets a clear rule at the start of the section that the determination should be made based on copyright laws. I suggest if someone here has professional expertise in copyright law, he or she speak up. (Note, being artists or record collectors or just people with strong opinions does not make us copyright experts.)

    A final point: this is a discussion of whether a record on a website gets marked with one label or another. I hope we can keep it civil.
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    A post-scriptum final point: Does anyone have any statement from rights holders (or anyone) concerning this not being an authorised release? It has been assumed by everyone that Rutherford Chang did not have approval from the Beatles for his exhibition and the subsequent release. But does he state that anywhere? Does any article state that?
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    danielgr if I was browsing a store and came upon this record how would I come to the conclusion Chang was the "artist" and We Buy White Albums is the "title"
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    danielgr if I was browsing a store and came upon this record how would I come to the conclusion Chang was the "artist" and We Buy White Albums is the "title"


    I don't understand your point? You're complaining about the design?
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    vinylenochdanielgr if I was browsing a store and came upon this record how would I come to the conclusion Chang was the "artist" and We Buy White Albums is the "title"

    I don't understand your point? You're complaining about the design?


    First importance in the guidelines is what is on the physical release, if I can't determine either Chang or We Buy White Albums by looking at the physical release then those should not be the main credits
  • dolphyfan over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    First importance in the guidelines is what is on the physical release, if I can't determine either Chang or We Buy White Albums by looking at the physical release then those should not be the main credits

    You can't determine Chang, or Beatles, or anything specific by looking at the physical release. The only identifying feature on the original sleeve of any version of The Beatles - The Beatles - White Album is the embossed title (some colored) and, for the first 3 million or so, an edition number, and the fact that it is an otherwise blank, white sleeve. Chang's release is the complete opposite. It is 100 copies of The Beatles - The Beatles - White Album that have been drawn on, coffee-stained, and otherwise made personal, but beyond this, nowhere can you see the original embossed The Beatles or an edition number. That any number of these previous owners have scrawled The Beatles in marker on the sleeve doesn't make it The Beatles - The Beatles - White Album anymore than if they had scrawled Nevermind on it makes it a Nirvana album.
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    First importance in the guidelines is what is on the physical release, if I can't determine either Chang or We Buy White Albums by looking at the physical release then those should not be the main credits


    This concerns what is /not/ on the physical release. I'm not trying to be pedantic here---I think there's an important distinction. In the guide, section 1.1.1 (under "Valid Information") asks you to have the physical release in hand. But it doesn't say to base the entry only on the physical release. In fact, section 1.1.2 states, "External information should only be entered where it adds to the release information (for example, track names where none are given on the release)." In this case, it's the well documented title and artist that are missing from the release.

    Discogs should function as a source of information. Your first question is a good one: in a shop how would I know this record is by Rutherford Chang and called _We Buy White Albums_? I'd find a distinguishing feature that is searchable, like the text on the reverse side of the poster, and type it into Discogs. Once found, I would want Discogs to tell me, "no, this is not a Beatles bootleg---you will be disappointed when you get home with it if that's what you're thinking. It's an entirely different piece of art."
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    Violent-Power
    No need to be smug


    I wasn't being smug, I didn't even bother to check 'where' it was, so it suprised me. I guess I shouldn't be suprised given the trajectory of the site.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    So much to catch up and comment on!

    A very nice summation. I don't have the energy these days for the forum exchanges.
  • brunorepublic over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    section 1.1.2 states, "External information should only be entered where it adds to the release information (for example, track names where none are given on the release)." In this case, it's the well documented title and artist that are missing from the release.


    +1

    I think it is worth mentioning that Chang's release was, AFAIK, only available from his website, so anyone buying it new understood exactly what they were getting, and it wasn't just another copy of the white album.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    vinylenochFirst importance in the guidelines is what is on the physical release, if I can't determine either Chang or We Buy White Albums by looking at the physical release then those should not be the main credits

    This concerns what is /not/ on the physical release. I'm not trying to be pedantic here---I think there's an important distinction. In the guide, section 1.1.1 (under "Valid Information") asks you to have the physical release in hand. But it doesn't say to base the entry only on the physical release. In fact, section 1.1.2 states, "External information should only be entered where it adds to the release information (for example, track names where none are given on the release)." In this case, it's the well documented title and artist that are missing from the release.

    Discogs should function as a source of information. Your first question is a good one: in a shop how would I know this record is by Rutherford Chang and called _We Buy White Albums_? I'd find a distinguishing feature that is searchable, like the text on the reverse side of the poster, and type it into Discogs. Once found, I would want Discogs to tell me, "no, this is not a Beatles bootleg---you will be disappointed when you get home with it if that's what you're thinking. It's an entirely different piece of art."


    This is a serious question:

    How do we know you are here in good faith?

    You disagreed with the original discussion and instead of starting a discussion per protocol you marked the listing as needs major changes.

    When you didn't get the response you wanted via the needs major changes you created a new listing against protocol.

    When that was merged you didn't accept the merge and just resubmitted the listing from the draft against protocol.

    Based on this behavior I have little faith you are here in good faith and if this discussion goes against your suggestion that you will again ignore protocol and just do what you want.

    So again I ask why should we believe you are here in good faith based on your history concerning this release?
  • maldoror over 2 years ago

    Violent-Power
    I do however thing the tracklist is probably incorrect as it is, since this tracklist is not readeable on the release, and we can't really identify all tracks from the audio.

    Also this probably doesn't belong in the same MR as other versions of the White Album since is has completely different art and audio.

    This I can get behind.

    I understand some of what Chang is trying to do as mentioned previously, as much as you can understand an artists intentions. If one of his goals was to get people to think about the nature of art and music and who the artists is he has succeed here. Maybe he will use this thread in the liner notes of his next release. In relation to the credits of the album, my final point can only be that Chang chose to make the artwork as he did.

    danielgr
    Does anyone have any statement from rights holders (or anyone) concerning this not being an authorised release?

    This would be nice to know.
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    This is a serious question:

    How do we know you are here in good faith?


    We're discussing an entry on a record cataloging website. Calm down.

    Do you own the record? Have you physically held it in your hand?
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    vinylenochThis is a serious question:

    How do we know you are here in good faith?

    We're discussing an entry on a record cataloging website. Calm down.

    Do you own the record? Have you physically held it in your hand?


    If you bothered to read this thread I have stated twice that I own this, this this third time
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    vinylenochThis is a serious question:

    How do we know you are here in good faith?

    We're discussing an entry on a record cataloging website. Calm down.

    Do you own the record? Have you physically held it in your hand?


    also, my question still stands, are you going to go with this thread if it disagrees with your opinion as you haven't up to this point
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    also, my question still stands, are you going to go with this thread if it disagrees with your opinion as you haven't up to this point


    What do you mean by this thread having something to go with? Are you going to hold a vote? Are you going to decide that the opinion of the small fraction of users of this website who read these forums is the deciding factor on the release? I will be happy with whatever the administrators of this website decide. And I'd welcome someone actually giving proof that this release was not approved by the Beatles or their representatives. (I don't see why you just assume it's unofficial.)

    Where do you store this record on your shelf?
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    Where do you store this record on your shelf?


    Actually, a better question is: what did you think it was when you bought it?
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    vinylenochalso, my question still stands, are you going to go with this thread if it disagrees with your opinion as you haven't up to this point

    What do you mean by this thread having something to go with? Are you going to hold a vote? Are you going to decide that the opinion of the small fraction of users of this website who read these forums is the deciding factor on the release? I will be happy with whatever the administrators of this website decide. And I'd welcome someone actually giving proof that this release was not approved by the Beatles or their representatives. (I don't see why you just assume it's unofficial.)

    Where do you store this record on your shelf?


    As I shared above you have not followed staff guidance or majority voting in the past and just done your own thing, I file this under Beatles since all the music is by The Beatles

    danielgr


    Actually, a better question is: what did you think it was when you bought it?


    A layered Beatles album
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    Please also come to this discussion in good faith: The previous thread reaches no consensus and concerned mostly who the credited artist should be not whether the work is official or authorized. The staff recommendation was in fact to add as much information as possible

    >>Due to this, I feel the correct way to catalog this is to enter it in every way possible at the same time, in one submission<< (nik)

    That doesn't seem an opinion in favor of simply attributing it to the Beatles and marking it unofficial.

    Also, please provide a source for your belief that it is unofficial, regardless of who the artist is.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    maldoror
    This would be nice to know.


    Given EMI/Universal's standard position on such things and the complex web of rights approvals needed on this (writers, publishers, estates, producers etc) I think you can say with some certainty it's unofficial.

    danielgr
    Also, please provide a source for your belief that it is unofficial, regardless of who the artist is.


    Unless it was signed off by all the above, under assorted copyright acts and conventions, the use of this audio and these compositions makes it so. It is not an expired copyright and not covered by fair dealing or similar, thus it's in copyright – and Discogs guidelines position is even tighter than law.

    And it's not up to The Beatles to approve it (although they would be several of the parties needed, but they don't own or control these masters).
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    Please also come to this discussion in good faith: The previous thread reaches no consensus and concerned mostly who the credited artist should be not whether the work is official or authorized. The staff recommendation was in fact to add as much information as possible

    >>Due to this, I feel the correct way to catalog this is to enter it in every way possible at the same time, in one submission<< (nik)

    That doesn't seem an opinion in favor of simply attributing it to the Beatles and marking it unofficial.

    Also, please provide a source for your belief that it is unofficial, regardless of who the artist is.


    and as I have said, the question is how to add Chang, not create a new listing as you did which was in bad faith to what the discussion was in the previous thread - if you had more issues, again, the correct protocol was to create a new forum thread not your own listing
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    The previous listing did not credit Chang and was locked as "unofficial" --- without any discussion of whether it should be marked unofficial.
  • uzn007 over 2 years ago

    anagrama
    Having it listed as an unofficial Beatles album is insanity - it's clearly an art piece created by Rutherford Chang.


    Agree. This debate is just one more example of how completely divorced the Discogs database is from reality.
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    The previous listing did not credit Chang and was locked as "unofficial" --- without any discussion of whether it should be marked unofficial.


    To which you should have opened a new thread to discuss - I am not sure why the conversion about how to credit Chang fizzled out (that was prior to me buying it), but you can't just make a unilateral decision which is what you did
  • PabloPlato over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    Do you own the record? Have you physically held it in your hand?


    whether one owns it or not is not a barrier to discussing the issue at hand. an understanding of the inherent differences between Chang's artwork and a Standard copy of The Beatles White Album is all that is required. your exclusionist attitude does not help further your arguments.

    and Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums / The Beatles - The Beatles should not be in the Master Release with the standard album. how absurd!
  • vinylenoch over 2 years ago

    My suggestion is to keep it The Beatles - The Beatles and give Chang a credit, we can work on the wording of credit

    My reason for this is nothing on the sleeve or records identify Chang and nothing at all besides web sources include We Buy White Albums (meaning no one without prior knowledge would know to search for this) so that info can be put in the notes

    I don't have enough knowledge on how unofficial vs official affects the ability to sell this on Discogs, but I lean towards unofficial with the ability to sell as I don't believe Apple gave any type of permission to this project.

    For the tracks, I think they should be Untitled with the original track titles included as sub-tracks

    (hoping this gets us back on track which I admittedly haven't helped)
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    PabloPlato
    danielgrDo you own the record? Have you physically held it in your hand?

    whether one owns it or not is not a barrier to discussing the issue at hand. an understanding of the inherent differences between Chang's artwork and a Standard copy of The Beatles White Album is all that is required. your exclusionist attitude does not help further your arguments.

    and Rutherford Chang - We Buy White Albums / The Beatles - The Beatles should not be in the Master Release with the standard album. how absurd!


    You can't understand the inherent differences between his artwork and a standard copy if you haven't listened to it. Also, please attentively read what I wrote before you critique me: in my first comment I simply asked people to listen to the record before discussing---not to purchase it. My question about user Vinylnoch's owning it was in response to him questioning whether one could see what this record is when he has it in his hand. (My apologies to Vinylnoch---he had apparently stated above that he does own it; I just wasn't attentive enough in my reading.)
  • PabloPlato over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    You can't understand the inherent differences between his artwork and a standard copy if you haven't listened to it.


    you don't need to own it to listen to it.

    danielgr
    Also, please attentively read what I wrote before you critique me


    i have. and you are hung up on ownership being the price of admission in this discussion. ownership or whether people have held it in hand or what they thought it was when making the purchase or where they file it in their collection.
    you're canvassing the community to gain support for the release being cataloged properly (as in: clearly identified for what it is not - a standard "White Album" release) so try to not act so pompously. it derails a worthy conversation.

    vinylenoch
    My suggestion is to keep it The Beatles - The Beatles and give Chang a credit, we can work on the wording of credit


    why not credit both as the release artist? or even Rutherford Chang [presents] The Beatles - The Beatles? we can use common sense and extrapolate one such word from citable sources to act as a joiner that infers [presents].

    vinylenoch
    I don't have enough knowledge on how unofficial vs official affects the ability to sell this on Discogs, but I lean towards unofficial with the ability to sell as I don't believe Apple gave any type of permission to this project.


    is Partially Unofficial still available to select as a tag? I feel that this is one of those rare cases where the tag would apply.

    vinylenoch
    For the tracks, I think they should be Untitled with the original track titles included as sub-tracks


    agreed.

    vinylenoch
    (hoping this gets us back on track which I admittedly haven't helped)


    i wouldn't blame you :/
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    PabloPlato
    danielgrYou can't understand the inherent differences between his artwork and a standard copy if you haven't listened to it.

    you don't need to own it to listen to it.

    danielgrAlso, please attentively read what I wrote before you critique me

    i have. and you are hung up on ownership being the price of admission in this discussion.


    Dude, I'm done discussing with you if you can't quote honestly:

    danielgr
    You can't understand the inherent differences between his artwork and a standard copy if you haven't listened to it . . . . in my first comment I simply asked people to listen to the record before discussing---not to purchase it.
  • danielgr over 2 years ago

    Also, acess to a physical copy is considered the price of admission to editing on this site by the guidelines set out by the owners. (I happen to disagree with that. But it's their policy, stated clearly in numerous places.)
  • PabloPlato over 2 years ago

    yes, i read your first post, you made many good points to consider in this conversation. then you spiraled downward and the conversation shifted to trivial attacks.

    danielgr
    I hope we can keep it civil.


    remember that from your first post? let's live it.
  • PabloPlato over 2 years ago

    danielgr
    acess to a physical copy is considered the price of admission to editing on this site by the guidelines set out by the owners.


    incorrect. access to a release is required when making a submission. but editing can be done by anyone, whether they own a copy or not, as long as the edit is researched and valid.
  • anagrama over 2 years ago

    vinylenoch
    My reason for this is nothing on the sleeve or records identify Chang and nothing at all besides web sources include We Buy White Albums (meaning no one without prior knowledge would know to search for this) so that info can be put in the notes


    This is a non-argument - under RSG §3.2.3., external sources are perfectly valid if no title is obvious.

Log In You must be logged in to post.