• Staff 3.1k

    nik over 9 years ago

    nik edited over 8 years ago
    Further to some previous discussion on this, and to the Artist Page Reorganization, I'd like to put forward the following ideas for criticism;

    I propose opening up all unlinked credits to be linked:

    * Artwork By
    * Photography
    * Executive Producer
    * Other
    * Written By

    Legacy unlinked credits will remain in the database until they are all manually migrated. This will be done by first automatically updating all the above credit roles to add the 'dagger' character "†" to indicate that it is a legacy role:

    Artwork By†
    Photography†
    Executive Producer†
    Other†
    Written By†

    These roles will then be made the unlinked version, and the plain version of the role will be linked.

    Both Written By and Written-By would be allowable linked credits.

    Optionally, we could make it so the unlinked versions cannot be entered into the database (all existing legacy versions will need to be updated if an edit takes place). This may perhaps be a bit harsh initially, and perhaps we should allow the unlinked versions to still be entered for a time.

    For all credits, it would still be a requirement that the credited person or group did something on the release (see the 'thank you type credits guideline at http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-credits.html#Thank_You_Type_Credits for a guideline that could be expanded to avoid (for example) film credits (actors etc) being applied to soundtrack releases.

    The credit categories would then be:

    * Vocals
    * Instruments
    * Writing & Arrangement
    * Featuring & Presenting
    * Conducting & Leading
    * Production
    * Remix
    * DJ Mix
    * Technical
    * Visual
    * Spoken
    * Other

    Regarding 'Visual' and 'Spoken', they could also be called something like 'Image, Film, & Video' and 'Literary, Acting, & Interviewing', but the shorter terms are probably easier.

    If you have any comments, ideas, criticism, or can see any problems in the proposal, please let me know! Thanks.
  • rassel over 9 years ago

    I would prefer to leave the "Other" credit unlinked, as this is the credit we use for management, hair studios and limousine services and stuff like that.
    I would really suggest to make an exception for "Other" and to allow adding 'thank you type credits using "Other" so we have more consistency and are able to move all human credits to the credit field.
  • _jules over 9 years ago

    _jules edited over 9 years ago
    nvm
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 9 years ago

    rassel
    I would prefer to leave the "Other" credit unlinked, as this is the credit we use for management, hair studios and limousine services and stuff like that.


    I think 'Management' type credits are fine to be linked. They 'do something' WRT the release (organizing / paying). I would rather move totally away from unlinked credits.

    Hair studios and limousine services are businesses, so shouldn't go in the credit section.

    The 'other' sections could be for stylist and driver type credits, but TBH this type of credit is very uncommon and very minor, and we probably over the years have spent too much time worrying about it!

    rassel
    I would really suggest to make an exception for "Other" and to allow adding 'thank you type credits using "Other" so we have more consistency and are able to move all human credits to the credit field.


    I think the 'thanks you' credit rule is good as it stands. If we keep the division clear (credit section for people / groups involved in the release), then it is easy IMHO. No need for "Other† [Thanks To] - God" etc.
  • marcelrecords over 9 years ago

    marcelrecords edited over 9 years ago
    Another point: many ''Artwork By'' credits are credited to a company, instead of humans. If we make linked credits for these, all of these companies get an artist page. Is that acceptable?
    http://www.discogs.com/Pretty-Things-Parachute/release/1813739
    http://www.discogs.com/Studio-Pressure-The-Physical-Touching-Down--Planet-Photek/release/305

    Much worse would it be if all ''Written By'' credits would also have a page of their own. A completely random example:
    http://www.discogs.com/Cold-Blood-Thriller/release/551774
    I can hardly imagine that we would like to have new artist pages for literally thousands of credits entered like this. Or are such pages not the result from linking credits?
  • _jules over 9 years ago

    if I understand correctly were I to submit this Étienne Daho* - L'Invitation under the proposed new system, I'd need to use Written By† ?

    nik
    Optionally, we could make it so the unlinked versions cannot be entered into the database (all existing legacy versions will need to be updated if an edit takes place). This may perhaps be a bit harsh initially


    not just harsh, plain stupid really

    I certainly do hope I'd still be able to keep on working around the lack of join fields in extra artist fields in such instances as linked above under the proposed new system

    => unless the consistently ignored for the 4 to 5 years it's been requested "join fields for extra artists" feature is available we need an unlinked Written By credit

    besides, what's the advantage of having 3 versions of the same credit?
    Written By† = unlinked
    Written By = linked
    Written-By = linked

    or is an automated update of all Written-Bys into linked Written By part of the plan?

    Written By† = unlinked
    Written By = linked
    Written-By = linked

    seems a bit over-complicated to me ... why not keep this as it is with Written-By / unlinked Written By ?
  • WilhelmT over 9 years ago

    I like the idea to get rid of the unlinked credits.
    But, as said before, I would prefer we go one big step further to a much more limited number of (non redundant) credits and get rid of the [whatever] option.

    Note that smart database fields have two big advantages over just 'text': quicker searching because of indexing AND sorting.
    Currently our credit section is just an extended Notes(text) field with slightly more rules, but it is not good for indexed searching and almost impossible to sort on.
  • _jules over 9 years ago

    furthermore,

    I do believe it is way more advantageous to the database to have unlinked Written By strings containing unidentified names than to have so called "credits" linking randomly to pages

    sounds like we're really moving towards linking / crossreferencing for the sake of it here ...

    I fail to see the point in building tons of generic [Invalid Artist] pages - this is in no way making the database easier to use neither for submitters nor for casual browsers ...
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    I think this is a very good idea. Linked-up information opens the road to exploration.
    Also one might use discogs to search for a variety of credits, so linking never harms.

    Two things I'd like to mention:
    1-I'd prefer to have a credit called 'notes' (or 'liner notes') instead of having to use 'Other [notes]'
    This is a very common credit in fact.
    Also, it is useful to gather the written info on back covers & booklets by it's author. Some of these writers are very interesting

    and

    2-Now that there is going to be a maintencance on the credits.
    Isn't it a right time to introduce company credits?
    Especially companies filled in in the label field form a continious problem.

    The moment such a 'fake-label' is created, other users using the search engine to find the particular label, choose such manufacturing and distributing companies as one-and-only label.
    This results in a mass of submissions without the actual label entered. (I have met many RCA Schallplatten GmbH releases, that even weren't RCA in fact, but were just manufactured by RCA Sch. gmbh.
    Not so long ago, 'Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft mbH' was entered as extra company. Shortly after, there were already entries that belonged in the actual label: "Deutsche Grammophon"

    Well yea, these are recent discussed examples.

    But giving companies a clear place in the sub-form, could avoid such problems.
    (Although I think notes are also usefull and very versatile)

    just some suggestions.
    the more is linked, the more can be documented, the richer discogs will get.
    I think discogs is going into the right direction with this!

    cheers!
  • WilhelmT over 9 years ago

    _jules
    sounds like we're really moving towards linking / crossreferencing for the sake of it here ...


    That's exactly what a database is about.

    I like the idea though to have an option (tick box) besides a credit: "I have no clue to who this should be linked", which than does not link the artist.
    This problem is of course not exclusive to the Written-By credit..
  • _jules over 9 years ago


    WilhelmT
    That's exactly what a database is about.

    not sure I'd call a base full of mixed up / unverified / unverifiable data a database, but that's probably just me ...

    WilhelmT
    I like the idea though to have an option (tick box) besides a credit: "Have no clue to who this should be linked", which than does not link the artist.
    This problem is of course not exclusive to the Written-By credit..


    now that's a good idea!

  • slur over 9 years ago

    Generally yes, the pro's are great IMHO
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago


    _jules
    sounds like we're really moving towards linking / crossreferencing for the sake of it here ...

    Yes, it's about time!

    Otherwise we could work as well with a paper-card database in a huge locker!
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    WilhelmT
    I like the idea though to have an option (tick box) besides a credit: "I have no clue to who this should be linked", which than does not link the artist.

    Good idea, but it reduces the chances that a credit ever gets updated to a linked one. Wrongly linked artists at least stick out on an artist's page… :)
    nik
    I propose opening up all unlinked credits to be linked:
    * Artwork By
    * Photography
    […]
    * Other

    Let the chaos take over…
    While I really like the proposal in theory, in practice these three credit roles and the associated artists are virtually unmanageable. Too often it's hard enough to find the correct PAN of a musician. But we're all music enthusiasts (otherwise we wouldn't be here), so usually with time all gets together which belongs together. But how many of us have any clue about correct designers' or photographers' names??? (Hey, I'm a graphic designer by profession, but even me wouldn't ever claim to have enough clue to safely tell who is who…)
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    loukash
    Let the chaos take over…
    While I really like the proposal in theory, in practice these three credit roles and the associated artists are virtually unmanageable.


    I agree half with this.

    I wish already for a long time to have a page for the artworks & note-writers I have in my collection.
    But indeed, it can become difficult too, as you say.
    Maybe we shouldn't making a linked credit out of it mandatory, but just an option. Those who are willing to link 'em up, and go through the research needed, should have the possibility to do so.

    Photographers can't be too difficult. They most often use their real name, often combined with a location.
    Artwork is a jungle of artist names indeed, except for reproductions of classical paintings, this will have some work (but once gotten through: it'll be an interesting jungle I think)
    Writers of liner-notes are fairly easy too in most cases I think, except where only initials are given (like L.J.)

    If linking up companies would be possible, that would solve some rather imperfect situations on discogs.
    Example where I have been messing in too much once is in discussion here: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199005
  • rassel over 9 years ago

    WilhelmT
    I like the idea though to have an option (tick box) besides a credit: "I have no clue to who this should be linked", which than does not link the artist.


    Ok, had a similar idea some years ago, but after two years of experience on this site I have to admit, I fear things like:
    († = unlinked)

    Artwork By†: Big Styla
    Bass†: Steven
    Guitar†: Olaf
    Drums†: Sven
    Vocals†: Lola

    And comments on the submission notes:
    "Dude, you shouldn't use just unlinked credits, that's not the idea here"
    "As long as I have the possiblity to use them, I use them, show me the section in the RSG".
    "Yep, sure, it's not forbidden, but ehm, you know.."
    "So do it yourself"
  • mawiles over 9 years ago

    marcelrecords
    Another point: many "Artwork By" credits are credited to a company, instead of humans. If we make linked credits for these, all of these companies get an artist page. Is that acceptable?


    Big problem. I thought about this very often when I added artwork credits. Currently, we can add the whole artwork info into the credit field. With linked credits, we need to split it up and add company info to the notes field, which may cause problems. For example how should the following info be reflected properly:
    Artwork by Bruce @ Marc Schilkowski (i.e. Bruce works for Marc)
    Artwork by V.O.O.D.I. @ Drizzly Lab
    Artwork by info@dirkmertins.de
    Artwork by www.reizueberflutung.com
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Photographers can't be too difficult. They most often use their real name, often combined with a location.

    OK, perhaps that one may work…
    Photographers are usually also quite well documented online, at least the professionals.

    But:
    "Artwork By" WILL be unmanageable.
    I strongly advise against linking!
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Writers of liner-notes are fairly easy too in most cases I think, except where only initials are given (like L.J.)

    Agreed, and thus I also support a new linked credit role Liner Notes.

    But:
    I still recommend to keep "Other" unlinked, just as a catch-all for any credits that are too uncertain to be linked.
  • rassel over 9 years ago

    rassel edited over 9 years ago
    loukash
    But:
    I still recommend to keep "Other" unlinked, just as a catch-all for any credits that are too uncertain to be linked.

    Agreed, because otherwise you will see all these credits again in the release notes as years ago, which would be even worse than the unlinked status we have today.

    Edit: And by the way, wouldn't it be a better idea to introduce the credits and "artist pages" for non humans first, as
    - Distributors
    - Studios
    ....
    and so on.

    Probably it would be easier to migrate the unlinked credits afterwards.
  • Ronaldvd over 9 years ago

    _jules
    besides, what's the advantage of having 3 versions of the same credit?
    Written By† = unlinked
    Written By = linked
    Written-By = linked

    Having 3 Written By variants is indeed too complicated.
    Since Written-By is really an odd-one-out credit role (the only one using a dash!) it should be removed in my opinion.
    So leaving these 2, which are in line with all other credit roles:
    Written By = linked
    Written By† = unlinked

    So the old Written By becomes Written By†
    and Written-By becomes Written By
  • funkynicky over 9 years ago

    I agree with Ronaldvd.
    It would be the right time to get rid of the "Written-By" credit, for sure.
  • hmvh over 9 years ago

    hmvh edited over 9 years ago
    nik
    I propose opening up all unlinked credits to be linked:

    Wow! This is a massive paradigm shift, and possibly one of the most profound changes this database (term used intentionally) has ever seen.

    Discogs becomes not only a database of "releases" but also one of all people, parties and personas involved in the creation of each, opening up as serious competition to that l'il ole wikipedian place down the road. I'm perfectly prepared to go along with it, providing we do this good and properly.

    And the common denominator remains the physical release (legacy term) a submitter has in front of him at the time of data entry. There is no change with this -- our very core philosophy -- but what we can actually do with the volumes of data each release (entity) provides.

    Forgive me if this sounds sarcastic. It isn't. I'd like to see this minor development issue taken several steps further; so far, in fact, that we can kill several flocks with this one single stone (and the stone need not be a boulder either).

    teo + nik: Since many of the photography and artwork and such credits involve companies (not people or their aliases), the same rules as for regular "artists" would apply. Therefore, variations (www.arthouse.com vs. the arthouse.com) in the presentation of a named company could be elegantly dealt with via the good old ANV facility. Nothing changes (although the URL including "artist" could become a minor misnomer).

    There's no need to stop here: extending what's being proposed already, I urge the introduction of several new fields (similar to roles) aimed specifically at record companies and/or their subsidiaries and studios, viz:

    * Recorded at (studio)
    * Manufactured in (country/region)
    * Printed in (country/region)
    * Manufactured by (company)
    * Licensed to (company)
    * Licensed from (company)
    * Marketed by (company)
    * Distributed by (company)
    * Published by (company)
    * ℗ (company)
    * © (company)
    * etc.

    "country/region" would call up a pick-list of pre-defined countries, similar to the existing "country" field (which, in all honesty, I wouldn't mind seeing go).

    The "studio" and "company" values would create pages for each entity (complete with ANVs and, dare I say, aliases) -- not unlike the existing artist pages.

    Every single one of my suggestions above can already be implemented with relative ease using the existing database structure and/or what nik is proposing. Nothing I am asking for requires a radical change and provides a step in the right direction (IMHO).

    Yes, I'm aware that these new (record) companies will be treated as artists (and disguised as such). I know full well that these "artists" will be listed under "appears on". To counter-act this, the roles I've suggested above should be flagged specifically as companies, listed separately from the regular artists (performers, technicians, etc.) and can do one more important thing: they can own labels (or be related to one or more, but that's another step).
    The difference takes place in the back-end, the user has no control over this during data entry.
    Explaining my thoughts and rationale about this would be best left for another thread entirely (if anyone's interested at all) but, in my opinion, a huge leap towards a harmonious solution to the "label problem".

    And yes, I'd still like a dedicated "barcode" field, as well as a performance rights field (GEMA, SACEM, etc.), also using drop-down values.

    nik
    This will be done by first automatically updating all the above credit roles to add the 'dagger' character "†" to indicate that it is a legacy role:

    If understand this right: the 'bot will create a dummy-role to which a "†" is appended? And it can only we overwritten by a "proper" role (unless you want a warning message) during a manual update by users to verify/update what the bot's done?

    If so, me happy.

    nik
    The credit categories would then be:

    In lieu of the future linked roles, we may as well add "Artistic" to cover "Artwork", "Liner Notes", "Photography".

    And "Companies" and "Studios", if the suggestions above are included.

    mawiles
    Artwork by www.reizueberflutung.com

    Artwork By - www.reizueberflutung.com (treated as any other linked artist.)
    mawiles
    Artwork by Bruce @ Marc Schilkowski

    Artwork By - Bruce Smith ANV Bruce @ Marc Schilkowski (assuming his surname is Smith). If the submitter doesn't know who that is, leave this credit out -- it's not mandatory to include it.

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    1-I'd prefer to have a credit called 'notes' (or 'liner notes') instead of having to use 'Other [notes]'

    "Liner Notes" has my vote.
    loukash
    I still recommend to keep "Other" unlinked, just as a catch-all for any credits that are too uncertain to be linked.

    Agreed. It's always good to have an escape hatch for undefined involvement.
    WilhelmT
    I like the idea though to have an option (tick box) besides a credit: "I have no clue to who this should be linked", which than does not link the artist.
    This problem is of course not exclusive to the Written-By credit..

    Truth be told, the same idea has been going through my head as well -- you've just had the guts to express it ;)
    Yes, it has my support, and even this I'd like to take much further so that the database supports "credit role variations" (dealing with the idiocy that is "Producer [Produced By]" and foreign languages as well.

    More on that some other time perhaps, this is a possible next step when the changes above are implemented and another step closer to "as on release".

    loukash
    Let the chaos take over…

    In another development thread I said that things will get worse before they get any better. A necessary evil on the road to enlightenment.

    edit: grammer + typoz
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    hmvh
    loukash
    Let the chaos take over…

    In another development thread I said that things will get worse before they get any better. A necessary evil on the road to enlightenment.

    You took my quote out of context. :)
    I was applying it only for "Artwork By", "Photography" (revised my opinion in the meantime) and "Other". And since some of us already seem to agree that "Other" should remain unlinked, anarchy shall only reign the "Artwork By" credits…
    Is it worth it?
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    loukash
    anarchy shall only reign the "Artwork By" credits…
    Is it worth it?


    Although it will demand an enormous effort from all contributors,
    I think it actually may resolve the 'Artwork By'-chaos and slowly give us some clues in the world of artworks made in the perspective of a musical release.

    From the moment they're linked, we will be able to document the artists appearing on front covers, designers involved in a release layout.
    And if companies will be credited too: we might link designers in the profile to the companies they work(ed) for.

    But maybe discogs should attach an 'advanced section' to it's sub-form?
    To compete with the difference in need for users who occasionally submit a release and don't want to be bothered too much about complex details.
    The section would go prior with a notice like: "If you don't understand the fields and options offered in the advanced sections, please add the information to the notes, as it appears on your record. This way others will have the info needed to fill in the advanced section for you"

    It would be a way to approach both 'simple', occasional or new users, in contrast to users who have interest in more depth behind the releases (like companies, artwork, liner notes, film credits, copyrights, ...)
    The approach of someone mainly focussing on rock, electronic & pop performers, are different than when focussing on classical, soundtracks, folk & field recordings, singer/songwriting or ...
    The more different approaches discogs can cover, the better.

    But it stays dangerous indeed to let 'yet undocumented' peoples (in a certain area) fill in datafields they don't really understand, and often, are not interested in to understand too...

    WilhelmT
    I like the idea though to have an option (tick box) besides a credit: "I have no clue to who this should be linked", which than does not link the artist.
    This problem is of course not exclusive to the Written-By credit..


    I don't like it, in fact. The checkbox is allright, but not the idea of unlinking.

    When an artist is wrongly linked, someone can meet it (through searching and getting 2 matches for what he is looking for), and see two artists are one.
    Those can be merged then.
    If unlinked, it's less likely to be detected by someone.

    'Merge release' is on it's way, I don't know this also includes artists and/or labels?
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    nik
    I propose opening up all unlinked credits to be linked:

    Good news I see. :D I support linking all credits, I've never understood the purpose of unlinked credits anyway. Besides there are a lot credits entered with Other that actually have something to do with the releasing the record, peeps just don't know what credit role to use, or we don't have the proper role.
    hmvh
    If understand this right: the 'bot will create a dummy-role to with a "†" is appended? And it can only we overwritten by a "proper" role (unless you want a warning message) during a manual update by users to verify/update what the bot's done?

    If so, me happy.

    I hope this is how it happens too, and that's how I understood it.

    Everything sounds good, except not so sure about "Visual" & "Spoken" - sometimes longer terms might be more informative. On the other hand, I can't think of anything better to replace those, so I guess they're ok. :)
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago

    Here here!

    I think that hmvh covered the topic very eloquently - and I wholeheartedly support his company credit idea.

    I agree that 3 Written By credits is ridiculous - I think it should just be left as is for the moment...

    I also agree that until we get the long, long, LONG requested joiners in the extra artist (and main credit!) fields that we should maintain the unlinked writer credit. The other credits, however, will no longer need an unlinked version.

    hmvh

    Artwork By - Bruce Smith ANV Bruce @ Marc Schilkowski (assuming his surname is Smith). If the submitter doesn't know who that is, leave this credit out -- it's not mandatory to include it.


    I disagree - the credit should be to Bruce, and Marc Schilkowski should be relegated to the notes - this is no different that 'Mastered by Bruce at Masterdisk'.

  • hmvh over 9 years ago

    Kergillian
    I disagree - the credit should be to Bruce, and Marc Schilkowski should be relegated to the notes - this is no different that 'Mastered by Bruce at Masterdisk'.

    Yes. Yes, you're right there.

    As an extension of what I've suggested above, that one line 'Mastered by Bruce at Masterdisk' could be expanded into TWO distinct credits, viz.
    * Mastered by Bruce Smith ANV Bruce
    * Mastered at Masterdisk

    Should we treat arthouse "Marc Schilkowski" the same?

    Kergillian
    I also agree that until we get the long, long, LONG requested joiners in the extra artist (and main credit!) fields that we should maintain the unlinked writer credit.

    Display aside, do we really NEED them? Does it matter whether it says John-Taupin* or John* , Taupin* ?

    loukash
    You took my quote out of context. :)

    I understood what you meant. What I meant was that all releases, every single one will, according to the proposed and fully expanded standards be in a state of "needs minor changes" or worse. Other than the addition of exotic instruments, these new roles and added functionality should, unless I'm grossly mistaken, be a huge step forward and probably one of the last hurdles to what I (personally) envisage that discogs can and should be.

    It's just a pity that the powers that be don't always share their long-term plans with us... no road map, no nothing.

    PS: "Song pages" are a repeated request. We need this step before those can be realised (lots of ideas buzzing).

    Any more takers on blowing credits up completely and including companies? Other thoughts?
  • SeRKeT over 9 years ago


    hmvh
    Any more takers on blowing credits up completely and including companies

    me for one, the label/company/brand/distributor etc. field issue is is something that can be solved by adding credit roles for the companies
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago


    hmvh
    Should we treat arthouse "Marc Schilkowski" the same?


    If your suggestion of company credits is achieved and we can create an 'Artwork AT' credit, then I would say yes. But until that point, I would say notes, like any other company credit...

    hmvh
    Display aside, do we really NEED them? Does it matter whether it says John-Taupin* or John* , Taupin* ?


    Because the order and format of writer credits is very important, IMO, and I would like to be able to write them as they appear on the release. And, to be honest, I simply don't see how difficult it can be to implement this...
  • taalem over 9 years ago

    hmvh
    Display aside, do we really NEED them? Does it matter whether it says John-Taupin* or John* , Taupin* ?

    at least on french releases, joiners and order are very important for the writing/composing credits.
    John/Taupin (which means lyrics by John, music by Taupin) is not the same than Taupin/John (lyrics by Taupin, music by John).
    and you can have John/John-Taupin also (lyrics by John, music by John and Taupin).
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    taalem
    at least on french releases, joiners and order are very important for the writing/composing credits.

    Same with Finnish releases, which can also contain an arranging credit, for example Composer1 - Composer2 / Lyricist / Arranger1 - Arranger2
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 9 years ago

    Thanks for all the feedback folks.

    First off, let's keep the unlinked credits open then, as per your feedback. So the five existing roles will be updated to have the dagger at the end, and they will remain unlinked. Then we will use the plain versions as linked credits.

    To be clear - all existing unlinked credits will remain unlinked, we are just swapping about the role names.

    _jules
    is an automated update of all Written-Bys into linked Written By part of the plan?

    Written By† = unlinked
    Written By = linked
    Written-By = linked

    seems a bit over-complicated to me ... why not keep this as it is with Written-By / unlinked Written By ?


    There will be no automated updates of unlinked artists -> linked.

    The idea to use the dagger '†' is so it is immediately apparent to everyone what is an unlinked credit, and so we can use the plain versions for the links.

    We could keep the Written-By hack as a link, but I'd prefer to make it so that Written By† is the standard unlinked credit, and Written By would be the standard linked credit. Written-By would be depreciated. I know that is somewhat turning things about, but it keeps it more in line with everything else then.

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Isn't it a right time to introduce company credits


    No, the artist roles are not for brands / companies.

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    I'd prefer to have a credit called 'notes' (or 'liner notes')


    I have added that to the todo list, thanks.

    WilhelmT
    I like the idea though to have an option (tick box) besides a credit: "I have no clue to who this should be linked", which than does not link the artist.


    loukash
    Good idea, but it reduces the chances that a credit ever gets updated to a linked one. Wrongly linked artists at least stick out on an artist's page


    I agree. It's a nice idea, but I think it is better to tend toward linking everything up than doing it as an option. Also, more boxes on the submission form = more complication for users.

    hmvh
    Since many of the photography and artwork and such credits involve companies (not people or their aliases), the same rules as for regular "artists" would apply. Therefore, variations (www.arthouse.com vs. the arthouse.com) in the presentation of a named company could be elegantly dealt with via the good old ANV facility


    I'd prefer not to get into the company thing WRT 'artists', I don't think it is very appropriate. There may be some borderline cases where we can take an artistic group of people to be an 'artist', but for straightforward companies, better in the notes for now.

    hmvh
    Yes, I'm aware that these new (record) companies will be treated as artists (and disguised as such). I know full well that these "artists" will be listed under "appears on".


    This was considered previously (and the idea to merge artists and labels into one entity), but this won't happen at this update, and there are some reasonably settled ideas for the company update which should happen early next year.

    hmvh
    we may as well add "Artistic" to cover "Artwork", "Liner Notes", "Photography".


    "Visual" is proposed for all film, TV, photography, and artwork type roles.

    Liner Notes would fit under Literary. Perhaps Literary, Acting, & Interviewing is a better name for this section that 'Spoken'.

    hmvh
    It's just a pity that the powers that be don't always share their long-term plans with us... no road map, no nothing.


    With more people programming and doing other tasks at Discogs HQ, we are able to tackle some of these projects that have been sitting about for a while, and we also hope to have an more open development process so you can see what's going on more readily. More info on this soon.
  • KrissO over 9 years ago

    _jules

    is an automated update of all Written-Bys into linked Written By part of the plan?

    Written By† = unlinked
    Written By = linked
    Written-By = linked

    seems a bit over-complicated to me ... why not keep this as it is with Written-By / unlinked Written By ?

    nik

    There will be no automated updates of unlinked artists -> linked.


    I think what he meant was if the existing linked credit would automaticaly be renamed? In that case something you already answered:
    nik
    we are just swapping about the role names.
    nik
    Both Written By and Written-By would be allowable linked credits.

    nik
    Written-By would be depreciated.


    Why not just remove Written-By entirely? If automated Written By -> Written By† and Written-By -> Written By updates are going to take place anyway (correct?). Can't be that hard to get used to leaving out the dash?
  • ahlbomper over 9 years ago

    KrissO
    Why not just remove Written-By entirely?

    i think that is the plan now.
  • KrissO over 9 years ago

    ahlbomper

    i think that is the plan now.

    I must have missed that part...
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago


    nik
    We could keep the Written-By hack as a link, but I'd prefer to make it so that Written By† is the standard unlinked credit, and Written By would be the standard linked credit. Written-By would be depreciated. I know that is somewhat turning things about, but it keeps it more in line with everything else then.


    I would suggest, then, making Written-By flagged with a warning so that we can no longer use it, and so that release edits will need to switch them over...

  • KrissO over 9 years ago

    As above
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    nik
    So the five existing roles will be updated to have the dagger at the end, and they will remain unlinked. Then we will use the plain versions as linked credits

    Wait-a-minit:
    rassel
    I would prefer to leave the "Other" credit unlinked, as this is the credit we use for management, hair studios and limousine services and stuff like that.
    I would really suggest to make an exception for "Other" and to allow adding 'thank you type credits using "Other" so we have more consistency and are able to move all human credits to the credit field.

    loukash
    I still recommend to keep "Other" unlinked, just as a catch-all for any credits that are too uncertain to be linked.

    hmvh
    loukash
    I still recommend to keep "Other" unlinked, just as a catch-all for any credits that are too uncertain to be linked.

    Agreed. It's always good to have an escape hatch for undefined involvement.

    rassel
    loukash
    But:
    I still recommend to keep "Other" unlinked, just as a catch-all for any credits that are too uncertain to be linked.

    Agreed, because otherwise you will see all these credits again in the release notes as years ago, which would be even worse than the unlinked status we have today.

    loukash
    And since some of us already seem to agree that "Other" should remain unlinked

  • JTWolfe over 9 years ago


    Ronaldvd
    So the old Written By becomes Written By†
    and Written-By becomes Written By


    I also can't quite see the need for three Written By roles.
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    loukash
    And since some of us already seem to agree that "Other" should remain unlinked

    mirva
    there are a lot credits entered with Other that actually have something to do with the releasing the record, peeps just don't know what credit role to use, or we don't have the proper role.

    And I don't really see the purpose of unlinked credits. There are still some of us who support linking all credits. ;)
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago


    mirva
    And I don't really see the purpose of unlinked credits. There are still some of us who support linking all credits. ;)


    And with the grandfathered 'dagger' credits remaining unlinked, it will create an outlet, if necessary, for unlinked credits to be used.
  • swagski over 9 years ago

    I have a few reservations regarding "Artwork By" going linked.

    The many credits for instruments are specific.
    Either a musician plays a "Trumpet" or they don't. There are no 'shades' (few).

    As an ex art director/advertising person I have concerns for the following;
    "Artwork" by definition is the act of assembling the 'accepted elements' for reproduction.
    The 'accepted elements' (approved by client) being:
    "Photography"
    "Typography"
    "Lettering"
    "Graphics"
    "Illustration"
    "Painting"
    "Drawing"
    "Sketch"
    "Cartoon"
    "Silkscreen"

    The photograph could be of an art object:
    "Sculpture"
    "Montage"
    "Assemblage"

    Maybe not in recent years, but certainly 'tween say 1960s to 1980s you'll just get "Artwork" as a credit (if you're lucky).

    Barney Bubbles - One of the artists who worked for Stiff, for example, often did some sketches, chopped them up & created an assemblage- often with bric-a-brac, created graphics, laid them out, did a photo, chopped it up & formed a montage, added an illustration or cartoon, and then photographed the whole lot.
    Sometimes he just did some interesting typography, or did brush lettering, or just a fitting painting.

    I think you get my point by now.

    "Artwork" is often as insulting and inaccurate a credit as giving a "Bass Clarinet" player the credit "Recorder" or "Flute".

    With "Artwork By" linked we're going to have pages that inaccurately elevate a junior paste-up guy from an in-house record company art unit (who's assembled an uncredited Peter Blake & Michael Joseph photo with a bit of text) to the same level as a Cal Schenkel page. I shall then be going "Hey, that artwork's not ALL by Fred Bloggs, that's an uncredited Peter Blake...etc.

    To backtrack, it will be good if "Artwork" is linked, (rather than "Artwork By") but more choices please. Another example of the problem can be seen on CDs that have the same cover as the vinyl of 20/40 years back, but an artwork credit to a new artist. No explanation. No submitters complaining. If the musician's name got changed there would be hell to pay...

    Isn't "Artist" a bit of a misnomer for a musician anyway? The skills of the above are by "Artists". Most of the stars of recorded works are "Artistes" or "Musicians".

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    I wish already for a long time to have a page for the artworks & note-writers I have in my collection.
    But indeed, it can become difficult too, as you say.
    Maybe we shouldn't making a linked credit out of it mandatory, but just an option. Those who are willing to link 'em up, and go through the research needed, should have the possibility to do so.

    Photographers can't be too difficult. They most often use their real name, often combined with a location.
    Artwork is a jungle of artist names indeed, except for reproductions of classical paintings, this will have some work (but once gotten through: it'll be an interesting jungle I think)

  • sebfact over 9 years ago

    _jules
    I do believe it is way more advantageous to the database to have unlinked Written By strings containing unidentified names than to have so called "credits" linking randomly to pages

    Indeed!

    NO to Artwork By or similar
    NO to Photography
    Why Not to Executive Producer
    Especially NO to Other (Image Other [Hair By] as linked credit)...
    Especially NO to Written By
    Especially NO to legacy credits.
    There are so many examples where users have used Written-By - A*, B*, C*, D*
    AND then Written By - C, D, A, B - just because of a different order (snore). Too confusing to have two versions / legacy versions or so...
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    sebfact
    (Image Other [Hair By] as linked credit)...

    I have no problem imagining that, though I would probably use Artwork By [Hair]. ;)

    I think your NO's are a bit late... :) Management, Liner Notes and a couple of others have already been added and are linked credits. Discogs catalogs releases, so anyone/anything that had to do with the creation of the release, should be credited, and linked.

    I don't think "Artwork By" is insulting or incorrect, it is just very generic. swagski forgot one of the most common artwork related credits from the list, Design (By). I don't know if there is a plan to add more artwork credits, but it should be considered.
    swagski
    With "Artwork By" linked we're going to have pages that inaccurately elevate a junior paste-up guy from an in-house record company art unit (who's assembled an uncredited Peter Blake & Michael Joseph photo with a bit of text) to the same level as a Cal Schenkel page.

    All artists should be equal in the eyes of the database. ;)
  • SeRKeT over 9 years ago


    sebfact
    Especially NO to Written By

    this is where i have to agree, there should always be one unlinked credit for those artist we don't and may never know the true identity of, add the fact that a lot of people make use of the unlinked credit to show correct order of credits..this means there will be tons of duplicated credits in the db , have you thought about that nik?
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    mirva
    I don't think "Artwork By" is insulting or incorrect, it is just very generic.

    I agree

    And as with all credits the []brackets can be used to add details, or mention how it appears exactly on the release.

    mirva
    Design


    This might be a specific one, besides 'artwork by'
    It's more a craft than an art one might say:)
    (I appreciate both art & craft as much, but in different ways, both a mason or one who lays tiles still is different from creating something with meaning)

    mirva
    All artists should be equal in the eyes of the database. ;)

    Big agree . The total concept of a release includes the artwork & text as much as the music it contains.

    swagski
    Isn't "Artist" a bit of a misnomer for a musician anyway? The skills of the above are by "Artists". Most of the stars of recorded works are "Artistes" or "Musicians".

    ???
    An artist is a general word for someone making art in any medium imaginable: book, canvas, video, marble, air vibrations(=)sound, land sculptures, mind (conceptual art, like it or not:), metal, waste, ...

    A musician is a specific kind of artist, just like a painter is.
    Art doen't need to be arty-farty, or interesting, it can be crap as well... (if you mean pop-stars shouldn't be considered art)
    Ofcourse there is 'academic art' which requires some depth to consider something to be art, but those academics often live in a separate world...
    Joe the Plumber thinks Britney is an artist, who's gonna say Joe isn't right?

    SeRKeT
    Especially NO to Written By

    I can understand this.
    because there is a linked & non-linked version, another unlinked one would be some kind of overkill.
    If All 'Written By' credits change to 'Written By†', nothing changes in fact, we can as well manually edit the current Written By credits to Written-By as we can change 'Written By†' to 'Written By' or 'Written-by'
    (Although it won't harm that much if it is implemented, because the current "Written By"'s will change anyway to the new unlinked 'Written By†')
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    There is a bug in my previous message at the second quote...
    It won't close, and can't solve it...

    A space after 'Design' did it...
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    SeRKeT
    there should always be one unlinked credit for those artist we don't and may never know the true identity of, add the fact that a lot of people make use of the unlinked credit to show correct order of credits..this means there will be tons of duplicated credits in the db , have you thought about that nik?

    As far as I have understood, Written By† will be unlinked, and maybe could be used for the situations where an unlinked writing credit is required?
  • ahlbomper over 9 years ago

    i can't quite locate † on my keyboard
    (it doesn't seem to be there)
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Joe the Plumber thinks Britney is an artist, who's gonna say Joe isn't right?

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Art doen't need to be arty-farty, or interesting, it can be crap as well

    i guess someone like britney is an artist (but she can't sing or make music)
    i don't have to agree it's art:)
  • SeRKeT over 9 years ago


    mirva
    As far as I have understood, Written By† will be unlinked, and maybe could be used for the situations where an unlinked writing credit is required?

    i thought wrong then, i thought all the unlinked writer credits were now gonna be linked, i'm confused as to what the point is of meddling with the two writer credits anyhow, they are both fine as present IMO
  • rassel over 9 years ago

    As far as I understood, using the † symbol is just a workaround for the process to eliminate the unlinked credits.
    The Discogs update bot will translate all unlinked credits on the releases in "unlinked credit"† and in the same time the former unlinked credits will get linked ones.
    It's not the idea that we as user use the † symbol to create new unlinked credits.

    And by the way, the idea to force people on updates to eliminate all † is a rather bad idea. I tried this on a "small" release with 101 songs, all credited with the unlinked Written By. It takes hours.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 9 years ago

    I think we will forget about forcing people to update unlinked to linked.

    The idea of using the "†" symbol is to make it obvious it is an unlinked credit. We would use "*", but that is already used for ANV.

    The idea to shift the "Written By" credit to linked, is that is the clean credit to use, that matches all the other linked credits.

    So:

    Written By -> Written By†
    Written-By -> Written By

    Then there will only be two versions of this credit:

    Written By -> linked
    Written By† -> unlinked

    "Written-By" was a temporary hack we did some time ago to allow this as a linked credit (the original was unlinked).

    That is a good point that "†" doesn't appear on the keyboard, but the idea is these unlinked credits will be depreciated / not used as much in any case. I'm not sure what other symbol we could use that is accessible on our keyboards, and that makes semantic sense.
  • marcelrecords over 9 years ago

    In good Discogs tradition:
    Written By (2)
  • rassel over 9 years ago

    I would suggest to use the "~" symbol, the tilde, it's always used as a sign of incertitude and approximately.
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago


    swagski
    "Artwork" is often as insulting and inaccurate a credit as giving a "Bass Clarinet" player the credit "Recorder" or "Flute"


    I don't think you're on the same page here. The simple fact is that the art - no matter what it is - is a part of the album 'art' or album 'artwork'.

    So Artwork By is actually like giving a Bass Clarinet player a credit of 'Instrument' or 'Musician'. i.e.: vastly generalized, but 100% correct.

    So the 'artwork' credit represents the artwork ON THE JACKET/COVER. rather than the original piece that the artist created.

    swagski
    Isn't "Artist" a bit of a misnomer for a musician anyway? The skills of the above are by "Artists". Most of the stars of recorded works are "Artistes" or "Musicians".


    1) Artiste is the same thing as Artist. Saying it in French doesn't change it (although it does add a level of snobbery and self-importance, but I digress)

    2) The reason they are referred to as 'artists' is that it is the best catchall phrase.

    For one, 'Artist' does not purely refer to visual arts or fine arts - and Music is one of the Arts, therefore a musician is always an artist even though an artist is not always a musician.

    For two, not every 'artist' on this site is a musician. Writers, producers, novelists and poets, Voice actors, narrators, documentarians, experimental sound artists, etc, etc, etc. So to call them all 'musicians' would be disingenuous.

    sebfact
    Indeed!

    Well it's happening, so in the words of the prophets: deal with it ;)
  • hmvh over 9 years ago

    Kergillian
    For one, 'Artist' does not purely refer to visual arts or fine arts - and Music is one of the Arts, therefore a musician is always an artist even though an artist is not always a musician.

    Well, there's certain genres where I wouldn't call the performers "musicians" either although artiste (with the "e" appended) would be more suitable ;)

    Personally, I'd have liked to have seen a separation between "Performer" and "Writer" (right since the days when writers were somewhat recklessly introduced) but that's the way the cookie crumbled.

    Nevermind. "Artist" was chosen as a catch-all term for all individuals/collectives before any of us were here, it's certainly the least of all evils.

    taalem
    at least on french releases, joiners and order are very important for the writing/composing credits.
    John/Taupin (which means lyrics by John, music by Taupin) is not the same than Taupin/John (lyrics by Taupin, music by John).

    mirva
    Same with Finnish releases, which can also contain an arranging credit, for example Composer1 - Composer2 / Lyricist / Arranger1 - Arranger2

    Yes, I'm fully aware of that -- but the order in which they appear on the data "source" (paying attention to whether you've got a French, German, or Finnish record in your paws) doesn't need to be the same as how it will ultimately be displayed here.

    Example:
    France: John/Taupin
    Finland: Taupin/John

    - both translate to

    "Lyrics By" John*
    "Music By" Taupin*

    Of course, if the submitter isn't 100% sure, he'd have the possibility of using an unlinked role, as we have now.

    But nevermind that, the subtopic is passé.

    rassel
    I would suggest to use the "~" symbol, the tilde, it's always used as a sign of incertitude and approximately.

    Not a bad idea at all. The ~ tilde appears on most any keyboard, does it not?

    nik
    and there are some reasonably settled ideas for the company update which should happen early next year.

    "Settled plans"? Any chance we could pick your collective brains and get a whiff of what's being cooked up? Opening up to companies and other similar indexed roles is one of the most profound (and important) changes we're likely to ever see.

    nik
    we are able to tackle some of these projects that have been sitting about for a while, and we also hope to have an more open development process so you can see what's going on more readily. More info on this soon.

    Waiting with baited breath.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    hmvh
    Not a bad idea at all. The ~ tilde appears on most any keyboard, does it not?

    On a Belgian one, for this, you have to type:
    (Alt-gr)+(+=~) (space)

    before it appears, but that's allright with me.
    another option could be a degree°? (Written By°)
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    hmvh
    Not a bad idea at all. The ~ tilde appears on most any keyboard, does it not?

    At least on most, and I like it, since at least most people will be able to type it, without having to copy-paste. Obviously it doesn't exist on the Belgian keyboard though. ;)

    I don't think the degree sign is as common, I know it doesn't exist on the US or Scandinavian keyboards.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 9 years ago

    I think the dagger is the logical one to use, as it is usually used to indicate a footnote, in the same way an asterisk is. However, the dagger is only used for a second footnote when an asterisk is already used. Since we already use the asterisk for ANV, it would make sense to use the dagger for unlinked credits.

    I'm not sure the tilde fits in logically or visually:

    Artwork By~
    Photography~
    Executive Producer~
    Other~
    Written By~

    There are other options as well, but again I don't think they scan as well as the dagger:

    Artwork By (unlinked)
    Photography (ul)
    Executive Producer#
    Other-
    Written By.

    Since these unlinked credits are going to be somewhat depreciated, and also data entry is something that takes a while to 'build' (it's not just a case of typing in the info), I'm not sure how much of a disadvantage having to look up the dagger character would be. Also, it can be entered by holding down [alt] and typing on the numerical keypad '0134'.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    ^^^^
    I agree with the dagger in fact.
    alt+0134 isn't difficult, and unlinked credits are imo something to avoid in general and more an advanced function for some specific cases. (Even a credit like J. Smith should be linked imo, even if we don't know it's Joe, Jack or John Smith, If we now it's J.Smith of "J. Smith's Song" they can be properly linked. That's what counts.
  • helix over 9 years ago

    nik
    Since we already use the asterisk for ANV, it would make sense to use the dagger for unlinked credits.

    I think it's just a further complication/annoyance in an already complicated/annoying data entry system.

    These are in fact variations of existing role names, so why not just use asterisk?

    Artwork By*
    Photography*
    Executive Producer*
    Other*
    Written By*

    Asterisk also fits in with the existing ANV scheme and we can give it an acronym RNV (Role Name Variation).
    nik
    Since these unlinked credits are going to be somewhat depreciated

    Ideally asterisk would be allowable for any role, to give the option of leaving a credit unlinked when the correct artist name can't be determined or to credit exactly as on release when a joined artist name is not appropriate.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    helix
    These are in fact variations of existing role names, so why not just use asterisk?

    heh...Good point helix! didn't think about that!

    helix
    Ideally asterisk would be allowable for any role

    hmm, I really can't find much reasons not to link a credit.
    (thus far, the order of written by credits is the only reason that's valid imo, especially when linked credits are added too, although this can be more easy solved by giving the right order between the []brackets, which serve as credit-note field to give any additional details. As far as I know that's the most correct method for the moment too.)

    It might be difficult sometimes to find the appropriate PAN for some credits, but wrong entries can always be corrected when someone else finds out...
    using unlinked credits is rather avoiding, than solving difficulties, imo...
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago


    helix
    Asterisk also fits in with the existing ANV scheme and we can give it an acronym RNV (Role Name Variation).


    Not a bad idea at all.

    I also like using # - it's a common and easy to find symbol on every keyboard, looks alright visually and isn't far off from the * - and it also has the association with asterisks as both are also found on telephones.

    I would lean towards using # if helix's idea is turned down.
  • ahlbomper over 9 years ago

    ahlbomper edited over 9 years ago
    nik
    it can be entered by holding down [alt] and typing on the numerical keypad '0134'

    nothing appears on my screen when doing that (i did also try to "type" space after)

    EDIT: i have windows (i think)
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago


    ahlbomper
    nothing appears

    Windows or another OS?
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 9 years ago

    nik edited over 9 years ago
    The reason not to use the asterisk is it is already used for ANV, using it again will cause confusion, users already try to enter the ANVs by typing the asterisk on artist names. I don't think it is denoting a variation for these credit roles, it is denoting a non-linked credit.

    If you imagine a footnote:

    * = Artist Name Variation
    † = Non-linked credit

    The other way of doing it would be to swap the ANV indication to use the dagger, and then we could use the asterisk for non-linked credits.

    ahlbomper
    nothing appears on my screen when doing that (i did also try to "type" space after)


    Are you using the numerical keypad? Are you on Windows?

    helix
    Ideally asterisk would be allowable for any role, to give the option of leaving a credit unlinked when the correct artist name can't be determined or to credit exactly as on release when a joined artist name is not appropriate.


    The idea is to move away from non-linked names. I don't think expanding them into other roles is necessary, and will lead to complications as noted above http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199066#2489361 and http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199066#2489331
  • ahlbomper over 9 years ago

    i'm pretty sure i have windows. yes, numerical 0134.
    (not 100%. is there an easy way to check see what it is?)
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    nik
    The other way of doing it would be to swap the ANV indication to use the dagger

    Artist† = "Dead Artist"
    :D
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago


    loukash
    Artist† = "Dead Artist"
    :D


    yea † for the death, * for the birth:)
  • rassel over 9 years ago

    nik
    Also, it can be entered by holding down [alt] and typing on the numerical keypad '0134'.

    = å

    If you dislike the tilde, then why not soemthing else that can be found on the keyboard like
    ¬ (NOT linked)
  • ahlbomper over 9 years ago

    ahlbomper edited over 9 years ago
    ¬
    where is that little fella ?

    i have got # ¤ ~ ^ ¨ ' * \ } and some more which i would mostly think is out of question.

    alternatively maybe there could be a clearly visible link in the add release form, to a discogs list of special characters?
  • loukash over 9 years ago






    §

    ×


    Or the one available only to the chosen few:
  • ahlbomper over 9 years ago

    loukash





    §

    ×


    Or the one available only to the chosen few:

    i'm 1 of the chosen few who have none of those:)

    another alternative if it can't be just *, maybe (*) or [*].
  • rassel over 9 years ago

    ^^ These are all on your keyboard?
    ahlbomper
    where is that little fella ?

    For me it's [ alt ] + [ ctrl ] 6
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    ~´`ùµ%£$*^¨|@#'ç°²³€ are available on mine.
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago


    rassel
    ^^ These are all on your keyboard?


    Mac shortcuts are teh awesome ;)
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    rassel
    ^^ These are all on your keyboard?

    see --> http://www.maceinsteiger.de/mac-os-shortcuts/sonderzeichen-unter-mac-os/

    But of course our Swiss German keyboard layout looks a bit different, so some characters are not directly available for us, and some of ours are not directly available for US or Germans. (they are still available via the Character Palette)
    The "option" and "option-shift" levels are not printed on the keys, however. That's where the floating Keyboard Viewer comes in (see link above) so you can memorize those characters you need.

    Apart from that, on the Mac it's fairly easy to program your own Unicode keyboard layouts. Die-hard Discogs-macheads like Kergillian could certainly make use of a "U.S. Extended Discogs Edition" Unicode keyboard layout…
    (Hm… how much $ would you be willing to donate if I would program one…? :)
  • hmvh over 9 years ago

    OS aside, the easiest solution would be a character that you'll find on the standard US-keyboard. Nearest I can tell that's the one with the "least" amount of characters available via direct input, and those same ones (correct me if I'm wrong) are also available on non-US keyboards. It's the ideal lowest common denominator.

    The little and discrete ~ tilde still has my vote and appears to be available to everyone on a Latin keyboard -- including Turkish, Belgian, Sanskrit and Dvorak!
    loukash
    Artist† = "Dead Artist"

    Sad but true.
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago

    Not much - the only symbol I would need is the ℗ symbol - everything else is easily accessible via my shortcuts :)
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago


    hmvh
    The little and discrete ~ tilde still has my vote and appears to be available to everyone on a Latin keyboard -- including Turkish, Belgian, Sanskrit and Dvorak!


    I still think # is the best symbol to use...
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    Kergillian
    I still think # is the best symbol to use...

    # means "number". That's even more confusing.
    hmvh
    The little and discrete ~ tilde

    Tilde might be OK, but it's often used to denote an approximate value.
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    The only problem with tilde is how it looks:
    Written By~ - Unknown Artist

    I think it's too similar to the dash in between the role and the artist. I'm starting to understand why the dagger was chosen...
  • squonk57 over 9 years ago

    I prefer the dagger, too. It is often used in dictionaries to indicate "obsolete" or "out of use", and that's exactly what it means here. Furthermore, if using unlinked credits is discouraged, it is a good thing to use a symbol that is not easily entered on the keyboard.

    It will be tough work to update all releases, especially where existing credits are ambiguous, but I like the idea to have everything linked.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 9 years ago

    mirva
    The only problem with tilde is how it looks:
    Written By~ - Unknown Artist

    The dagger is nice imo
    squonk57
    it is a good thing to use a symbol that is not easily entered on the keyboard.

    Agree.
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    squonk57
    I prefer the dagger, too. It is often used in dictionaries to indicate "obsolete" or "out of use", and that's exactly what it means here. Furthermore, if using unlinked credits is discouraged, it is a good thing to use a symbol that is not easily entered on the keyboard

    Good summary. OK by me then.
  • zin over 9 years ago

    this one looks good: ×

    but anyway, I'm kinda sceptical about the idea of opening Other credits. it's fine to do so with all artwork-related and executive producer, but the rest should stay the way they are imo
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    zin
    I'm kinda sceptical about the idea of opening Other credits

    Thanks. That makes already four of us who would like to keep "Other" unlinked.
  • hmvh over 9 years ago

    hmvh edited over 9 years ago
    I was quite flexible on this one and...
    squonk57
    I prefer the dagger, too. It is often used in dictionaries to indicate "obsolete" or "out of use", and that's exactly what it means here. Furthermore, if using unlinked credits is discouraged, it is a good thing to use a symbol that is not easily entered on the keyboard.

    ...is excellent reasoning indeed. I'm good with dagger †

    loukash
    Thanks. That makes already four of us who would like to keep "Other" unlinked.

    Agreed, no change in opinion. [Other] should remain unlinked.
  • SampleKween over 9 years ago

    SampleKween edited over 9 years ago
    nik

    Legacy unlinked credits will remain in the database until they are all manually migrated. This will be done by first automatically updating all the above credit roles to add the 'dagger' character "†" to indicate that it is a legacy role:

    Artwork By†
    Photography†
    Executive Producer†
    Other†
    Written By†

    These roles will then be made the unlinked version, and the plain version of the role will be linked.


    What? Why do that if with out the dagger it will be linkable?
    Where is the dagger on the keyboard why not use an ankh ☥ or circle p for unlinked credits. I mean they are not commonly used symbols.


    nik
    Optionally, we could make it so the unlinked versions cannot be entered into the database (all existing legacy versions will need to be updated if an edit takes place). This may perhaps be a bit harsh initially, and perhaps we should allow the unlinked versions to still be entered for a time.


    I'm confused. Unlinked versions of what exactly. Does that mean that Written-By Joe Blow ANV J. Blow will be linked but J. Blow whom we don't know which J. Blow is being credited when there are 30 0f them, will be unenterable?
  • SeRKeT over 9 years ago


    loukash
    That makes already four of us who would like to keep "Other" unlinked.

    make that 5, i should have made my point clearer in my earlier posts in this thread
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    Well, I'm one of the cases who wants to see Other linked as well. Where are you going to draw the line? A bunch of non-music related credits are already getting their own roles - a lot of them we used to enter with Other, how are the remaining roles different? Besides a lot of people use Other when they don't know what else to use, that's why you see a lot of Other [Instrument], or others where the credit actually should be linked. It's probably the most misused credit role there is. I'd say let's get rid of the role, do we really need it after the update? Or at least limit the usage.
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    mirva
    Besides a lot of people use Other when they don't know what else to use, that's why you see a lot of Other [Instrument], or others where the credit actually should be linked

    Sure, but you can still advise them to use an appropriate linked credit role, or simply correct it yourself.

    Another example - just a few minutes ago I submitted this:
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2013643
    r2013643
    Other [Invaluable Assistance, Studio Staff] - Aline Jaccottet , André Jauchat , David Palmer , Martin Pearson , Patrick Jauneud

    It's impossible to tell what kind of "invaluable assistance" these people did as "studio staff". Brought the tea? Cleaned up the toilet? Who knows. It's OK to keep them unlinked in that case until someone with too much time on his/her hands split them into the correct studio roles. (David Palmer, anyone…? :)
  • mirva over 9 years ago

    loukash
    Sure, but you can still advise them to use an appropriate linked credit role, or simply correct it yourself.

    Of course, and I often do, but that's not going to stop people misusing the role. Quite the contrary. It seems an easy way to enter something unfamiliar, and skip the research, or check out the credits list.
    loukash
    It's impossible to tell what kind of "invaluable assistance" these people did as "studio staff". Brought the tea? Cleaned up the toilet? Who knows.

    Exactly, who knows. But how do you know they actually didn't help with the recording/mixing/technical aspects of the process? You are assuming that they did something that is not worth a linked credit, like their contribution is not important enough. But for some reason they were important enough to get a credit on the actual release.

    So, every time the user considers using the Other credit role, (s)he has to make a judgment call?
  • Kergillian over 9 years ago


    loukash
    # means "number". That's even more confusing.


    When you put # after a term it's actually means 'pounds'. But either way. we're just using a symbol for the sake of separation - the technical meaning should not factor into it.

    mirva
    So, every time the user considers using the Other credit role, (s)he has to make a judgment call?


    Agreed. I have no qualms about using Other for credits that are unorthodox or are hard to fit into other categories - they can always be switched later if need be...
  • swagski over 9 years ago

    As a Mac-user for 20 years, is it true some of you PC guys can't get a dagger on?
    Isn't it; bottom row, 2nd button in on left, hold down & hit 'T'? No? Tcchh...that's the price you pay for a system where you hit "Start"† to "stop" something...or has BG done a work-around on that, to look more like a Mac OS?
    †yes, I know it's logical... meanwhile...

    mirva
    All artists should be equal in the eyes of the database. ;)

    Please don't get me wrong mirva. I wasn't 'denegrating' the poor paste-up guy. I was trying (too subtly) to say if you're going to put in the '12th violinist' then where the hell's the '1st violinist'? ('artwise'). PS the list wasn't definitive, just long enough for the point.

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    An artist is a general word for someone making art
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Joe the Plumber thinks Britney is an artist, who's gonna say Joe isn't right?


    The point I was trying to make was that if this music site expands into creating 'artistic' titles for 'artists' that become linked/live, then we need to define/divorce 'artist' from an 'artiste' or 'musician'. I don't know if Britney can paint, but she's an artiste. ie 'a public performer', as opposed to an artist in the fine arts or graphics, or an artisan ie a bricklayer or stonemason. In a topic I can foresee "When you say the sleeve credits Jim as artist, do you mean artist or artist?". With the use of an appended 'e' an error is clear. "Peter Blake is credited as the artiste on the sleeve" or "Peter Blake is credited as the artist on the sleeve"?

    Kergillian
    Artwork By is actually like giving a Bass Clarinet player a credit of 'Instrument' or 'Musician'. i.e.: vastly generalized, but 100% correct.
    So the 'artwork' credit represents the artwork ON THE JACKET/COVER. rather than the original piece that the artist created.


    Your lateral thinking has defined my point well. 'Artist' has become a 'catchall' phrase, usually crediting the paste-up or packaging artist in preference to the originator of the all-important, often iconic, work. I agree it's 100% correct. It's on the release, as such. But, as you say, it's "vastly generalized" and, as I said, "insulting".

    Kergillian
    1) Artiste is the same thing as Artist. Saying it in French doesn't change it (although it does add a level of snobbery and self-importance, but I digress)
    2) The reason they are referred to as 'artists' is that it is the best catchall phrase.
    For one, 'Artist' does not purely refer to visual arts or fine arts - and Music is one of the Arts, therefore a musician is always an artist even though an artist is not always a musician.
    For two, not every 'artist' on this site is a musician. Writers, producers, novelists and poets, Voice actors, narrators, documentarians, experimental sound artists, etc, etc, etc. So to call them all 'musicians' would be disingenuous.


    Exactly. All of those subtle points you make are also applicable in the field of visual art. It is disingenuous of those who credit the spectrum of visual art under the catchall "Artwork By" without credit to the core artist we perceive in the image. It's like leaving the composer off the submission. If "Artwork By" goes live, then so many true artists will become hostage to fortune.

    (My 'Webster's' tends to define 'Artiste' with the words 'Perform', 'Entertain', 'Musical' & 'Theatrical', whilst 'Artist' generalizes with 'Fine Arts').

    However, without going into the whole rigamarole of semantics, the point I'm obviously failing to make is that this is primarily a music site (which is infinite enough), by activating VISUAL artists (another infinite world to be explored) we are going to have to deal with all the nuances this throws up. This is getting verbose/protracted, see next 'quote-free' post- the last, you'll be glad to hear, from me on this subject. (Unless something changes my view).

  • swagski over 9 years ago

    I go for "Other" as a non-linked credit. E.g. It's a safe haven for Zappa (non-music?) credits like "Moisture by Jane & John", "Outrageous dancing by" or "Cholo by Limon" etc. (I must admit I put "Shopping Bags" after "Harmonica" on one entry, but that's logical).
    "Artwork By" as a non-linked credit is also fine. Adding [Xyz-whatever] to it works great. Often the credits appended conflict on releases elsewhere. But that's fine. No conflicting 'Artist Pages' have been created. It doesn't upset the cosmic balance of the MUSIC database. I can use 'search' if I want access to these artist names.

    Here's just a glimpse of the problems I foresee, with 'cover versions' by artists (rather than cover versions by artistes), using the prolific Mr Smee as an example (He's already in the DB)
    Who is this versatile, unheralded artist? Who is 'Waldo's Design & Dream Emporium'? aka Philip Lloyd-Smee http://www.discogs.com/artist/Phil+Smee

    Compiled By, Technician [Re-mixing Supervision], Artwork By [Package Design] - Phil Smee At Waldo's Design & Dream Emporium, Compilation Producer, raconteur & biscuit-chooser etc, etc, etc....
    Google this: Waldo's Design & Dream Emporium - and just watch what he's 'designed'- everything from Pink Floyd to The Charlatans and back.

    Here's one album example with diverse/odd credits in the MR listing;
    Look at these F-Beat releases (1983 Euro & UK)
    http://www.discogs.com/Elvis-Costello-The-Attractions-Punch-The-Clock/release/379376
    Artwork By [Sleeve] - Phil Smee [Yep, the same guy in DB]
    Photography - Nick Knight
    http://www.discogs.com/Elvis-Costello-The-Attractions-Punch-The-Clock/release/920709
    Artwork By [Sleeve] - Phil Smee - Waldo's Design [Nice advertising credit added]
    Photography - Nick Knight

    Look at these Demon releases (1986 UK & 1985 UK)
    http://www.discogs.com/Elvis-Costello-The-Attractions-Punch-The-Clock/release/732694
    No credits.
    No credits on this Columbia release (1986 US)
    http://www.discogs.com/Elvis-Costello-And-The-Attractions-Punch-The-Clock/release/993991
    But there is on this Columbia release (1983 US)
    Artwork By [Sleeve] - Phil Smee - Waldo's Design (Free advert here again)
    Photography - Nick Knight

    Look at this release (2003 UK):
    http://www.discogs.com/Elvis-Costello-And-The-Attractions-Punch-The-Clock/release/1349837
    Art Direction & Design - Greg Allen [So what did he do exactly? If the following is true- image looks the same to me]
    Original Sleeve Design - Barney Bubbles [Hang on, in 1983 Smee did the design, didn't he - or was it Waldo?]
    Sleeve Design - Phil Smee [Ahhh, by 'design' does he mean 'repackaging'?]
    Photography - Keith Morris, Nick Knight, plus a specific to Keith Morris.

    Look at this release (2007 US)
    http://www.discogs.com/Elvis-Costello-And-The-Attractions-Punch-The-Clock/release/1093283
    Original Sleeve Design (UK) - Phil Smee
    Original Sleeve Design (US) - Barney Bubbles [US? 2007 design? That's odd...Bubbles died in late '83. How did he get a credit in 2003 & here? Why wasn't he credited back in '83 by Smee?]
    Photography - Nick Knight

    (Bubbles worked on Stiff/Demon/F-Beat stuff & never took credit)
    Photographer Nick Knight does not list Waldo in his links page http://www.showstudio.com/links/ , nor 'Phil', 'Smee' 'Lloyd-Smee' or other variants. Surely he would associate/link with such an artist?

    Without taking the kudos from Mr Smee, I'm pretty sure Bubbles generated the core of this design before his untimely death. I'm checking this out with his close friends. Meanwhile, if stuff like this goes linked there's gonna be a deluge of interesting Artists Pages. It's also going to be fun putting in all the 'uncredited' roles to add more Artists Pages, e.g.... "Mona Lisa" assemblage based upon a fragmented silkscreen original by Andy Warhol, taken from an original concept and painting 'La Gioconda' by Leonardo da Vinci [see Artists Page], [also see Artists Page 'Louvre Collection']. (Coca Cola logo, bottom-left on sleeve, is the 3rd generation variant of the logo, originally designed by Fred Filkington in 1967) The typography employs the typeface 'Gill Sans' by Eric Gill... see US Air Force Artist's Page for the source of the jet photo.
    Interesting, but is it music?
    Whilst in my Devil's advocate role, let's take a musical piece. "Take Five" by Dave Brubeck. Whoever does it afterwards needs to credit Mr Brubeck. Theirs is an "arrangement" of the original. So, if I see ANYTHING resembling the Mona Lisa, should I see it as an "arrangement" of the original? Would you see it as such? It is subjective. But, if it is subjective artistically then why not musically? Answer - 'cos there are rules that govern the making of music for recording. Who's to take me to task if I slap a renowned public domain print on a CD and claim it as my artwork? Yippee, I get myself an Artists Page on Discogs - up there rubbing shoulders with Sinatra, The Clash, et al... PS what about poor old keyboard-accessible ≠ or ∆ or ƒ ?

  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 9 years ago

    swagski
    "Mona Lisa" assemblage based upon a fragmented silkscreen original by Andy Warhol, taken from an original concept and painting 'La Gioconda' by Leonardo da Vinci [see Artists Page], [also see Artists Page 'Louvre Collection']. (Coca Cola logo, bottom-left on sleeve, is the 3rd generation variant of the logo, originally designed by Fred Filkington in 1967) The typography employs the typeface 'Gill Sans' by Eric Gill... see US Air Force Artist's Page for the source of the jet photo.
    Interesting, but is it music?


    I think you are looking too deeply into this. What percentage of releases do you think such convoluted credits will appear?

    Artwork is related to the release, yes. I want to see all the artwork that Pushead or Hipgnosis or Dr. Jiffy or whoever else has done, and it is part of the overall 'work'... who would divorce the DSOTM artwork from the music? It is part and parcel of it.

    swagski
    we need to define/divorce 'artist' from an 'artiste' or 'musician'.


    What if they are both? (two of my previous examples are). It is really just semantics, and borderline at best. I don't see any reason to introduce more complication.

    loukash
    It's impossible to tell what kind of "invaluable assistance" these people did as "studio staff". Brought the tea? Cleaned up the toilet? Who knows. It's OK to keep them unlinked in that case until someone with too much time on his/her hands split them into the correct studio roles.


    mirva
    how do you know they actually didn't help with the recording/mixing/technical aspects of the process? You are assuming that they did something that is not worth a linked credit, like their contribution is not important enough. But for some reason they were important enough to get a credit on the actual release.

    So, every time the user considers using the Other credit role, (s)he has to make a judgment call?


    I agree with mirva. If someone is credited on a release, then surely we can just enter it and be done with it? If they were important enough to get a mention on the work itself, at the time it was made, who are we to start to try to make value judgements on things we can only guess at, years or decades after it happened?

    Lets keep it simple please - transcribe data from the database to the release.
  • Internaut over 9 years ago

    nik
    I want to see all the artwork that Pushead or Hipgnosis


    Hipgnosis is a company. Does this mean that company credits are OK now? Would be nice, as I also would like to be able to access all releases with Hipgnosis credited for artwork :-)
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 9 years ago


    Internaut
    Hipgnosis is a company. Does this mean that company credits are OK now? Would be nice, as I also would like to be able to access all releases with Hipgnosis credited for artwork :-)


    Well, they are an 'artistic group' in the same way that AC/DC is. I see this as distinct from a business entity dealing with the non-artistic side of things. As per this and the other thread regarding publishing credits, there will no doubt be a grey area where companies and artistic groups merge. We did come up with a proposal that would merge labels and artists into just one thing, one link. This would remove all grey areas, but I'm not sure we can go down that path, so we'll have to just deal with it.

    Anyway, Hipgnosis = artist is fine.
  • loukash over 9 years ago

    nik
    I agree with mirva. If someone is credited on a release, then surely we can just enter it and be done with it? If they were important enough to get a mention on the work itself, at the time it was made, who are we to start to try to make value judgements on things we can only guess at, years or decades after it happened?

    Now waitaminit, please!
    We're talking about NON-MANDATORY credits here.
    Out of all 18 Queen - Jazz submissions so far, apart from mine only ONE release http://www.discogs.com/release/369055 mentions them in the Credits (as "Other [Valuable Assistance]", by the way), plus two submissions at least in the Notes as free text.
    Besides, BECAUSE I am NOT guessing, I'm crediting them exactly as they appear, i.e. undefined: "Other [Invaluable Assistance, Studio Staff]"
    swagski
    I go for "Other" as a non-linked credit.

    That's 6 already… :)

Log In You must be logged in to post.