I don't think this is right.
The compiler is not an artist on these releases. I mentioned in the comments that the "Compiled By (tracks 11 to 15)" would be better.
This again..... :-)
IMO the compiler of (a part of.... /so not even the complete release/) the release should not be billed as main artist.
However, I can understand where his reasoning comes from I think.
Same goes for the other subs that I saw where he changed the same.
Yes, I recall airing my disagreement with this application of the main artist guideline some time ago, but the upshot of said airing was clear confirmation that this is okay. The compiler's name appears in big print on the cover, so the compiler is a main artist.
It seems marginally less misguided when you look at examples like this: Various / David Harrington - Songlines: Top Of The World 44, where the compiler is prominently pictured on the cover.
syke
thats what nik says/thinks about these things, so the edit should be fine
Exactly what I .
mauso-palooza
. The compiler's name appears in big print on the cover, so the compiler is a main artist.
It seems marginally less misguided when you look at examples like this: Various / David Harrington - Songlines: Top Of The World 44, where the compiler is prominently pictured on the cover.
That's why I don't think it's "total rubbish" but I can certainly see why it's being questioned.
auboisdormant
Is it really ok to have both Various and the compiler as the main artists?
Yup. Both that artist and 'various' are listed (only kind of in the latter case by it being alluded to that theres a bunch of different artists) on the front cover.
Various alone would be factually wrong, Chris Blackwell alone would be factually wrong. This way, while not exactly elegant, is IMO the best way to deal with it.
But what I meant really that is this something that has been actually discussed with the management? Because there is a release where I think the current main artist is not really 100 % correct, but I'm tired of "discussing" about it, and this could be a possibly reasonable compromise. ;-)
Indeed. I'd be tempted to move the compiler to the credits section when you have a release which gives the main artist as various AND the compiler on the front cover.
And we also had the ruling that if a title is – let’s say – »The UgaUga’s play Pink Floyd’s Wish you were here« with Pink Floyd in BIG letters on the cover just for promotional reasons, we don't use Pink Floyd as a main artist.
And this is the exact purpose here.
See http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/52729c52a86b6d4621afa58f#52729c52a86b6d4621afa58e
The compiler is not even the actual composer as in the above mentioned case … not worth more than a normal credit as compiler IMHO.
nik also said some cases need interpretation and I think this is one these cases. A compiler doesn't perform nor has composed anything for heavens sake, no artistic input whatsoever … even the compiling part is only a third of the complete compilation!
And – shoot me – we have Various, haven't we? He is part of that. No need to list him extra for his irable work on this and making him looking more important than the actual artists.
Oh yes, and concerning creating false data – look at this now: Chris Blackwell
548 credits for his actual work and this is now the only album under his name.
Same situation here: David Harrington.
Well … no standing ovation from me.
disagree, a compilation is assembled according to the personnality of the compiler, if the compiler is different, the compilation should be different, so there is an artistic input
