Classical Composer Guideline Suggestion

I think most of us are aware of the past issue brought up about crediting Composers as Track Artists.
http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/337477

Since it is commonly done on classical releases to list the composer as a track artist, maybe we should have an actual guideline specifically allowing that to be done but requiring that in every case where this happens, that the Artist also must be given a corresponding Composed By track credit? This would allow you to get better lists of composer credits, but still preserve the "As On Release" [thunderclap] artist roles they were assigned. Is there a reason why this is a terrible idea?

For example: Various - Nimbus Natural Sound Volume Two

^ not a terrible idea IMO
plusside: it would give both the 'layout' faction and the 'meaning' faction their due
and, as you state, it would do justice to the credits section of the composer (which is my main objection against composer as 'track artist', that he is not credited for what he does, although it is known).
minusside: looks a tad clumsy, but I wouldn't care about that too much.

interestingly this has come up before here:
http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/524d15c5c131f35559d30fd8
with nik stating:
If in doubt, just add them with the composer credit, and not as the main track artist.

There is also an issue with this, in the same vein as with Main Artists, where the composer is also a performing artist.

The problem case I found was when an artist was credited in the usual ambiguous way on the release. They were the composer, but not the performer. In this case, entering them as the main track artist causes a problem down the road. It is likely that we will move toward having composers listed as composers in the tracklist, if that is indeed what they are. It is also possible that we will have some kind of rule regarding main artists as well.

http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/524d15c5c131f35559d30fd8#5252bc7daba9e818d314f7ca

Seems it is time for something about this to be in the guidelines. It is not evident what Discogs wants us to do in these cases without mining the forum for previous posts.

progcode
Seems it is time for something about this to be in the guidelines.

+1

^ perhaps ask staff for active involvement?

progcode
Since it is commonly done on classical releases to list the composer as a track artist, maybe we should have an actual guideline specifically allowing that to be done but requiring that in every case where this happens, that the Artist also must be given a corresponding Composed By track credit? This would allow you to get better lists of composer credits, but still preserve the "As On Release" [thunderclap] artist roles they were assigned. Is there a reason why this is a terrible idea?

I would try no steer any guideline away from genre-specific rules.

So, in general , you are wanting a guideline like:

"If an artist that is credited on the release in a track artist manner, but their only role in the track was as a composer, list them in the track artist field and also list them with a composing credit."

Some issue I see are placing an increasing onus on the submitter in of workload per submission, and also requiring them to to extra research outwith the release itself to the nature of the persons role in the track and recording. I am not convinced that is a positive move to be honest.

It also is forcing an external credit onto a track. Maybe we are better to link up the tracks (via the Tracks project, no ETA ) and then use that as a source of the composers credits on tracks / works, rather than require per-release duplication of the information?

I seem to recall a past guideline requiring Composed By credits on classical releases. Anyway, there is an equivalent requirement for remix credits to be added, so mandating composer credits again is not unprecedented.

nik
Some issue I see are placing an increasing onus on the submitter in of workload per submission, and also requiring them to to extra research outwith the release itself to the nature of the persons role in the track and recording. I am not convinced that is a positive move to be honest.

Agreed, this was my feeling as well about most of the "solutions" offered on the "Traditional as Track Artist" thread—they simply require too much research for the average subber and too many off-release additions:

nik
It also is forcing an external credit onto a track.

nik
Maybe we are better to link up the tracks (via the Tracks project, no ETA ) and then use that as a source of the composers credits on tracks / works, rather than require per-release duplication of the information?

We need guidance now, though, is the problem. There is a lot of controversy and bad blood over this, for some reason, if you've not noticed. People get really upset.

If a Tracks Project solution is on the far horizon, then great. In the meantime, we should go with an as-on-release approach. Whatever disasters people seem to imagine are happening because of putting composers into the Track Artists only and other assorted horrors simply don't seem to actually be problems. The links still show up on the artist pages, everything is connected and reflects the release as issued, and it is all quite intelligible.

Classical labels wouldn't design and issue releases in this way if people didn't understand the information they're presenting. Why would reflecting that design here on Discogs suddenly cause mass confusion? It wouldn't.

ChampionJames
Classical labels wouldn't design and issue releases in this way if people didn't understand the information they're presenting. Why would reflecting that design here on Discogs suddenly cause mass confusion? It wouldn't.

Agreed. Enter what's on the release. That's more than good enough. This is one Guidelines change proposal I can't .

Fauni-Gena
Enter what's on the release.

Of course, everyone agrees with that. Only, we have different perceptions about just that.
'Bach: Prelude' has a layout similar to our Track Artists and means Prelude Composed By Bach, just as "Freedom (Hendrix)" means Freedom Written-By Hendrix.
Now what prevails?
The proposal here is to include both.
That has another advantage:
If Bach gets his Composed By credit (even though he appears as Track Artist in the layout), then his discography gets more precise and complete. Because what he did for this release is composing and that's what I primarily would want to see documented, not his appearance in the layout.

ChampionJames
We need guidance now, though, is the problem. There is a lot of controversy and bad blood over this, for some reason, if you've not noticed.

Guidance would be fine! As of now there are three approaches living side by side:
Peter Schat, Joep Straesser, Sem Dresden - Entelechy I / 22 Pages / Violin Concerto No. 2 (both)
that's confusing!

marcelrecords
Because what he did for this release is composing and that's what I primarily would want to see documented, not his appearance in the layout.

Agreed.

nik
Some issue I see are placing an increasing onus on the submitter in of workload per submission

Fauni-Gena
Enter what's on the release. That's more than good enough.

So… "as on release" is "good enough" for track artists, right?

But when it comes e.g. to languages, then the advice is:

nik
The release layout is unimportant here

That makes, uh… sense.
I guess.
Right?

And before you even ask:
Aren't these two different issues?
As far as confusion is concerned: no, I don't think so.

~~~

A simple guideline would go approximately like this:

Composers should be listed as track credits, even though there's often no corresponding credit role printed.
Composers are usually listed on releases in the following forms:
Composer: Track Title
Track Title – Composer
Track Title (Composer)

marcelrecords
'Bach: Prelude' has a layout similar to our Track Artists and means Prelude Composed By Bach, just as "Freedom (Hendrix)" means Freedom Written-By Hendrix.

The difference is presentation, and also the difference in how classical releases are presented, does need to be taken into . For that reason I don't see the two as the same.

marcelrecords
If Bach gets his Composed By credit (even though he appears as Track Artist in the layout), then his discography gets more precise and complete. Because what he did for this release is composing and that's what I primarily would want to see documented, not his appearance in the layout.

I agree with ChampionJames that you are requiring knowledge that most submitters (not the regulars in this thread) simply won't know. You're adding complexity and you are likely to get far more error, not far more accuracy.

loukash
So… "as on release" is "good enough" for track artists, right?

Yes.

loukash
But when it comes e.g. to languages,

...I disagreed with nik on that. My position is consistent.

marcelrecords
Of course, everyone agrees with that.

Hrmmm.... I'm not so sure about that.

Fauni-Gena
I disagreed with nik on that. My position is consistent.

I know. But that wasn't my point right now. :)
My comment was aimed at Nik's "mercurial" position. He's the one to make a final decision, and that one should be consistent.

Fauni-Gena
you are requiring knowledge that most submitters (not the regulars in this thread) simply won't know.

"Bach: Prelude"
Are you suggesting that s wouldn't understand this is the composer?
Hope you are not right here!

loukash
Nik's "mercurial" position. He's the one to make a final decision, and that one should be consistent.

any solution is better than what we have now (see the three linked subs above, all exactly similar releases, but treated in three different ways).

loukash
Composers should be listed as track credits, even though there's often no corresponding credit role printed.

^ fine
perhaps they could be listed as track artists too, to satisfy the layout fans
which is about the proposal made by the OP

seppuku
I seem to recall a past guideline requiring Composed By credits on classical releases.

Maybe this http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/198022#52151c509469733cfcfc6db5 ?

seppuku
Anyway, there is an equivalent requirement for remix credits to be added, so mandating composer credits again is not unprecedented.

If anything, I'd tend toward removing that requirement, rather than adding more.

marcelrecords
'Bach: Prelude' has a layout similar to our Track Artists and means Prelude Composed By Bach, just as "Freedom (Hendrix)" means Freedom Written-By Hendrix.

The composer name in brackets is different I think, I believe that is ascribing rights and royalties to the composer. I think that is different from giving an artist a track artist credit.

Looking at it another way, a release with track artists listed like:

Bach - Prelude
Hendrix - Hey Joe

We could argue that Hendrix should get a performance (guitar / vocals) credit just as much as Bach should get a composer credit, as both those credits are 'understood' by connoisseurs of the respective artists.

Now, of course, release layout is not that consistent, and I personally wouldn't lobby for Hendrix getting applied credits in that situation, but I think this illustrates the challenge we have.

Now some say that 'classical is different', but I think the real difference is in how release information is interpreted, and then how that interpretation is applied to a catag system of the complexity of Discogs. I would always try to avoid genre specific rules - there are so may edge cases, we need our guidelines to be able to be applied in a general way.

marcelrecords
Guidance would be fine! As of now there are three approaches living side by side:

In of the guidelines at present, the only one that is incorrect is Alphons Diepenbrock, Willem Pijper, Bertus van Lier, Oscar van Hemel - Overture "De Vogels" (The Birds) / Symphony No. 3 / Divertimento Facile / Symphony No. 4 (composer credit only)

loukash
So… "as on release" is "good enough" for track artists, right?

But when it comes e.g. to languages, then the advice is:

"The release layout is unimportant here"

That makes, uh… sense.
I guess.
Right?

And before you even ask:
Aren't these two different issues?
As far as confusion is concerned: no, I don't think so.

"As on release" is not an absolute principal at all. It is misleading to apply it that way to data transcription. We do not enter 'as on release' - for example, on track names, we change capitalization, change punctuation, interpret design decisions, add in information (full track titles), remove information (dance names, dates) etc etc.

'As on release' is an interesting starting point, and something that is good to refer back to when researching something or trying to make a decision, but it is not the final say.

loukash
Nik's "mercurial" position. He's the one to make a final decision, and that one should be consistent.

I do totally appreciate being held able for being as consistent as possible, and I do agree that as a community, that is a good goal.

marcelrecords
"Bach: Prelude"
Are you suggesting that s wouldn't understand this is the composer?

"Hendrix - Hey Joe"
Would they not understand he is the guitarist?

marcelrecords
any solution is better than what we have now (see the three linked subs above, all exactly similar releases, but treated in three different ways).

Credits only is incorrect in that circumstance. Track artist is correct. I am personally ok with the composer credit being entered, even though I do see a transcription inconsistency vis a vis the Hendrix example.

So:

"If a track artist is known to be the composer of the track, a 'Composed By' credit can be entered in addition to the track credit."

nik
In of the guidelines at present, the only one that is incorrect is Alphons Diepenbrock, Willem Pijper, Bertus van Lier, Oscar van Hemel - Overture ''De Vogels'' (The Birds) / Symphony No. 3 / Divertimento Facile / Symphony No. 4 (composer credit only)

So that is actually incorrect, then? Composer-as-Track-Artist is not only permitted, it is mandatory? Interesting. Does this apply even to, say, classical releases that do not themselves present composers as track artists?

marcelrecords
perhaps they could be listed as track artists too

It seems nik is saying they must be listed as track artists, which is quite a bit stronger than I realized, frankly. (I would tend to think this strengthens my argument over on the Traditional thread, but of course others will disagree, I'm sure.)

ChampionJames
It seems nik is saying they must be listed as track artists

In this case, yes, because the composers are also listed as main artists and at the same time they are not involved with all tracks on the release. For example, Willem Pijper did not compose "Overture "De Vogels" (The Birds)", etc.

tarantoga
In this case, yes, because the composers are also listed as main artists and at the same time they are not involved with all tracks on the release. For example, Willem Pijper did not compose "Overture "De Vogels" (The Birds)", etc.

I think you're missing the point somewhat; we all understand what Track Artists are for, thanks, that's not really the issue.

The issue has to do with at least two other ongoing discussions specifically about composers being track artists. Even very recently, Alphons Diepenbrock, Willem Pijper, Bertus van Lier, Oscar van Hemel - Overture "De Vogels" (The Birds) / Symphony No. 3 / Divertimento Facile / Symphony No. 4 and not the performers, as opposed to simply saying the composers may be track artists.