I still say co-producers are not subordinates. Artists are often listed as co-producers and at the end the artist doesn't work for the producer; the opposite is true. Also, as far as I know the idea of an executive producer being the financer doesn't apply (generally) to the recording industry. In most cases, the label finances the record. One could argue that the executive producer does controll the purse strings but since many artists are themselves the executive producers, in many cases this is probably an indication of artistic control.
Cristov (wolfsong) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Orion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: MusicBrainz style discussion <musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org> Subject: Re: [mb-style] Co-ProducerRelationshipType Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:23:13 -0500 Cristov Russell wrote: > Great. So I would say yes there is a problem with additional executive > producer. I still don't understand what was wrong with the original > coproducer configuration. There is a possibility that multiple executive > producers exist and are labeled co-executive producer. I'll verify tonight if > I have any discs like this but I'm pretty sure I've seen it. > > Cristov (wolfsong) As I understand them the terms are a bit funky - you can have multiple producers on something without any of them being co-producers. Co-producer means a role working underneath a producer I thought, not just "another producer." In theory a work with a really bloated budget could have multiple executive producers, multiple co-executive producers, multiple producers, and multiple co-producers on it. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
