What this guideline should achieve, IMHO, is to tell editors that "written by" on a sleeve, in a liner or on Discogs does not and should not * automatically* translate into this "written by" AR. So it's not about * dissuading* them to use it (well, maybe it is ;-), but about *persuading*them to do some further research *before* using it :-)
And I think that both of the versions I proposed do exactly this. On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard <per...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:01 +0530, Brian Schweitzer > <brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > >> It's not like the guidelines as they are written remove editor > >> discretion. > >> > > > > Actually, it did. The guideline said, "In particular, it should not be > > used > > if: ... There is only one writer credited for the song and no one else is > > credited for the music or lyrics" > > > > That quite specifically removed any editor discretion as to "writer" > > being > > more correct, given only a "by" or "writer" or "written by" credit on the > > liner. > > At the risk of sounding overly pendantic, I refer you to the RFC2119[1]: > > 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course. > > In either case, it doesn't say "should not be used.", it says "should not > be used IF", which is a big semantic difference. The following bullet > point also says "If it is *evident* that the artist was responsible for", > which means the editor is reasonably certain that a decomposition is safe. > Nowhere does this imply that you *shouldn't* use writer, it merely points > out that in many cases writer is needlessly fuzzy, and you should try to > ascertain for yourself. I'm curious to which parts of this you have a > problem with. > > Note I'm talking about alternative A here, I think it's a better option > than B. > > >> All I see the guidelines doing is *discourage* the use of writer, which > >> is > >> very different from forbidding it. Interpretation is still very much > >> required. > >> > > > > Again, "it should not be used" does not discourage; it explicitly says > > 'don't do this'. > > How else would you say it? If you're reasonably, or completely certain > that the writer credits can be decomposed to to composer+lyricist, then > writer *should not be used*. Surely you don't think that people should use > writer even though we know it can be decomposed? > > >> Besides, my random sample of one leaves me less than impressed by ASCAP > >> and friends: > >> > >> > http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=331536977&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=25&start=1 > >> > >> > > I don't know the song. However, Wikipedia would agree with ASCAP ( > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_%28Norwegian_singer%29#2003-2005:_Anniemal > ), > > so I'm not sure why you'd disagree with them. In any case, the PRO > > databases are the definitive records for composer, etc, credits; they > > define > > who gets paid the various royalties. Are you seriously suggesting that > > the > > PRO databases (or other sources, as I mentioned, such as sheetmusic) > > should > > be considered less definitive than an assumed credit based solely on a > > "Foo > > written by Bar" credit on the liner to some CD? > > In hindsight a bad example, but it was mostly meant as a counter-example > to the statement that PROs are significantly more detailed than liners. > But if I'm understanding this correctly, this would mean that both authors > would get credit for both the lyrics and the music, so wouldn't it then be > more correct to decompose into composer+lyricist for both authors? This is > of course not something I would ever infer from liners, so my point is > mostly moot. Disregard, etc. > > Enjoy your honeymoon btw, I'm fairly certain this won't be out of RFV > before you're back. ;) > > -- > Per / Wizzcat > > _______________________________________________ > 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
