I understand the guidelines ask that the artist credited on the release cover be the Primary artist for the release. Would it then make sense to leave Lewiston as the artist, but give artist credits to Unknown Artist on each track (as on a split or something similar), or would that just confuse things?
Even though I posted my topic to the release in question, the conscensus seems to be to move discussion here...
I still don't know how David Lewiston the main artist if he simply recorded the music? He is credited on the front cover with recording (he also wrote liners and made some photos). And I get that he may have "discovered" this stuff by recording it. Perhaps the Primary artist could be "The Balinese Gamelan" with "Recorded By" as a separator, and then "David Lewiston". "The Balinese Gamelan" is printed on the release front above the other titles. It's also printed without Lewiston on the spine and labels. Hard to say if it refers to a group or not, but the article "The" would suggest this. Gamelan can refer to an orchestra type group. I would also be fine with leaving it as "Unknown".
common sense would be not to use someone who just recorded music as a main artist... but then again, common sense has failed often around here.
anyway, nik's ruling on that matter is, that whoever is billed prominently on the cover gets a main artist credit. Don't like it personally, but it is what it is
fleshEmutant
Perhaps the Primary artist could be "The Balinese Gamelan" with "Recorded By" as a separator, and then "David Lewiston".
I understand your point, but crediting the Balinese Gamelan would be akin to crediting The Italian Opera - it is a simplified tag for a type of performance, not a specific group.
I also agree with the the logic (or more to the point, the ethics) of crediting the performers on releases like this - here, not even thought relevant enough to name (sadly very common in that era of western academic ethnomusicology).
That said, crediting David Lewiston in this case also makes sense. The main purpose of the database is for people to find entries easily and predictably. If I had this record in hand, and knew nothing about it, the first thing I would type into the search function is David Lewiston or Music From the Morning of the World.
As an aside, the comments and reviews section is also a good place to at least note discussions like this, or point out the ethnocentricities of certain modes of recording and release. Discussions like this should be accessible to general s as well.
syke
common sense would be not to use someone who just recorded music as a main artist... but then again, common sense has failed often around here.
I get where you're coming from - but imagine a field recording artist, setting out with a mission to capture the sounds of a tribal nation & songs all but forgotten...
without that impetus and interest in the culture of the subject from the recordist, the work would not exist.
To forward an analogy; David Attenborough needs the credit - not the wildlife he records for posterity
I'm hoping your intent was not to compare well-practiced musicians from a many century old tradition of Balinene Gamelan to 'wildlife', but you otherwise have a point.
vehscle
I'm hoping your intent was not to compare well-practiced musicians from a many century old tradition of Balinene Gamelan to 'wildlife'
Chortle... certainly not a case of 'Compare the Mere Cat#' (squeak)
Another 'less Game Elan'-like analogy...
Various - MC2 isn't as resounding as Einstein - MC2
The numbers all have great skills and abilities as regular performers, but it was the geezer who presented them in a particular form that made the work what it was...
swagski
but imagine a field recording artist, setting out with a mission to capture the sounds of a tribal nation & songs all but forgotten...
without that impetus and interest in the culture of the subject from the recordist, the work would not exist.
swagski
it was the geezer who presented them in a particular form that made the work what it was...
None of these descriptions apply to Balinese Gamelan music as of 1967, when the release in question was issued. This type of music was widely presented in Indonesia and was introduced to Western audiences in the late 19th century.
I see no reason to credit the recorder as main artist here. We don't do that for Alan Lomax's vast recorded output either, apart from releases where he's actually the performer, or a couple of releases that could use some editing. The recorders/collectors get credits for their roles and are easily found via search.
Many of those Lomax recordings also don't credit him as the main artist - the cover often states 'Compiled By' or 'Recorded By'. At any rate, these are all valid points but I feel like we are treading back over the same ground here. Maybe someone else with some experience with these releases can offer an opinion? I know 3silences33 have both helped with this sort of thing before.
vehscle
Many of those Lomax recordings also don't credit him as the main artist - the cover often states 'Compiled By' or 'Recorded By'.
The cover of the release we are discussing says "Recorded In Bali By David Lewiston" on it. I fail to see how this is distinguishable from your description of the Lomax recordings.
mauso-palooza
We don't do that for Alan Lomax's vast recorded output either, apart from releases where he's actually the performer, or a couple of releases that could use some editing.
Don't like it at all for two reasons.
First, because this problem concerns many "World Music" (stupid but official term) records, where the artists are often uncredited, while the "expert", musicologist, ethnologist, collector, engineer, occidental paternalist is credited. This is an ethic point of view. But, entered the artist by this way reflects correctly a period and a mentality (from where we seem to go out hardly) so regarding that we can say this is historically correct. But it stinks imo.
Secondly, technically i don't agree with the fact that the bigger name on a sleeve has to be entered in main artist field a priori, it doesn't apply to (for?) many releases. But, this is in guidelines. But it stinks imo:)
syke
anyway, nik's ruling on that matter is, that whoever is billed prominently on the cover gets a main artist credit.
Where did this happen? If this is correct, then the guidelines need to be revised. Right now, 2.2.1 presupposes that the person whose name gets entered in the main artist field is an artist/performer/etc. to begin with.
2.7.1 provides for three specific instances where someone who otherwise might not be considered an "artist" can be billed as the main artist. However, none of those instances apply to releases like the one's we're discussing here, where the focus is on a country, cultural group, or other identifiable group whose music is being promoted as the theme of the release.
Hi folks - this matter was discussed extensively some time ago (many years).
The name billed on the cover is the main artist.
They do not have to be the ones playing the music. they can be fictional, they can be engineers, they can be fuzzy hand puppets.
syke
nik's ruling on that matter is, that whoever is billed prominently on the cover gets a main artist credit.
mauso-palooza
Where did this happen? If this is correct, then the guidelines need to be revised. Right now, 2.2.1 presupposes that the person whose name gets entered in the main artist field is an artist/performer/etc. to begin with.
This is possibly a matter of wording:
RSG §2.2.1. The artist field at the top of the submission form is where we put the main artist for the release. This is considered to be the artist or artists named on the front cover of the release, or otherwise billed as such.
For "artist or artists named on the front cover", read "people, fictional characters, or whoever else is named on the front cover"
mauso-palooza
2.7.1 provides for three specific instances where someone who otherwise might not be considered an "artist" can be billed as the main artist.
That is not what that guideline says, please read RSG §2.7.1. again.
