"Laraaji Produced By Brian Eno" as main artists?

I'm sure I'm wrong (usually am), but to me here to the idea that a production credit should appear as main artist simply because it's on the cover, but I might have missed it...

Again, I'm sure I'm wrong on this, but I couldn't find a thread about it and if someone can explain to me why it should be like this I would be grateful.

Oh, and of course I understand that Eno's role as the creator and curator of the Ambient Series goes beyond simply 'producer', but that is the credit on the release, that's all.

hookedupsolid
I'm sure I'm wrong (usually am), but to me Laraaji Produced By Brian Eno - Ambient 3 (Day Of Radiance) should just be "Laraaji - Day of Radiance" and Eno's role is as producer and should be in the credits section.

Agreed.

hookedupsolid
should just be "Laraaji - Day of Radiance" and Eno's role is as producer and should be in the credits section.

This

Should be in the credit section, not as main artist.

If he's billed on the cover, whether as producer or DJ mix artist or composer (like film scores) then the main artist designation is appropriate.

So in essence Mr. Eno should stay where he is IMO.

hafler3o
If he's billed on the cover, whether as producer or DJ mix artist or composer (like film scores) then the main artist designation is appropriate.

Using that logic, on releases without sleeves, every credit on the label should be main artist. Producer, arranger, songwriter...

hafler3o
If he's billed on the cover, whether as producer or DJ mix artist or composer (like film scores) then the main artist designation is appropriate.

How do we read RSG §2.2.1?
Does it mean that he should stay as main artist, when not billed as such?

orjanbirkus
How do we read RSG §2.2.1?
Does it mean that he should stay as main artist, when not billed as such?

Re-read the guideline, "...This is considered to be the artist or artists named on the front cover of the release, or otherwise billed as such."
He's named on the cover, it does not really matter about the role, the RSG does not differentiate on 'role' it's all about 'billing' and he is 'billed'.

brunorepublic
Using that logic, on releases without sleeves, every credit on the label should be main artist. Producer, arranger, songwriter...

Sorry you cannot use 'that logic' as I specifically mentioned the cover (sleeve). You are talking about 'without sleeves', I'm not, thus there is no 'logic' to use to contradict what I said.

hafler3o
He's named on the cover, it does not really matter about the role, the RSG does not differentiate on 'role' it's all about 'billing' and he is 'billed'.

Yep, hafler3o is correct. The Main artist is correct as is.
Several rulings from nik about that come to mind …

See here
Stéphane Pompougnac - Hôtel Costes Quatre

... Mixed By ...

So it's actually 'Various', with Stephane in the credits? Of course not, Stephane is the main 'billed' artist.

hafler3o
Re-read the guideline, "...This is considered to be the artist or artists named on the front cover of the release, or otherwise billed as such."
He's named on the cover, it does not really matter about the role, the RSG does not differentiate on 'role' it's all about 'billing' and he is 'billed'.

Ok, I give up.
Still, I think it sounds a bit weird with "Produced By" as a er in the main artist field :)
But that is my opinion....

orjanbirkus

Ok, I give up.

Well I'd be happy to not see Brian as main artist but that would take a more complicated guideline to be adopted first and really we're using the system well in capturing it 'as it is'.

In a similar vein I'd be quite happy to share a writing credit with Brian if it helped sell my song, as 50% of something is always better than 100% of nothing. Lots of co-written songs contain no input from the more famous 'party' and no-one cares!

hafler3o
"...This is considered to be the artist or artists named on the front cover of the release, or otherwise billed as such."
He's named on the cover, it does not really matter about the role, the RSG does not differentiate on 'role' it's all about 'billing' and he is 'billed'.

To be honest, that's where I got confused because I didn't know whether technical/production roles were the same as 'artist' roles (which is not to say that technical roles do not require artistry, just an interpretation of the word 'artist' in this context). Still somehow doesn't sit right with me, but happy to stand corrected. Not that it would happen, but does that mean that, hypothetically, if an Assistant Sound Engineer or Illustrator or any role at all that happened to be on the cover would therefore share the main artist billing?

typoman2
Several rulings from nik about that come to mind …

Would it be possible to link to one or all of them?

hookedupsolid
... hypothetically, if an Assistant Sound Engineer or Illustrator or any role at all that happened to be on the cover would therefore share the main artist?

Hypothetically, yes ;) Those 'Costes' series have a mix guy on the cover, some main artists are Astronomers, Presidents of the United States, Bible narrators, whether their role is revealed or not any aXXXXX (artist[number]) is an artist. No favouritism is allowed.

hookedupsolid
Would it be possible to link to one or all of them?

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/361546#3362900
I have only saved this one but there are others … although I'm not in the position atm timewise to look for them

typoman2

I have only saved this one but there are others …

Thanks, saved!

hafler3o
Hypothetically, yes ;) Those 'Costes' series have a mix guy on the cover, some main artists are Astronomers, Presidents of the United States, Bible narrators, whether their role is revealed or not any aXXXXX (artist[number]) is an artist. No favouritism is allowed.

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/361546#3362900
I have only saved this one but there are others … although I'm not in the position atm timewise to look for them

Understood. Thanks for putting me in the picture on this guys.

All these examples also need changing then?

https://www.discogs.sie.com/Western-Electric-Western-Electric/release/7490378 - some random release I found has two producers credited on the cover

The Velvet Underground & Nico (3) - The Velvet Underground & Nico to Velvet Underground & Nico & Andy Warhol? He's the "producer" and he's the only one on the cover.

The Budd one needs updating for those 'affected' releases. My version does not have Eno mentioned on the cover or spine (my pink cover copy got sold decades ago). This kind of main artist crediting is easy to duck when 'following on' from copy-to-draft, sticking to convention etc. Title (subtitle) is very much abused as well.

The Warhol one I'm not sure about, I assumed it was part of the 'art', no expert on VU or Warhol. I prefer Faust.

https://www.discogs.sie.com/David-Byrne-The-Complete-Score-From-The-Broadway-Production-Of-The-Catherine-Wheel/release/845371 - to include choreographer...

'50s and '60s musical soundtracks get way more over the top than that. They list half the cast and tons of musicians on the cover. I've seen some submitters seriously abuse ers just to get all the names into the main artist field, to comply with this "rule". Personally I wouldn't bother.

Artist / Sub-Artist fields?
We could definitely do with Title / Sub-Title fields.

Choreography I would think is not a musical role, like bumpf "from the film directed by Michael Mann" and can be ignored for the purpose of main artist, much like all that text about ".. 72 minutes on one CD" can be ignored as a subtitle.

hafler3o
Choreography I would think is not a musical role

hafler3o
named on the cover, it does not really matter about the role

I just feel I could justifiably make edits to con the artists in all or most of the releases mentioned above and that would be within the guidelines. I understand the principle of the rule, but if we're allowed to be inconsistent and "not bother" in some cases, can't we just "not bother" with the Laraaji example in my opening post?

hafler3o
The Warhol one I'm not sure about, I assumed it was part of the 'art', no expert on VU or Warhol. I prefer Faust.

Well it could be his signature to the cover art, but earlier I asked whether an Illustrator credit on the cover should be included and you suggested it should, so wouldn't that also apply here? Also you suggest "non-musical" roles are not applicable, but I'm not sure on what basis you are making that distinction. I originally made the distinction between performing and technical roles, why would one distinction be valid and another not valid?

Sorry I'm not meaning to pick holes, but there must be countless examples of this kind of thing in the database. Clearly some common sense judgement should be (and generally is) applied... Which is why the Laraaji example surprised me, it just doesn't really seem or look right, and if it is right surely, for example, Iggy Pop - The Idiot would be an identical situation?

hookedupsolid


... Well it could be his signature to the cover art, but earlier I asked whether an Illustrator credit on the cover should be included and you suggested it should, so wouldn't that also apply here? Also you suggest "non-musical" roles are not applicable, but I'm not sure on what basis you are making that distinction. I originally made the distinction between performing and technical roles, why would one distinction be valid and another not valid?

Sorry I'm not meaning to pick holes, but there must be countless examples of this kind of thing in the database. Clearly some common sense judgement should be (and generally is) applied... Which is why the Laraaji example surprised me, it just doesn't really seem or look right, and if it is right surely, for example, Iggy Pop - The Idiot would be an identical situation?

The Warhol one doesn't 'say' anything. There's no arty credit. It's possible many main artist credits now would have been non-linking in the past (like photography used to be).

Performing and technical roles are perfectly interchangeable in the music oeuvre. Many a songwriter has recorded and mixed their own work. 'Technical' roles as you stress are (in my view) just a small difference in the creative process, think Zappa's 'Lumpy Gravy' (tape splicing). In the past non-linking non-musical roles were not even destined to create 'artists'.

I'm not sure it is in Discogs interest to partially document those whose names appear on covers (an important part of the release) I personally like the idea of crediting those who appear on covers, but IMO a choreographer is being credited for her contribution to the live event, not the music you are listening to, like the film producer example. This information can be added as part of the subtitle. Does that help?

With Day Of Radiance I suspect the view that Eno should be billed as a main artist is partly influenced by the fact that he is billed as a performing artist on all the other Ambient series releases. But here he is obviously just billed as producer.

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/361546#3362900
I have only saved this one but there are others … although I'm not in the position atm timewise to look for them

I feel like this is more in reference to a release with a single artist, named on the cover, who is not a performer: "The name billed on the cover is the main artist."

That "rule" breaks down a bit when there are more than one artists listed on the cover, with varying degrees of prominence. It was discussed more recently, with nik weighing in: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/404258#3760849

Including:

nik
As it stands, I tend to make decisions on when to add a name printed on the from cover based on variables such as:

The prominence of the name
The completeness of the included names
The expectation of the viewer
The information presented in other areas of the artwork
The context in which the names are presented
Whether the listed sub-set of artists are part of the most prominent artist group or not

As for the release in question, Ambient 3, I think there are good arguments for and against including Eno as a main artist... (personally I'd leave him just in the credits but that's just my opinion)

If name on cover = primary artist regardless of prominence or stated role, we're going to have to update a lot of releases where the person who painted/illustrated the cover image becomes a primary artist, on of their signature appearing on the release.

7_Sea_Cods
That "rule" breaks down a bit when there are more than one artists listed on the cover, with varying degrees of prominence. It was discussed more recently, with nik weighing in: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/404258#3760849

Interesting. So Nik's more recent views on it suggest that the name simply being on the cover does not automatically mean they become one of the main artists, that there are determining factors and "edge cases". Therefore I would argue the Laraaji example is one of these edge cases. Since it's effectively an identical situation to the Harry Nilsson and Iggy Pop examples mentioned above I think they should either all have their producers credited as main artists or none otherwise this is very inconsistent. As for Eno's wider role across the ambient series, of course his genius is not in dispute, but I don't see that it requires special treatment especially when you already have the series to tie the releases together anyway.

Personally I think the painter's signature is outside the edge, Eno is well inside the edge, 'Produced By' is as central as 'Presents', 'Mixed By', 'Curated By' etc etc.

hafler3o
painter's signature is outside the edge

Agreed, I only really used that to highlight the potential absurdity of the situation (before I knew there even was an edge!)

hafler3o
Eno is well inside the edge, 'Produced By' is as central as 'Presents', 'Mixed By', 'Curated By' etc etc.

Well, I think really the examples you give are typical of various or unknown artist releases where it makes sense to have the DJ or compiler as the main artist for reference. I think the Laraaji example differs because you have Laraaji, who is (to me) very obviously the main artist and then you have Eno who has, and perhaps rightly so, a very high billing as producer, but nonetheless to my mind he is the producer and not a 'main artist'. So I think it comes down to the 'prominence' issue and other factors mentioned in Nik's variables.

If it's a main cover credit then it's valid based on Discog guidelines.

I know it can seem absurd with some releases. But even a deceased artist who was not involved in a release at all can be the main artist, as here Salvador Dalí - Être Dieu (Ópera-Poema). The actual artist(s) on that don't get a main credit at all.

ultimathulerecords
If it's a main cover credit then it's valid based on Discog guidelines.

I know it can seem absurd with some releases.

So, okay to go ahead and make edits to the other releases?
Harold Budd Produced By Brian Eno - The Pavilion Of Dreams, etc?

Iggy Pop - The Idiot --- Isn't that a sticker? I've seen/had copies without

ultimathulerecords
Isn't that a sticker?

No, I've got that version, it's printed on the cover I double checked it, but yes certainly there are other versions without it the Bowie cover credit.

yes it's fine to edit, just not all of those 'Pavillion Of Dreams' have the Eno credit, nor does 'The Idiot'. Nilsson I know nothing about!

hookedupsolid
Isn't that a sticker?

No, I've got that version

Goes to show why adding such stuff can be important, i.e. distinguishing between ones that have it and ones that don't.

hafler3o
just not all of those 'Pavillion Of Dreams' have the Eno credit, nor does 'The Idiot'.

Yes, have to be done on only the appropriate ones.

hafler3o
not all of those

ultimathulerecords
only the appropriate ones

Naturally.

ultimathulerecords
If it's a main cover credit then it's valid based on Discog guidelines.

Not under all circumstances. For example, Roscoe Mitchell - Nonaah shouldn't have 8 main artists simply because there are 8 artists' names printed on the cover.

ultimathulerecords
Goes to show why adding such stuff can be important, i.e. distinguishing between ones that have it and ones that don't.

The release notes are better for explaining that something is printed on the cover rather than stickered, not the presence or absence of an additional main artist.

hookedupsolid
So, okay to go ahead and make edits to the other releases?

Personally, I wouldn't, I think those are all fine as is.

hafler3o
'Produced By' is as central as 'Presents', 'Mixed By', 'Curated By' etc etc.

I don't think we should be looking at things by the specific credit, rather by how the release itself presents the artists. As I said before, I think the Ambient 3 one could go either way — Eno's producer credit could very well be interpreted as a Discogs main artist credit. But I don't think "Produced By David Bowie" in the bottom corner of the cover of The Idiot is presenting Bowie as a main artist there; it's more like a hype sticker (though it's printed on the actual cover).

7_Sea_Cods
I don't think we should be looking at things by the specific credit, rather by how the release itself presents the artists. As I said before, I think the Ambient 3 one could go either way — Eno's producer credit could very well be interpreted as a Discogs main artist credit. But I don't think "Produced By David Bowie" in the bottom corner of the cover of The Idiot is presenting Bowie as a main artist there; it's more like a hype sticker (though it's printed on the actual cover).

To me the three other releases I've mentioned are an identical situation to the Laraaji release in that they all feature a 'big name' producer printed on the front cover. As stated in my opening post, I would much rather remove Eno from the main artist category on the Laraaji release. But if people are insistent it stays, then it would only be correct to amend the other releases ( maybe if only to highlight the absurdity of the situation).

IMO each release should be judged on its own presentation / merits. If the consensus is to leave Eno on the Laraaji release, that's OK, and it's fine to leave the others as is.

I don't think main artist should be decided simply on credit role (producer vs. cover image artist) or notoriety ("big-name" vs. "unknown"), or to "highlight the absurdity of the situation"...

7_Sea_Cods
f it's a main cover credit then it's valid based on Discog guidelines.

Not under all circumstances. For example, Roscoe Mitchell - Nonaah shouldn't have 8 main artists simply because there are 8 artists' names printed on the cover.

I know that. Wasn't the point being made. And "with" is not a main cover credit.

It all depends on where on the cover and how the artist is presented.
I would agree a "hype flash" elsewhere on the cover is not a main credit.
Also a ing cast of musicians in smaller case are not main artists (ECM front cover credits can be notoriously tricky in this regard)

But if a cover says Joe Bloggs presents Mary Brown with The Theoretical Band then all 3 are valid as main credits with ers.

7_Sea_Cods
I don't think main artist should be decided simply on credit role (producer vs. cover image artist) or notoriety ("big-name" vs. "unknown"), or to "highlight the absurdity of the situation"...

ultimathulerecords
It all depends on where on the cover and how the artist is presented.

So, with no clear guideline on matter it's entirely down to subjective interpretation of the cover credit? In which case, it's my subjective interpretation that Eno should not be a main artist credit on the Laraaji release, and if that release does merit a main artist credit, then I certainly think those other examples do also.

ultimathulerecords
a "hype flash" elsewhere on the cover is not a main credit.

It says "Produced by David Bowie", it's printed on the cover with quite large text. I know they've designed it to look like a sticker, but what are we saying then? When the cover credit is printed within a circle at the base of the sleeve we don't include and when it's printed in plain text nearer the top we do?

ultimathulerecords
I know that. Wasn't the point being made.

OK, sorry if I misinterpreted you there.

hookedupsolid
So, with no clear guideline on matter it's entirely down to subjective interpretation of the cover credit?

w/r/t adding additional main artists, yes, I don't think the guideline is meant to say "ALL artists printed on the cover MUST be added as main artists" so we have to interpret the credit(s) appearing on the cover.

hookedupsolid
it's my subjective interpretation that Eno should not be a main artist credit on the Laraaji release

Fair enough. But if we can't all come to a consensus here, I think we might as well leave it. If I were adding the release myself, I wouldn't personally have added Eno as a main artist. But I don't think it's absurd or out of bounds either, given the overall context.

7_Sea_Cods
I wouldn't personally have added Eno as a main artist

Neither would I, and neither would most s, I'd imagine. It looks like the original edit from just "Laraaji" was made by bertielego 2 years ago, there doesn't appear to have been any discussion about it at the time. If I was to change it back people might argue that it would be a 'preference edit' but isn't that pretty much the case with the original edit? I think in light of Nik's later comments on the subject, it is - if anything - up for discussion first.

7_Sea_Cods
But I don't think it's absurd or out of bounds either, given the overall context.

I feel it's very inconsistent with the other examples, and indeed it seems with this type of cover credit most releases don't have them as main artist, so I can't see any logical reason that this one should.

(dble post)

The guideline is clear. It might help to go back to the top and re-read this thread.

'Billed', not 'subjective interpretation of cover credit'. Eno is billed on the cover for a reason, I do not have to understand it or even like it. If he were not there would I add it? No. If he were there would I ignore it? No.

He's not on every Laraaji release (or later versions of that Budd lp) so just use the billed cover artists as you find them.

hafler3o
The guideline is clear. It might help to go back to the top and re-read this thread.

It actually isn't, because it repeats several times "Main Artist", which is the artist that needs to be credited, leaving the secondary artists room to go uncredited, so there is some space for interpretation or else the word that the guidelines would say would be only "Artist".

The cases of Presenter and Mixer being billed on the cover as main artist is one thing, this one is another, here we have a main artist Laaraji and a secondary artist being credited for a specific role, so wether or not we have to credit both is subject to interpretation.

Does a specific producer credit is deserving of being a main artist? No, IMHO
Does anyone in the real world expects to find this release in the Brian Eno discography? NO, IMHO

Same applies to the Iggy Pop release.

so no to Brain Eno and David Bowie for me.

It says quite clearly what the main artist is considered to be

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.

First argument was 'producer' isn't artistic (it is). Next argument it's a cover credit not a proper er (irrelevant). Size of text, sticker? Maybe an update to guidelines would help.
To pull in 'deserving of being a main artist' to the discussion is neither here nor there.

On the releases where Eno is billed, he should be acknowledged (and not otherwise).

hafler3o
It says quite clearly what the main artist is considered to be

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.

Yes, that artist is clearly Laaraji, the "Main Artist" which can be read from the guidelines, if there is a "Main" it leaves room for "Secondary Artists" not being billed as "Main Artist".

hafler3o
First argument was 'producer' isn't artistic (it is). Next argument it's a cover credit not a proper er (irrelevant). Size of text, sticker? Maybe an update to guidelines would help.
To pull in 'deserving of being a main artist' to the discussion is neither here nor there.

Yes, there several argument for him not being credited and not one specific rule thats forces us to give him a "Main Artist", he can simply be credited for his function.

If you have a clear ruling saying otherwise please share, all the link to other discussions provided in this thread, were related to "Various Artists" Vs./or Presenter or DJ or Field Recorder, where there is only one artist present on those covers, this is clearly not the case, so wether or not one can extrapolate those rulings to this particular case is a matter of interpretation, and in the case of the "Field Recording" guy, nik says it's "OK" to use them as main artists, he does not say "We Must".

Also Laaraji was not produced by him, the record was.

"this is considered to be..." ignored

He can simply be credited for his function of course, but that is done for all 'simply credited in the credits' producers already. This producer has a 'billing'. And he can be credited neatly too.

Sorry can't quote atm, iPad mini woes... If you have any ruling going against the clear guideline feel free to share. As for that last sentence, I do hope you were being funny!

hafler3o
The guideline is clear. It might help to go back to the top and re-read this thread.

'Billed', not 'subjective interpretation of cover credit'. Eno is billed on the cover for a reason, I do not have to understand it or even like it. If he were not there would I add it? No. If he were there would I ignore it? No.

He's not on every Laraaji release (or later versions of that Budd lp) so just use the billed cover artists as you find them.

+1

phallancz
Does anyone in the real world expects to find this release in the Brian Eno discography? NO, IMHO

Since when has real world had anything to do with Discogs?

bertielego
+1

Can you tell us why you decided to mass edit the Laraaji releases 2 years ago, which had existed in the database for 7 years previously without the Eno credit, without any discussion in the Forums (that I'm aware of)?

Also, if this is the correct way of presenting this type of data, should we make similar edits to the other releases I have cited? And if not, why not?

I too would like a clear guideline as what constitutes a main artist credit.
I did a search of the web, and Discogs is the only place the Laraaji LP is credited this way.
I would argue that based on the guidelines this is acceptable, although I would not really consider anything like a production, presented or compiled by credit as a main artist

Even though it is better than how this is listed: Various - No San Francisco - Not Yet Produced By Brian Eno which is clearly wrong.

I do recall objecting to a "Produced by" credit being in the main artists credits elsewhere (impossible to find and/or recall what that was)

I also think this is incorrect use of the main artist field Various - Bureau B Kollektion 04 Compiled By Richard Fearless should be credited to Richard Fearless.

Really, it's about time that Discogs introduced a subtitle field too (with optional artist selection), so such things as "Compiled By Richard Fearless" can be added to a releases as a second title in a smaller case, and such a field would also cope with the situation being discussed here.

So, rethink, until we get something like that, I would say that such "Produced by" credits and similar shouldn't be main artist credits at all (unless all in the same case/size/prominence)

[edit: presented ]

On a different subject, I would also argue that "Ambient 3" is not part of the album title but is a series called Ambient of which this is number 3

hafler3o
If you have any ruling going against the clear guideline feel free to share. As for that last sentence, I do hope you were being funny!

So you don't have any ruling that forces us to give a main credit to every single artist listed on cover?

StaticGuru
Since when has real world had anything to do with Discogs?

So shall we start crediting Andy Warhol in the Velvet Underground & Nico release?
His name is there and he did more on that record than Eno probably did on the Laaraji one.
Shall we give Bowie a main credit on Iggy Pop - The Idiot ?

phallancz
So shall we start crediting Andy Warhol in the Velvet Underground & Nico release?

How about we just figure this one out first, huh?

But since you asked:

phallancz
His name is there and he did more on that record than Eno probably did on the Laaraji one.

Who did what on a record, and who did more than someone else is not - and has not ever been - a determining factor on who the main artist is.

StaticGuru
How about we just figure this one out first, huh?

So the case can be discussed, because there is no clear guideline for cases like this and the Laaraji?
It's up to the community correct?

So what is your opinion on the Laaraji case?

phallancz
So what is your opinion on the Laaraji case?

Seeing the label credits Laaraji only, I'd go with that, but honestly I'm fine either way.

phallancz

So you don't have any ruling that forces us to give a main credit to every single artist listed on cover?

We have the guideline, if it makes no sense to you then campaign for a better guideline.
I don't need a thread to the guideline, YOU need a thread to un it. So my invitation stands. 'Billed', keep that in mind. You have an agenda on this so why not use your time constructively and find some ing threads or draft out a new 2.x.x guideline if a billed artist on some versions of a release is so difficult to stomach.

ultimathulerecords
On a different subject, I would also argue that "Ambient 3" is not part of the album title but is a series called Ambient of which this is number 3

I raised that a while back, to deafening silence! As we have a series field that is where the info should reside. If we had a field for 'Artists billed who are not playing a kalimba' we'd be in clover...

hafler3o
We have the guideline, if it makes no sense to you then campaign for a better guideline.

You have an interpretation of a guideline that you are trying to force on us all, not how it works, we have other of the community with a different view on the matter, so the guideline has a leeway to be interpreted, wether you like it or not.

I'm perfectly fine with the guideline as it leaves room for interpretation and for the community to have a say on it.

I'm also fine that you believe that Brian Eno should be billed as a main artist, what i am saying is that the guideline leaves room not to credit each individual listed on the cover, you're entitled to have your interpretation of the guideline, but you cannot force it onto others without a clear ruling from nik saying so, which i have requested you one, yet you still have not provided one, so i am assuming there isn't one.

So a discussion can exist and it's being done at the moment wether you like it or not.

phallancz
So shall we start crediting Andy Warhol in the Velvet Underground & Nico release?

Actually, I'm surprised no one has! Taking the cover at face value one could credit it as an Andy Warhol release (which it isn't), and clearly a main artist credit there is just as valid as Brian Eno on the Laraaji.

As with Mr.Mystery I tend to weigh up what it says on a label too when considering what the main artist credit should be.

Here we go. Just ed some old stock photos of the original LP. Check the label...

https://img.discogs.sie.com/Y-6PcTJgkE2MsQYZ_t3CmzyKc2I=/fit-in/600x600/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-918346-1462784256-5933.jpeg.jpg

Brian Eno is not a main artist credit there

Also, Ambient 3 is not part of the album title

The Ambient series is currently established as Ambient (2)

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/691117?page=1#7098228

ultimathulerecords
Here we go. Just ed some old stock photos of the original LP. Check the label...

So what? Cover has precedence … always had.

phallancz
So a discussion can exist and it's being done at the moment wether you like it or not.

Of course it can exist and you can bicker about that another 4 or 8 days. Your prerogative.
But that changes nothing on the fact there is no black and white, "right" or "wrong" here.
You said yourself … leeway … what you want is exactly NO leeway – so as hafler3o says. Open a thread and campaign for some more restrictive Guidelines. We need more of that.
Both versions could be voted C, the Produced By can be added as per RSG and several rulings by nik and if it's there – no reason to remove it. It's legit and it's also legit to vote EI when removed IMHO because it's valid data added as per RSG.

Oh, and for rulings of the Database manager here I have another one from 10 months ago (newer than the above mentioned): https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/416004#6881181

hafler3o
o
Well I'd be happy to not see Brian as main artist but that would take a more complicated guideline to be adopted first and really we're using the system well in capturing it 'as it is'.

In a similar vein I'd be quite happy to share a writing credit with Brian if it helped sell my song, as 50% of something is always better than 100% of nothing...!

Is it just me or are some of you a bit too emotionally invested in this?

typoman2
Of course it can exist and you can bicker about that another 4 or 8 days. Your prerogative.
But that changes nothing on the fact there is no black and white, "right" or "wrong" here.

That is what i am saying there is no black or white rule, have you read any of my comments?
Both artist can be credited or not, the guidelines does not suggest they must, it's up for discussion, right here in this thread.

typoman2
You said yourself … leeway … what you want is exactly NO leeway

? i will repeat there is leeway for both, you and hafler3o are the ones saying that there is no room for discussion.

typoman2
Both versions could be voted C, the Produced By can be added as per RSG and several rulings by nik and if it's there – no reason to remove it. It's legit and it's also legit to vote EI when removed IMHO because it's valid data added as per RSG.

Excuse me? if there is a consensus in this thread to remove it, then it can removed this is how a thread discussion works.

Let me repeat, there is leeway to have Brian Eno as main artist, there is also leeway to remove it, it is what is being discussed in this thread, that is what this thread was created for.

phallancz

You have an interpretation of a guideline that you are trying to force on us all, not how it works, we have other of the community with a different view on the matter, so the guideline has a leeway to be interpreted, wether you like it or not.

So a discussion can exist and it's being done at the moment wether you like it or not.

Lot's of 'whether I like it or not'! '..force it..' etc. Look at my quote from above. It seems you are getting on some high-horse about this and trying to paint me as someone who is opposed to something. I'm opposed to those who will not attempt to understand the concept of 'billing' or keep asking the same question OVER and OVER till they get the response they are asking for. That is not going to happen as:

the changes were made.

The changes were questioned.

Nothing has been added to allow their removal.

Much IMHO (don't forget the H is for Humble) is bandied around as if it were relevant.

A small attempt at slurring my character. (Please do not lower the thread further in that direction) I'm happy for disagreement on interpretation but please do not try to derail the thread into 'personality' issues.

phallancz
if there is a consensus in this thread to remove it, then it can removed

But there is none … I see 4 people who think it is fine as is and one who is fine either way.

phallancz

Both artist can be credited or not, the guidelines does not suggest they must, it's up for discussion...

Let me repeat, there is leeway to have Brian Eno as main artist, there is also leeway to remove it...

I only see leeway for removal if it is incorrect, redundant. Most data once added can be moved about, relevant or new field etc. We do't remove shadow cat#s, formatted barcodes, unlinked writers, or preferential (it could but doesn't need to be) edits. You know all of this of course. It just doesn't 'fit' a particular worldview.

hafler3o
A small attempt at slurring my character. (Please do not lower the thread further in that direction)

What are you talking about? i only suggested you had a narrow interpretation of the guidelines, i never suggested anything regarding you're character.

typoman2
But there is none … I see 4 people who think it is fine as is and one who is fine either way.

And i am not saying there is, i am only saying it can be discussed because the guidelines are subject to interpretation.

and that really isn't the math.

Preference for Eno being a main artist: bertielego
Preference for Eno not being billed as main artist: AmazingDiscoveries.

phallancz

You have an interpretation of a guideline that you are trying to force on us all, not how it works, we have other of the community with a different view on the matter, so the guideline has a leeway to be interpreted, wether you like it or not.

What am I talking about? As I previously mentioned: Painting me as 'trying to force an opinion on us all' Us? Speak for yourself. I quote the guideline, how is the 'billing' to be removed given the guideline? No answer.
'..whether I like it or not' Condescending, implying petulance. Avioding that conmment would have been easy. Note I have already given my personal position (you either ignored it or worse, failed to read anything I've started this thread with) in order to add weight to a casual slur. So, do I like it or not?

typoman2
So what? Cover has precedence … always had.

I think one should always weigh up the facts and compare credits on a release to decide what is what. Front cover credits, especially where geared to promotion/hype and/or artistic presentation should always be judged against the rest of the releases credits. Most people tend to forget about the end 2.2.1 ", or otherwise billed as such." If the cover always takes precedence then what about the aforementioned Andy Warhol credit?

typoman2
Oh, and for rulings of the Database manager here I have another one from 10 months ago (newer than the above mentioned): https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/416004#6881181

I don't see that as a ruling, just an opinion, and it's also a different situation to what's being discussed here.

BTW, I think it's under this guideline that the producer as main credit is seen to be allowed on Discogs...

Main Artist Credits

2.7.1. When a main artist or track based main artist is credited on a release for the following, a credit must also be added into the credit section:

DJ Mix
Compiled By
Presenting Artist (Presenter)

Although totally ambiguous, I don't think that applies to producer credits does it?

I opened the thread because when I saw the the release it just immediately seemed wrong to my eyes. I couldn't find anything that clearly ed adding it. After the explanations given earlier in the thread I could totally understand the justification for adding it, but then I was confused that there were lots of examples where the same cover credit did not seem to result in a main artist credit. Furthermore 7_Sea_Cods cited a ruling from Nik that suggested things were actually quite a lot more fuzzy.

So I would say it's definitely up for discussion, so far there are divided opinions: those who think it shouldn't be there and those who think the guidelines it being there. Although even amongst the latter most seem to suggest that, if they were adding the release themselves, they wouldn't add Eno as a main artist credit. Although personally I fail to see how, if the Eno credit is justified, it shouldn't also apply to the Iggy Pop, Harry Nilsson and Harold Budd releases already mentioned earlier in the thread.

I think a comment from Nik or Diognes_The_Fox would be helpful in this instance.

hafler3o if i said something that offended you, i apologise even if it was not my intention to offend you, let's keep this discussion about what Blumley intended to.

hookedupsolid
those who think the guidelines it being there

The guidelines allow it to be there, but does not forces us to credit him, especially if a discussion on the forum and with either a consensus or majority against it.

phallancz
hafler3o if i said something that offended you, i apologise even if it was not my intention to offend you, let's keep this discussion about what Blumley intended to.

Ok no problem, I was concerned I was being cast in a 'certain way' rather than properly insulted! If I logged on to this site to 'have my way' things would be very different and I accept a lot of what "goes on" that I would never agree to (if left to my own dictatorship). I have noticed you are one of the sane 'regular' forum voices and I think a vast majority of issues we interpret the same way.

Personally speaking now, for me the number one reason for keeping the producer billing is when original releases use cover billing to 'maximise' market and decades later this is dropped (see the 'Pavillion Of Dreams' example).

I bought that Larajji release based on Eno's stated contribution on the cover, I never would have otherwise (no radio or internet then) Eno kind of taught me I was more into the sound of sounds than the 'notes played' or 'lyrics'.

As for inconsistency in this database and the question of 'why is this.. but not that?' It's a non-question to me. The database evolves. Restricting billing to certain types of cover artist would be retrograde.

hafler3o
I bought that Larajji release based on Eno's stated contribution on the cover, I never would have otherwise (no radio or internet then) Eno kind of taught me I was more into the sound of sounds than the 'notes played' or 'lyrics'.

I completely understand that sentiment. I've bought a great many albums based on who the producer was and I would say the same of this album, although I don't see how that affects the correctness or otherwise of the credit. That's exactly the same deal with the Iggy Pop release, trying to sell Iggy (who was, at the time in the career doldrums) on the back of Bowie's name.

hafler3o
I bought that Larajji release based on Eno's stated contribution on the cover, I never would have otherwise (no radio or internet then) Eno kind of taught me I was more into the sound of sounds than the 'notes played' or 'lyrics'.

Yeah, but that is the same of todays stickers saying Group X featuring of Groups A, B & C
Just because his name was placed there to sell a few more (or a lot more) copies should not be a reason to give him a "Main Artist" billing, IMHO

Do you believe that the Andy Warhol name wasn't done exactly with the same intention of the Brian Eno name placement, yet Andy is not going to be credited as a main artist and he probably had more influence on that recording than Eno had in the Laaraji record.

hafler3o
Restricting billing to certain types of cover artist would be retrograde.

It's not restricting, we cannot simply put every name placed on the cover just because it's there, i a case where there as an Artist billed as Artist from the Group X, and one blindly followed that the name on cover must credited, and that group had nothing to do with record.

hookedupsolid

... although I don't see how that affects the correctness or otherwise of the credit. That's exactly the same deal with the Iggy Pop release, trying to sell Iggy (who was, at the time in the career doldrums) on the back of Bowie's name.

Well it doesn't affect the 'billing' ;) imagine if it were marketed as 'limited' or 'remastered' my personal point was that it is irrelevant how a particular iteration of a release was marketed. We don't discuss the merits of the limitations (limited to 1 billion) or the quality of whatever post-production methods, we record it. I'm forcing no-one to add said artists.

phallancz
... yet Andy is not going to be credited as a main artist and he probably had more influence on that recording than Eno had in the Laaraji one ...

... i a case where there as an Artist billed as Artist from the Group X, and one blindly followed that the name on cover must credited, and that group had nothing to do with record.

Well I'm not aware of how much influence Mr. Warhol had on that release (not one of my collection nowadays) I always assumed the name was part of the art (like 'Campbells' on a tin) and I cannot say anything beyond that.

I'm with you that the second example is a good case of not using main artist. Why? Because the text following the name is 'billing' the 1st named artist. 'X of Y' lets you know about X much in the same way 'X of the planet Earth' might. 'X of Y' makes no claim to a contribution from Y other than they let X record his/her own record.

Inviting the following s so they can share their opinion if they wish to:
Fishbasket.

The question being "Does Brian Eno merits a Main Artist Billing on "Laraaji - Ambient 3 (Day Of Radiance)" or not?"
> Laraaji Produced By Brian Eno - Ambient 3 (Day Of Radiance)

thanks for your opinion in advance

As I was invited I'll give you my opinion. I think you waste your time. This doesn't matter at all. Everybody, who knows Eno knows about Ambient 3 album written not by him. Personally I think that producer should not be listed as main artist of release, no matter where he is written. But you may think that it is not bad that this record is seen in discography of Eno at least this way. In fact this is project of Eno in first place. I myself keep this album in discography of Laraaji and Eno is not written anywhere at all.

phallancz

... thanks for your opinion in advance

It is the wrong question. The question should be "is it against the guidelines.." and if 'no' "should we update the guidelines..."

The merit of a credit (as I mentioned above with writing credits) has no bearing on the submission form.

If you have a problem with s speaking their mind, then file a request.

It doesn't seem like there should be an artist credit here for Brian Eno. It seems just like an over-glorified production credit on the cover. Are there other cases where the producer credit on a front cover is given a main artist credit?

I assume not or else someone would have posted a discussion or a release with a similar example.

You could have 1000 s object to the way this is entered. That doesn't matter at all. We have both the way the Guidelines are written and several previous rulings by nik that the idea of Eno as a main artist. Unless you get management to reverse themselves and change the Guidelines this can't be changed at all.

A credit role as a separator is very, very common on classical releases. "Conducted By" and "Soloist" would be the two most common examples.

Miles Davis - Panthalassa: The Music Of Miles Davis 1969-1974

No main artist credit for Bill Laswell.

Why? Maybe one reason is Miles Davis is clearly the 'bigger' name in of recognition. But of course that should have zero bearing on it.

Fauni-Gena
You could have 1000 s object to the way this is entered. That doesn't matter at all.

It actually matters, discogs is made by it's s and management does take into their opinion.
Why even say such thing? What do you have against s speaking their mind?

Diognes_The_Fox does discogs take it's s opinion or not? are we allowed to discuss interpretations of the guidelines or is there any rule against it?

VasiliKochura
Are there other cases where the producer credit on a front cover is given a main artist credit?

See examples already cited above, it seems to be that adding the producer cover credit as main artist is the exception

Fauni-Gena
several previous rulings by nik that the idea of Eno as a main artist.

Can you point us to them? The one cited earlier in the thread by 7-Sea-Cods seemed to suggest it wasn't clear cut at all.

Fauni-Gena
A credit role as a separator is very, very common on classical releases. "Conducted By" and "Soloist" would be the two most common examples.

Agreed, and certainly in the classical milieu they would be seen as the main artist, but then again they are to all intents and purposes the 'performers' in such instances. As mentioned above, on equivalent, non-classical releases this is frequently not the case. But maybe it should be?

[quote=blumley]VasiliKochuraAre there other cases where the producer credit on a front cover is given a main artist credit?

See examples already cited above, it seems to be that adding the producer cover credit as main artist is the exception

I could not find an example where the producer is given a main artist credit.

It doesn't feel right to enter Brian Eno as the main artist because it's a credit, not a headline artist and we're used to seeing a producer credit in small text on the back cover and on labels. But he is much better known than the headline artist and it falls within the grouping of the Ambient albums so the association is there and makes you want to put it in the same place on your shelf.

I can't really decide if it's right or wrong - only that it seems not the right thing to do, despite the guideline.

phallancz
If you have a problem with s speaking their mind, then file a request.

No I have a problem with an irrelevant question which advances the use of the billed artist within the current guidelines not one jot. I expected a better phrased question. That is a question for a music discussion forum not a database query.

Rubbish in = Rubbish out.

And how is it you manage to twist my valid criticism of the question into a '...problem with s speaking their mind.'? Where do you get that idea from? An SR is not appropriate in this instance so please stop with the silly comments.