Maybe I did not get the news, but some s seem to be exempt from applying certain guidelines, maybe because of rank??
See https://www.discogs.sie.com/release/1312977-Lost-In-Space/history?diff=32&page=1 ...
If it would have been at least discussed. This bugs me as how can we ask any newbie to read and follow the guidlines if some seem just to be beyond it?
Is it credited on release track by track or as "credit role (tracks #,#,#)" etc?
Personally I only use the latter if the release states it that way. I know many use it as a time saving or lazy method if the release has the same person credited for same role over a number of tracks. Even when the release credits them as a track by tracks format.
I put the extra effort in and credit the tracks individually if displayed that way on release.
That I believe would not be personal preference. It is personal preference to move these credits if they are on release as "credit role (tracks #,#,#)" to individual tracks though.
His intent was to add detailed credits and not to move them around, therefore not breaking any guideline, IMO.
The credits were all mixed (not detailed by tracks positions) and he very likely found it more easier to simply add them more detailed in the tracks section.
Sorry to say, but I find your implications in the name of this thread somehow insulting.
1. I follow guidelines closely.
2, I CORRECTED the entry and ADDED all info found on release, but not previously covered.
3. The previous state the item was in was did NOT reflect how the credits are presented ON THE RELEASE. Not only in positions (not being listed as release wide credits for most artists involved), but also in their roles for each track.
Previously the credits for e.g. Aimee Mann read only "Acoustic Guitar, Piano, Tambourine, Synthesizer, Bass, Vocals, Percussion – Aimee Mann. On some tracks e.g. she played Synthesizer too or provided additional backing Vocals. Credits not previously found.
Now - and perfectly in line with the way it is credited on release - her [edit: typo] roles for each track are listed with each track. 4. Additionally I added the proper instruments the artists are credited with instead of just interpreted roles as in the previous state. If somebody played "Nashville Guitar", it is now credited correctly "Guitar [Nashville]" instead of the generic and non-track specific "Guitar".
djcarbines
I put the extra effort in and credit the tracks individually if displayed that way on release.
I personally don't see anything wrong with the edit. It improves the submission, and, significantly, corrects it where there were errors.
I understand where you are coming frm with regards to RSG §10.1.7, but I do not think that applies in this case. General overhaul & corrections, not preference edits.
Ok, I see that completely different but will refer back to this thread if it comes in convenient. The extreme of it would be that I add one credit and therfore have the option to start moving everything else around because of a 'major overhaul'. IMO, at least, it should be discussed rather than just applied before taking on such effort. nik, can you clear this behaviour then please?
Mr.Slut
3. The previous state the item was in was did NOT reflect how the credits are presented ON THE RELEASE. Not only in positions (not being listed as release wide credits for most artists involved), but also in their roles for each track.
Previously the credits for e.g. Aimee Mann read only "Acoustic Guitar, Piano, Tambourine, Synthesizer, Bass, Vocals, Percussion – Aimee Mann. On some tracks e.g. she played Synthesizer too or provided additional backing Vocals. Credits not previously found.
Now - and perfectly in line with the way it is credited on release - here roles for each track are listed with each track. 4. Additionally I added the proper instruments the artists are credited with instead of just interpreted roles as in the previous state. If somebody played "Nashville Guitar", it is now credited correctly "Guitar [Nashville]" instead of the generic and non-track specific "Guitar".
You can all this without moving any existing credit. I am not talking about any of the actual corrections. I understand the intent but there is no need from the RSG to list the credits under the track just because this how it is on the release. In contrary, there are only release wide credits mentioned which should be added in the main credit section. No mention of track credits at all, but it is stated that credits can be added in the section that are easiest and clearest for the submitter. However once added, that should NOT be changed because someone else feels it is clearer or more easy for another editor or because the release lists it in a specific area. This is personal preference. I am very certain that if someone with 50 rank points would have started such effort a shitstorm would have broken out above him.
Nothing wrong with this edit. I never understood all the fuss about these so-called preference edits. When no errors are introduced with the edit, all should be fine.
Some s may disagree but I'm not a fan of applying RSG §10.1.7 to strictly. I look at the outcome after the edit / edits. This sub, in my opinion, is self evidently more complete than it was before. We have linked credits which weren't present.
For the record I'd have the same opinion if the ed last week.
RSG §10.1.7 states: "Please don't edit releases to move about credits between sections because of personal preferences, as this can lead to errors being introduced."
As a peer on this site it is now impossible for me to check if errors have been introduced or not.
for example - I chose a credit at random:
Michael Lockwood playing the Omnichord. In the earlier iteration, he has a release wide credit ie not track specific. in the revision, he only plays it on track 10.
Now had the the change been made to original set of comments, then the credit would have appeared with (tracks: 10) next to it and therefore easy to spot. I cannot tell now if Mr Slut has forgotten to add the Ominchord credit to every track or if indeed it is just track 10?
...and that's just one randomly chosen credit.
I would have left the credits filed as they were and just updated them, even though, my personal preference (for when adding credits) is to have track credits listed separately against the tracks (unless release-wide, of course)
bobbley
I cannot tell now if Mr Slut has forgotten to add the Ominchord credit to every track or if indeed it is just track 10?
I'm genuinely confused as to what you mean here? Yes you have to look at the images but the release clearly credits who did what on each individual track?
HasMr.Slut made a mistake with that credit? Not from what I'm reading.
bobbley
...and that's just one randomly chosen credit.
Which is now correct, but was not before. Previously entered as global, ie playing on every track. Which was wrong, as he only plays the Omnichord on track 10.
Either way, you would only be able to check the credit by looking at the images, so I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.
then why not move all per tracks credits to the tracks instead of leaving some like cello and bass etc in main credits section? Now they are split between sections, some of the bass credits per tracks, some not, same for other roles
4theLuvOvMusic
then why not move all per tracks credits to the tracks instead of leaving some like cello and bass etc in main credits section? Now they are split between sections, some of the bass credits per tracks, some not, same for other roles
I think it's because that's how they're printed on the release. I believe Aimee Mann played bass and David Stone (17) played double bass, but they're both credited as "Bass" in the booklet.
bobbley
I cannot tell now if Mr Slut has forgotten to add the Ominchord credit to every track or if indeed it is just track 10?
I'm genuinely confused as to what you mean here? Yes you have to look at the images but the release clearly credits who did what on each individual track?
I just quickly looked at a global credit and had seen it had been transferred to a specific track credit (track 10)
So on the face of it, I wasn't sure whether the original global credit was correct and therefore he shouldn't just appear on track 10, but every other track as well.
I realise images exist, but that's besides my point: it was really an example of how difficult it might be to check whether in moving credits from global to track credit (especially to the extent on this release) errors are created or not, hence the reasoning behind why 10.1.7 exists.
bobbley
So on the face of it, I wasn't sure whether the original global credit was correct and therefore he shouldn't just appear on track 10, but every other track as well.
But that would have been the same if it hadn't been moved.
4theLuvOvMusic
then why not move all per tracks credits to the tracks instead of leaving some like cello and bass etc in main credits section? Now they are split between sections, some of the bass credits per tracks, some not, same for other roles
Thought about that, but decided against, since this would have been indeed preference moves between sections. Also these credits that I left in the main credit section are the ones [edit: typo] that are NOT listed track specific in the booklet.
Thus I left them where they were before - in the main section.
bobbley
moving credits from global to track credit (especially to the extent on this release) errors are created or not, hence the reasoning behind why 10.1.7 exists.
The paragraph is there also to avoid discussions of preference and resulting back and forth edits.
When you move a main credit e.g. like "Drums" - "Artist" (tracks: 1, 4, 6) to the individual tracks, you might forget one of the credits or put the credit to tracks 1, 5, 6 for example.
When I edited this particular CD I looked ONLY at the credits present in the booklet and simply deleted the main credits for the artists that were now listed with the tracks.
Hence also the newer credits like specific kind of guitars, synthesizers, percussion instruments etc. (e.g. Percussion [Paddles] or Synthesizer [SK-1]).
Mr.Slut
When I edited this particular CD I looked ONLY at the credits present in the booklet and simply deleted the main credits for the artists that were now listed with the tracks.
Hence also the newer credits like specific kind of guitars, synthesizers, percussion instruments etc. (e.g. Percussion [Paddles] or Synthesizer [SK-1]).
You could have just fixed the existing global credits, adding tracks positions and details were they were missing.
By moving the global credits to track credits you moved them around unnecessarily.
RSG §10.1.7 is intended to deal with edits made for the entire purpose of moving information around to suit personal preference. I do not feel it applies to situations like this.
Diognes_The_Fox
RSG §10.1.7 is intended to deal with edits made for the entire purpose of moving information around to suit personal preference. I do not feel it applies to situations like this
This has always been my interpretation. Maybe the guideline could add a word to clarify? Something like
10.1.7. Please don't edit releases only to move about credits between sections because of personal preferences, as this can lead to errors being introduced.
Tbh, the "issue" is not RSG §10.1.7 but RSG §14.1.3. Proper submission notes, instead of Finished!, explaining what had been changed, which credits were corrected / completed / moved to tracks because they previously were inaccurate would have spared us this whole thread.
_jules
Tbh, the "issue" is not RSG §10.1.7 but RSG §14.1.3. Proper submission notes, instead of Finished!, explaining what had been changed, which credits were corrected / completed / moved to tracks because they previously were inaccurate would have spared us this whole thread.
I agree with this though. Speaking from experience here too from when I used to be much worse about subnotes.
Making an attempt to describe the edit being done will save you a lot of unneeded scrutiny and save others from feeling like they need to scrutinize.
_jules
Tbh, the "issue" is not RSG §10.1.7 but RSG §14.1.3. Proper submission notes, instead of Finished!, explaining what had been changed, which credits were corrected / completed / moved to tracks because they previously were inaccurate would have spared us this whole thread.
Since it involved so much fine print to read and re-do, I did the edits in multiple steps. In the earlier edits I explained that there are credits missing and a lot of misrepresentations.
Granted I could have explained why I moved the credits (as on release).
But since the release also featured full pics when Mop66 added them about a month ago, I figured everybody could check they are accurate and as on release.
Duly noted, but still, I would think that even if I explained it more thouroughly in the submission notes, there would have been an argument about it, since the who started this thread (and at least one other in the discussion too) still think it's a "moving around" and could/should have been left in the section it was before.
Mr.Slut
3. The previous state the item was in was did NOT reflect how the credits are presented ON THE RELEASE. Not only in positions (not being listed as release wide credits for most artists involved), but also in their roles for each track.
The way you entered/moved things, I get the impression this release has some credits which listed by track, and some which are listed in a separate credits section. In that situation, I do prefer to mirror the release's presentation as closely as possible. Whether this is less confusing, and thus justified as more than a preference edit, is a judgment call, but my opinion is generally that it is easier to against the actual release.
But just to be clear, the credit guidelines don't quite say we must mirror the release's presentation of credit sections. I mean, if the release has a separate section for credits which maybe mention tracks but are not organized by track, there is no obligation to put those credits in the main credits section. Rather, what RSG §10.1.6 encourages is just the use of release-level credits for releases which apply to all tracks, unless it is more confusing. So any credits which apply to all tracks, regardless of whether they appear in a separate credits section, "should" go in the main credits section, so long as it doesn't hit the "confusing" threshold.
[edit:] ...not that I am very consistent in following this rule, myself.
Diognes_The_Fox
RSG §10.1.7 is intended to deal with edits made for the entire purpose of moving information around to suit personal preference. I do not feel it applies to situations like this
cheebacheebakid
This has always been my interpretation. Maybe the guideline could add a word to clarify? Something like
10.1.7. Please don't edit releases only to move about credits between sections because of personal preferences, as this can lead to errors being introduced.
Seems so easily abused, though? As was pointed out:
Mop66
The extreme of it would be that I add one credit and ther[e]fore have the option to start moving everything else around because of a 'major overhaul'. IMO, at least, it should be discussed rather than just applied before taking on such effort.
So maybe the guideline should say something about discussing any rearrangements first. I'm not sure I really want to see the forums clogged with "I have to make some edits; may I move these credits too" however.
mjb
The way you entered/moved things, I get the impression this release has some credits which listed by track, and some which are listed in a separate credits section. In that situation, I do prefer to mirror the release's presentation as closely as possible.
That is exactly like they are credited on release as you can see when looking at the page with credits in the booklet.
Most credits are listed WITH THE TRACKS.
Some are listed generally with reference TO THE TRACKS.
I moved those that are listed with the tracks to the tracks.
I left the general ones in the main credit section.
About the guideline. Leave it like it is. It's pretty clear. Adding the "only" would probably generate even more ambivalence. And to have anything like that discussed first - then nothing get's corrected anymore since we waste our time with having to greenlight everything.
Mr.Slut
I moved those that are listed with the tracks to the tracks.
I left the general ones in the main credit section.
Great, yes, like I said, I do agree with making the credits sections be divided exactly the way they are on the release, since it makes it easier to . It's just that in your initial post you were seeming to say that this decision is somehow more correct or better follows the rules than the way it was entered before. I am just pointing out that the guidelines don't really say that; RSG §10.1.6 is the only one that gives any preference at all, and it says we go with as-on-release only to the extent that we should use the main credits section for any credits which apply to all tracks, [implicitly] regardless of where those credits appear on the release. Whether that is really a necessary or helpful guideline is another matter. I think it would suffice to just leave out that advice and just leave it up to the submitters & editors to decide what is least confusing / most helpful.
mjb
It's just that in your initial post you were seeming to say that this decision is somehow more correct or better follows the rules than the way it was entered before.
Didn't say that, or at least didn't mean that.
I meant, that I corrected the entry as the previously listed release wide credits do not reflect the way the artists are presented on the release. E.g. Aimee is NOT listed with e.g. her role as Guitar player for the whole release. She's listed with guitar credits for a few tracks, and these credits appear WITH the tracks, not in the general release credits section.
I guess you got that anyway.
I never meant to imply that listing track credits with the tracks is better than listing them in the release wide section.
My (and I guess yours too) preference is -as on release-. If the credits are with each track, I list them with each track. If they are grouped in the main credits section on release, I list them that way too.
If they were entered before differently, I leave them as they are, unless of course, such as in this case, if they are wrong.
_jules
Proper submission notes, instead of Finished!, explaining what had been changed, which credits were corrected / completed / moved to tracks because they previously were inaccurate would have spared us this whole thread.
Hmm it's damn sickening how you always seem to hit the nail on the head but you've done it again. I think that's something a lot of s, myself included, need to take on board.
