[mb-style] Re: [mb-users] Featuring artist revisited...

[Chris Bransden]

On 24/09/06, Steve Wyles <steve at inhouse.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
>
> > Steve Wyles wrote:
> >> 3) The same work can be shown differently depending on the release it
> >> appears on. Particularly when it comes to VA compilation releases.
> >
> > So? Label them differently then. There is no written down guideline to make
> > titles consistent as far as I know.
>
> But you are actually attempting to apply consistancy by relying only on
> what the cover states. Covers can be inconsistant between different
> countries and also between the original first release and a second print
> run a couple of months later. Which cover information do you use?

the latest. in terms of the same pressing, as far as i can tell the
'latest' (ie, believed to be be 'most accurate') is used in other
instances of differences (eg track titles). however this only works
for different pressings of the same tracklisting, not entirely
different releases (which could be credited differently cos of
context)

> No, what you have is what the person designing the cover decided to
> include or under instruction by the label, the artist isn't always
> involved in that process. Also sometimes it depends on the contracts that
> have been signed as to whether a featuring artist is shown on the
> tracklisting or not. As far as I'm aware it is MB policy to state facts,
> not information supplied at the whim of the label.

the thing is, 'featuring' often *is* a decision of the label. eg they
often use it to bring a new artist to the fore, on the back of an
established one, by using the new name to provide guest vocals
(say...) on the track. often the entire track itself would be a
contractual obligation, so ArtistIntent might be to delete the release
:)

> Track listings on covers can't be relied upon to give accurate
> information. It should be the judgement of editors to include the
> important featuring information, not only what the cover states.

who are we to make that decision? mostly it would be down to whether
or not the editor thinks that the 'guest' is 'famous'  enough (define
'famous enough'?) to warrant a billing, right?

and what about when artists weren't 'famous' at the time? eg hendrix
was a session guitarist and no name band member in the early years -
most of which he has long since surpassed in recognition. should he be
retroactively 'featured' on these releases?

by the same token, a record label might chose to highlight his
appearence ("feat") on such tracks in a later date, in the context of
compilation appearences due to the fact that hendrix plays on them.
then the 'feat' begins to make sense. all about context IMO - you
can't go wrong.