[mb-style] AR Types

[Chris B]

On 06/01/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > the liner notes one i don't really understand: say a release has liner
> > notes about track X - well it's still on the release, so IMO a AR
> > connecting the track to the artist providing the liner notes is kind
> > of meaningless on its own as you don't know where the liner notes
> > *are*. i think ultimately you'd get just as much value by connecting
> > the release to the artist - after all, if you have the release to read
> > the notes, you'll already know what tracks they comment on anyway :)
>
> But the point isn't only to inform those who want info on releases they own.
>  The point is to best identify the credit.  I can think of many classical
> works, for example, where you have a large booklet.  You'll likely have one
> person who does a composer bio towards the front - "additional release liner
> notes".  You then have someone who does liner notes that proceed through the
> booklet - "release liner notes".  Then you have liner notes on each work -
> "track liner notes".  Often it's differentiated by one person being listed
> for "liner notes" in the rear credits, while the others have a credit below
> just their bit of the liner notes.  I'm not sure, then, how "you'd get just
> as much value by connecting
> the release to the artist" by throwing away the ability to connect the
> artist (the liner notes author) directly to the track they wrote about,
> rather than simply making it appear as if they wrote about the release
> entire.

but think about what this track AR will look like at the track level
(bearing in mind that 'tracks' are to be eventually 'track masters',
so separate from releases) - "track liner notes by X" - where is this
liner note? for me it seems to have no value outside of the specific
release they are because a 'track' (that is featured on many releases)
can't have 'liner notes' outside of its specific release.

discounting track masters, it makes sense, but IMO i think we have to
think ahead to that lest we repeat what we are doing now :)

> > the production ones - i don't think it's as complicated as you make
> > out. i only know of 2 concrete release-only production roles, and they
> > aren't anything to do with what we current have as production ARs*
> > which are recording-related. these are reissue producer and
> > compilation producer, and i have defined these. everything else is
> > type 1.
>
> > * except 'Executive Producer', that's type 2 as well
>
> The more I've thought about it, the more it does make sense that just about
> any non-performance release AR can be linked to the release entire, and not
> sublimated down to the track level.  Most, if not all, of these can also be
> found at the track level.  The difficulty may more lie in our always being
> able to tell just which a credit is.  But just googling quickly, I turned
> up:
>
> "Album Lead Producer"
> "Album Co-Producer"
> "Album Producer"
> http://www.trentbruner.net/Content/pid=19.html

Album Lead Producer = Producer
Album Co-Producer = Co-Producer
Album Producer = Additional Producer (in this context)

> "Album Producer"
> "Album Producer/Arranger"
> (note that he also has a listing there for just "producer" - I don't know
> the artist, nor the album, but I'd guess perhaps he only produced some
> tracks on that album, hence his not claiming an "Album Producer" role.)
> http://www.brucehanifan.com/cds.htm

without knowing the other credits on this release it's difficult to
say what 'producer' means. i think it would be safe to say it's normal
producer role if there's no other producers

> "Co-Executive Album Producer"
> http://www.globalsoccertransfers.com/gst/qttwist.html

Co-Executive Producer (which is as i said before, the only production
AR that should be Type 2, along with Compilation Producer and Reissue
Producer, should they be added)

> "Album engineer and mixer Richard Lush" -  Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club
> Band
> http://www.milesago.com/stage/rocky-horror.htm

Engineer, etc etc

> "Geoff Emerick     ....     original soundtrack album engineer: AIR Studios"
> (again for Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band)
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078239/fullcredits
>
>
> "Ross Cullum was the album's engineer, and also its co-producer."
> http://enya.sk/enya-faq.htm
>
>
> "Jack's Mannequin's album engineer is CJ Eiriksson."
> http://www.tv.com/jacks-mannequin/person/421135/trivia.html
>
> Now I'm not going to claim these are all correct - but I'd suggest that if
> my 3 minute Google search can find specific listings by artists themselves
> differentiating between "album foo" and "foo" roles, then such a
> differentiation within the same production ARs does in fact exist

I think we're talking about 2 different things here. To say something
can be type 2 is to say it can ONLY apply to the release, not the
releases tracks. obviously an engineer can't engineer a 'release'
without engineering some or all of the tracks. It's the same with our
current production roles (excepting 'Exec Prod' as discussed) as they
are all to do with the recording and manipulation of audio, so it is
impossible for these to be type 2, as we currently define them.

if you are talking about a general 'production' role (as in the
funding and/or organisation of funding and/or adminstration of the
recording of a release, rather than any hands on work) then that would
be a separate role to what we currently use these AR's for. That kind
of producer role will typically be called 'Executive Producer' these
days, anyway.