Crediting a remix album

MusicBrainz Style
, , ,
1

As per usual, I’m struggling with how to enter remixes. https://mmzrecords.bandcamp.com/album/the-kid-marscat-remixes consists of two Secret Chiefs 3 songs that have been remixed by Kid MarsCat.

Well, it’s more complicated than that. The two original songs are by SC3 satellite bands UR and Ishraqiyun, respectively, and the remixes contain performances by Nothingnæss Præsence and 964 Outsidr, which appear to be distinct roles performed by Kid MarsCat.

Here’s some relevant text from the Bandcamp page:

On this release we feature Kid MarsCat’s two semi-official* remixes of the Secret Chiefs 3 songs “Personae: Halloween” (originally by UR) and “Bereshith” (originally by Ishraqiyun), with additional arrangements, instrumentation and production by her, as performed by Nothingnæss Præsence and 964 Outsidr.

Both of these remixes were built from the Musica Practica stems released by SC3 in 2017–2018, which allow this non-commercial release to be featured and shared here.

I wish the MusicBrainz documentation were more explicit about remixes (and about many other things :slight_smile:), but my understanding from threads like Album + remix style guide is that a remix should generally be credited to the original artist.

I’d appreciate feedback about whether I entered this release correctly.

  • I credited the release to Secret Chiefs 3 (like Bandcamp does).
  • I titled the release The Kid MarsCat Remixes (like Bandcamp does).
  • I credited the new recordings to UR and Ishraqiyun (like the original recordings do).
  • I shortened the recording titles to Personae: Halloween (Æsch mix א) and Bereshith (Digital Digital Digital Forever mix) (dropping the Nothingnæss Præsence and 964 Outsidr prefixes).
  • I gave the recordings “remix of” relationships pointing to these Personae: Halloween and Bereshith recordings.
  • I gave the recordings “samples from” relationships pointing to the MUSICA PRACTICA *Geek Pack Two*: Halloween and MUSICA PRACTICA *Geek Pack One*: Bereshith releases.
  • I gave both recordings “remixer” relationships linking to Kid MarsCat.
  • I gave the recordings “performer” relationships linking to Nothingnæss Præsence and 964 Outsidr, respectively.
  • I initially started adding additional “producer” and “instruments” relationships linking to Nothingnæss Præsence and 964 Outsidr, but then created an edit to remove them after deciding that I’d interpreted the text incorrectly, and that those relationships should probably point at Kid MarsCat if they’re added.

The one part that doesn’t sit well with me is how the new release group is now listed on the Secret Chiefs 3 artist page alongside the other EPs that were actually released by SC3. The only way to tell that this isn’t an actual SC3 release seems to be by clicking through to see the remix credits on the individual tracks.

In this case, the release has at least been acknowledged by the original artist. Here’s the footnote for the “semi-official” asterisk in the Bandcamp text:

[ * – semi-official as of 2020/11/07 in the sense that Secret Chiefs 3 shared and praised the release on their Facebook page here: www.facebook.com/secretchiefs3/posts/10164323688320015 ]

Part of me still wonders if the release should instead be credited to Kid MarsCat (since that’s, you know, the person who actually released it!), but doing that while preserving the title The Kid MarsCat Remixes feels pretty odd.

2

(Aside since the initial post is long: I think the MarsCat artist should probably be renamed to Kid MarsCat, based on how she refers to herself on her website and in recent releases.)

3

based on what I’m reading, should the tracks not be credited to either Secret Chiefs 3 or Nothingnæss Præsence and 964 Outsidr? the tracks seem to be credited to NP and 964, which is why I ask. that’s just how Bandcamp does artist credits

I think I would also propose that the release group (maybe the release too) be credited to Kid MarsCat, since yes, they released it on their own label. alternatively, it could be Secret Chiefs 3 and Kid MarsCat. the release group doesn’t have to match the release artist credits (although in most cases that is best practice)

1 Like
4

If there’s stuff that’s confusing or missing from the docs and then you get to the bottom of it, please do suggest changes and additions!

It’s not very arduous to edit the docs, once we know what’s to be done :+1:

1 Like
5

Hmm. I had the impression that remixes are typically credited to the recordings’ original artists, who I think would be UR and Ishraqiyun in this case. See e.g. the comment by @reosarevok in this thread:

Or are you suggesting that I should set the recording artists to UR and Ishraqiyun and then set the tracklist’s artist credits to Nothingnæss Præsence and 964 Outsidr?

Crediting both the release group and release to Kid MarsCat would definitely be my preference, but I feel like I’d be hiding the important information that this is an album of SC3 remixes unless I also changed the release title to something like “Secret Chiefs 3: The Kid MarsCat Remixes”. I think I’d prefer that, actually, but I wonder if it’s too much of a stretch. All of those words appear on the album cover, but it’s not the way the artist entered the title when she uploaded the album to Bandcamp.

1 Like
6

that could be done, I just saw that a different artist entity was being credited on Bandcamp and MusicBrainz…

that is a solution I might use here~

7

Thanks, here are some edits updating the release group and release in case you (or anyone else) wants to vote one way or the other:

Happy to do this. Is there any documentation about changing the style docs to add additional guidance and examples, or should I just edit the corresponding wiki page and ping @reosarevok to verify that what I wrote is reasonable?

1 Like
8

Not sure if there’s a suggested process, I usually put the proposed changes in the forums (e.g. here) and ping reo, and then others can input as well.

Then if nobody replies for a while, including reo, I would just update the docs :sunglasses:

4 Likes
9

To start out with, I’d like to add something like the following to a new “Remixes” section under “Special cases” in the Artist Credits page:

A recording that is a remix of another recording should typically be credited to the original recording’s artist, not to the remixer. The artist who remixed the song should be linked via a remixer relationship. The remixed song’s title (including any parenthetical information like the remixer’s name) should be preserved.

I think that this is the way that remixes are already entered, but I found the lack of documentation about remixes (other than the niche OC ReMix page) confusing when I was starting out. Thoughts about this, @reosarevok or anyone else?

(I know that I’m including some guidance about titles on the AC page, but it felt a bit cleaner than splitting it. Also happy to rewrite this to use imperative statements rather than “should be” if that’s preferred; the current docs are a mix of the two styles. :slight_smile: )

3 Likes
10

BTW, oc remix tracks are covers, not remixes.
Unlike remixes, the track and recording artist is the covering artist, not the original covered artist. :thinking::grin:

1 Like
11

There was some agreement and no objections, so I’ve added the remix guidelines proposed above to Style/Artist Credits - MusicBrainz Wiki.

3 Likes
12

Pinging @reosarevok, I’ve given it a look (checked links etc) and the new remix section looks all good. And in line with “the usual standard”. Ready to transclude?

My only note is the use of the word ‘typically’ in there - if we don’t have any examples where this isn’t the case, then ‘should’ is probably vague enough and we can take out ‘typically’. Unless there are a bunch of cases where it doesn’t apply.

I’m sure there will be more complex or difficult examples that could be added to this eventually/as they arise.

Wild that we don’t have remix guidelines in the docs already (or did my search-fu fail me?)

2 Likes
13

the proposed guidelines refer to the recording’s artist, would this apply to the track artist too? I wonder if the track artist should be as credited on the release, whether the remixer of the original artist, and the recording is credited to the original artist either way

1 Like
14

Maybe my imagination is too limited, but I’m having a hard time coming up with situations where I’d expect the track artist to differ substantially from the recording artist. I think that some differences make sense if the tracklist credits the artist using a different language from the recording, or the tracklist uses a nickname or alias or something along those lines, but it feels to me like the tracklist and the recording should credit the same underlying artist entity.

Style / Release - MusicBrainz says this:

Track artists should follow the release artist, except where another artist is credited in the track listing of the release.

Style / Recording - MusicBrainz says this:

The artist should usually be the same as in the track listing of the first release of the recording.

1 Like
15

I can’t think of any specific examples right offhand, but in my experience it’s not unusual where the original artist isn’t credited on the release at all. we’ve got two options in these cases:

  1. standardize the artist credit on the release by crediting the original artist on the track level
  2. enter the release as credited and leave the original artist off of the track level. in this case, I’d think the recording artist and track artist will be different, credited to the original artist and remixer respectively

there’s advantages to both. standardization is usually good, but if someone is looking up a track credited to the remixer, as their tracks’ metadata would tell them, they might have a hard time finding it if it’s credited to the original artist.

having a different track and recording artist is not without precedent, as Classical Style recommends having different artists on the track and recording level (the performing artists and composer respectively)

edit: I came across an example of a release with several remixes credited to the remixer, not the original artist, tracks 9 and 21–23:

1 Like
16

Thanks for that example. The page that the data was sourced from is down now (balloonparty.buckevents.co.uk doesn’t resolve), but there’s a snapshot at https://web.archive.org/web/20170812085606/http://balloonparty.buckevents.co.uk:80/album/one-last-shot.

I think I still lean in the direction of standardization, especially since pretty much all of my editing nowadays is around online releases. I’m not particularly knowledgeable about the music industry, but I get the vibe that there are more “rules” (and proofreading) in the publishing of physical media than in the online world, and I’m uncomfortable with attributing things in a particular way just because of what someone typed into a text field when they were uploading an album to Bandcamp.

At the same time, I have to acknowledge that the rules occasionally break down in the physical world too, e.g. songs getting credited to the “original” artists in 26 Mixes for Cash even when the “original” material allegedly wasn’t used (but RJD lies so much in interviews that that could be a fib too…).

Do you think that changing my suggested remix guidelines to include something like “… except in cases where the tracklist explicitly credits the remixer” would be better? (This conflicts with the way that I entered credits for the release that started this thread, but my original goal was just to avoid having an unsanctioned remix album show up in the original artist’s discography.)

(Edit: And while I was writing that, Bandcamp sent me email about this new album of “insturmentals”. Sigh.)

17

Sorry, I’ve got lost in this conversation… but one question I want to check. If “Artist A” remixes a track of “Artist B” and it is not official I assume this will not appear on “Artist B” discography?

What I mean is…

  • If someone on YouTube does a remix of a famous track then this should not appear under the original artist’s official discography.
  • If famous artist asks someone else to remix their track, then that should appear in the discography.

How is this distinction made?

18

I just spent the day fixing those remixes up a bit, adding the remixes’ single releases and whatnot. the remixers mostly credited the original artists, oddly enough, it’s just the compilation that got the weird credits…

also, the release is still available, just not at that link. I’ve added the current link

I think that would be better, I believe

I believe in most cases, the remixer would be credited as the release artist, unless it’s a remix EP/album (example 1 and 2) with multiple remixers and one original artist. the reason being that usually the remixer is the one doing the releasing. perhaps that should be added to the guidelines too?

3 Likes
19

How about a second sentence along these lines?

The remixer may be credited instead if the tracklist explicitly credits the song to the remixer rather than to the original artist.

Should it be a stronger “The remixer should be credited …”?

The release-credited-to-original-artist case was actually why I started this thread – it seems wrong to me for a remix album to appear in an artist’s discography if it wasn’t actually released by the artist

I got a bit sidetracked when I noticed that there don’t seem to be any guidelines about how to credit the individual recordings and figured I’d try to document that first since the rules for that seem more established and less controversial. :slight_smile:

I plan to suggest a separate change to the “Artist” section of Style / Release - MusicBrainz stating that the artist responsible for the release (i.e. the remixer) should be credited for the release if the original artist had no involvement in its release. I’ll hold off on that until the recording artist discussion is complete, though.

2 Likes
20

Okay, moving on to the second part of this…

https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release documents the release artist field as follows:

The artist(s) that the release is primarily credited to, as credited on the release.

https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release provides the following guidelines:

In general, you should just enter the artist(s) as shown on the release (see the guidelines for artist credits). See Special Purpose Artist for what to enter when there is no proper artist or the artist is unknown.

I’d like to add something like this to the style page:

If a release was created without any participation from the credited artist (e.g. a remix or mashup album that was created without the knowledge of the original artist(s)), it is acceptable to instead credit the release to the artist who created it. Bootleg albums that just repackage the original artist’s work should be credited to the original artist and given the “bootleg” status.

If people agree that that’s a reasonable exception, are there any good examples demonstrating this? The only example that I have is the Kid Marscat / Secret Chiefs 3 remix album from the top of this thread, but it’s a confusing one since both Kid Marscat and SC3 (Trey Spruance) release music under a variety of artist names.

Maybe The Grey Album (credited to Danger Mouse rather than Jay-Z or The Beatles) or Q-Unit: Greatest Hits (credited to The Silence Xperiment rather than 50 Cent or Queen) would work. However, those don’t demonstrate the exception since neither of them were ever credited to any of the original artists, as far as I’m aware.

Again, my main motivation here is just to avoid having an unsanctioned remix album show up in the original artist’s discography. Maybe using the “bootleg” status would be a better way to accomplish that, but it doesn’t feel quite right for a derived work – the bootleg designation seems to typically be assigned to leaked material like NIN’s Purest Feeling or Jai Paul’s demo, or releases from bootleg/pirate labels that just repackage the original artists’ work.

2 Likes