Dissuading work arrange relationships

relationships
style
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f309a34cde0> #<Tag:0x00007f309a34cc50>

#1

Continuing the discussion from New release has wrong recording artists?:

The biggest problem for me with more auto edits is the auto edited all relationship edits.
I have just spotted an editor adding all arrange credits at work level instead of recording level.
I have just fixed the one for my watched artist but other than that, I can just tell them to please move those relationships with no guaranty that it will be eventually done.
There are too many relationships : I won’t fix even if I spotted them.
In old times I could have also voted down those then open edits.
Thus no mistakes would have been in.

I remember there was discussion about dissuading editors from attaching ARRANGE relationships at work level but I can’t find it any more, it must have been on the old (inaccessible) forums, then.

I wish we would eventually dissuade people from linking “arrange” artists at work level with some red text.
Those are only good for some classical works as I was once told.


Adding cover song works as well as arranger to the original songs
#2

In work databases like GEMA they also use relations that correspond with an ARRANGE relationship.
for example: http://musicbrainz.org/work/a7e35d36-292e-3b67-8669-6e118fc5ef66
https://online.gema.de/werke/search.faces - ISWC: T-801.955.908-2 (Bearbeiter means editor or arranger).

The work even has it’s own ISWC, so it makes sense to add it there. Therefore I wouldn’t generally eliminate this relationship, although I agree that it should be mainly used at the recording level.


#3

Unless the difference is very clear, I would still use a single work (which can have multiple ISWCs).


#4

It’s rare they have any, but, as @chirlu says, I generally not take the arrange relationship from JASRAC / SACEM / etc.
Those only rarely credit arrange (公編), it’s a minority.
Isn’t it a minority in GEMA as well ?
I mean outside of classical works.
I am not against all work arrange relationships, I just mean it’s a minority, it’s usually more related to recording and attaching them to work is usually a mistake.

Oh but OK for your speciifc example, according to JASRAC it’s a Scottish traditional/folklore.
In those cases, arrangements can have their importance, like additional composition in a way.


#5

My experience with “arrangements” of traditional music (as a listener, player, and dancer for over 15 years) is that artists will usually add “arranged by [artist]” to any tune composed by [traditional]—mostly so that they can collect some “composition” royalty when performing the tune live or when recordings of it is played on the air. They should be Recording relationships in far most cases IMO.


#6

Yes, it was my gut feeling, but I couldn’t tell as a generalisation… :slight_smile:


#7

This would be great. Currently, I think that the guideline is not visible enough; I’ve been adding arrangers to works in all of my edits. I didn’t know that they should generally be added to recordings before someone told me about it in edit #54982206. The guideline is mentioned on the Artist-Work / Arranger relationship page, but I feel like there should be a warning of some kind when trying to add an arranger to a work.


#8

I quite agree. I have had to fix quite a few of these edits and no doubt there are many more out there.