With a classical release, is there any guidance as to the order that performer artists credits should be listed?
For example, there are some releases where the artist credits are
Mahler; Valery Gergiev, London Symphony Orchestra
with others (in the same series of releases so similar artist credits on the artwork)
Mahler; London Symohony Orchestra, Valery Gergiev.
The cover art lists Gergiev above (more prominently than) LSO, but have I missed a reason why they are listed in reverse in some cases?
Classical is ruled by many (unwritten) conventions and traditions. For Recordings I systematically use: „Soloist(s), (choir and) orchestra, conductor“. This is the order also used by the script „replace Recording Artists from Recording AR“.
The more important thing of all is that the relationships are there and are good I generally also do soloists, orchestra, conductor, but I won’t cry if someone changes some for consistency.
Just noting that another example from the guidelines has the soloist last. By cover it would be Copland, London Symphony Orchestra, William Warfield, Columbia Symphony Orchestra. So, it follows none of the two suggested styles put forward in this thread.
Copland Conducts Copland Copland; London Symphony Orchestra, Columbia Symphony Orchestra, Copland, William Warfield
The rationale for this may be that the soloist, other than the orchestra and the conductor, performs only on a few of the tracks. Despite the prominent place the conductor takes on the cover art it’s still orchestra before conductor.
Front cover art often follows marketing issues – putting forward the most notable, best selling Artist(s). See the Karajan example above: Karajan is prominently shown on the front cover, but on back cover and medium it’s the conventional order: orchestra, conductor
Warfield performs on the same amount of tracks as Columbia Symphony Orchestra, though, yet he’s listed at the end. We’re already following the marketing on the cover (or spine) for the artists that are credited[1], not back cover. Since no set order is explicit in the guidelines, I’ve always used the cover (or spine if more detailed) order. That’s how non-classical releases are entered, and if there’s no set guidelines, I think a lot of people will fall back on that.
The order is often fairly unclear - for example, if the orchestra is listed above the conductor but the conductor is in larger print, what is the intended order?
In the end, release artists are mostly a bag of entities so that things appear on all the right pages, since the only really useful data for classical releases is in the relationships.
I don’t have answer which is best, but I think it is better to specify a rule even if slightly arbitary rather than no rule, three options could be.
Add in order listed on spine
Add in order displayed on cover
Add from cover largest font size first, if no difference in font size and then order displayed
I dont agree, it does show some kind of artist intent, this maybe the most important contributor to the recording first, it maybe the most well known contributor first, it may reflect influence of the contributors or what the record company are pushing. But the point is somebody has made the decision they are not added randomly and therefore release artist field allows us to capture this.
I generally also do soloists, orchestra, conductor, but I won’t cry if someone changes some for consistency.