I have no problem with supporting the choice of “filing a release under VA”.
My solution offers this choice and, I would suggest, it be the default choice.
I also support the label’s obvious intent to credit artists that it expects will be known by prospective buyers.
We can do both.
That is, we can say this is a release that generally fits in the VA category and these are the specific artists credited at the release level.
Both of these things can be true.
What is wrong with giving this freedom to MB editors to reflect the same freedom that actual labels regularly use.
Freedom to express the truth is a good thing.
Why not?
1 Like
Are you talking about your proposed changes to release groups to have a VA toggle or similar? Like I said, with changes that make this not break a ton of stuff, and let people pick, great (maybe I shouldn’t have said ‘database changes’). Why not indeed!
Until then I don’t think there’s community support for changing these credits.
1 Like
The label’s “obvious intent” is to file under Various Artists. As it is sold in the shop. As they promote these releases.
What you are doing here is misreading how the graphic artists has displayed information on an image to sell the release.
Where do these CDs sit on your shelf? These release have always been sold as VARIOUS and stocked as Various on the Various shelf in the store. You would never find these on the Artist’s shelf.
Please put in tickets and discuss changes like this that affect the way the database works. I have never seen any other database or website try and file a NOW collection under a named artist. These are not part of an artist’s discography.
The MB way of having the toggle on the Artist’s release page seems to cover this perfectly.
4 Likes
I am guessing that the VA boolean attribute of a release and release group is currently being evaluated by answering a question something like
A. Is there one MB AC component for the release/group and is it VA?
Instead, I suggest we answer the question
B. Is there any MB AC component that is VA?
Certainly, if A is true then B is true.
So, filtering behavior in MB will not change.
However, B will still be true when other MB AC components are present (for example, those on the release). A concatenated presentation of this will work too as long as the presentation of VA is empty.
So, the DB need not change.
A MB release can be in the VA category and accurately enumerate all the credits on the release (just don’t present the VA ones).
As always Picard tagging can choose what is done using the answer to B.
But it does achieve this already, by way of the track list. I don’t see what the aim here is?
The data your trying to capture is already captured in the track list artist credits… and the marketing copy is captured by means of submitting cover art.
5 Likes
Credits on the tracklist are often not the same as credits on the release.
The database is designed to keep these separate for this reason.
Why accept “close enough” if/when we can specify it exactly.
Of course cover art is great but it is not searchable/indexable in the DB.
Why have any textual database fields if we can just look at the cover art?
The label’s obvious intent with such releases is too sell product.
To this end, artists are credited that, they deem, will sell product.
The higher expected value, the more prominent an artist is credited.
This is certainly information that we could capture in MB.
What is the harm?
Databases can be much more powerful in finding things than serially browsing record bins in a brick and mortar shop.
Per my proposal, we can do things the brick and mortar way (show me all VA releases which is useless in MB) but we could also answer questions like show me all VA releases that credit artist X.
I am proposing a more powerful model where we can do both.
Can we get an example of such an occurrence? I’ve never encountered anything like that. Every VA compilation I’ve encountered (from any country of release, various formats and eras) have always had what you’re trying to capture within the track listing as well…
This (OP) one …
…where some of the “less important” track artists have been dropped off the release credits and replaced with “and many more”.
Not a VA release but interesting
You are redefining what the label has released based on what a graphic artist has drawn. Every record store puts the NOW collection under Various Artists. Every library. Every database. Every collector with their music collection.
I have never seen an artist list the NOW collections as part of their discographies on their websites.
I understand you are trying to document what a graphic artist has chosen, but I agree with others that this is not what the musicians or labels are meaning. You are taking a badly worded guideline and twisting it in a strange way.
These kinds of collections are literally just adverts to promote the real work. The VA collections are nearly always just repeats of singles, etc. I don’t think any NOW collection has included an exclusive track.
Errr… I don’t even see how that is part of this debate. It is regular sales trick to confuse Jimi Hendrix with Jimi Hendrix and the Experience releases. Salesmen are dicks - but this should not mean that we damage the database to fit their needs. (Jimi’s abused sales is a separate OT conversation all of it’s own 
)
3 Likes
I am not redefining anything. A VA release is a VA release. StilI. Put it in a VA bin if you want. No problem. I am just allowing the independent capture of release AC.
It seems that you are dismissing what the graphics artist has presented. I submit, in most cases (VA or not) the graphics artist is directed by the label or artist on what information needs to be presented. I can’t imagine that a marketeer would give a graphics artist the freedom on how the product should be marketed.
No matter, all that I am suggesting is that we allow MB editors to reflect what the release is.
VA or not, release credits or not.
this is such a great idea, i totally agree. i always add releases with how it’s written on the cover art, but in this case, it’s wrong because it’ll clutter many discographies with an album the artist has probably never even heard of. taylor swift, for example, has two compilation albums. however, if we added all the va releases because her name is on the cover, she’d have two full pages of various artists compilations on her profile, which is totally unnecessary when she probably only even has one song on the album. your idea of a boolean will let us restore the artists as listed on the cover, while also keeping the correct data on the page of the artist. until that exists, various artists is better.
1 Like
FYI all, a line has been added to the guidelines to cover these cases, hopefully preventing future confusion/back and forth. I’ll link the ticket again:
I feel like I need to remind the community about this precedent.
Fact is, transcribing the front cover graphic design isn’t what most people are looking for from their titles and credits.
2 Likes
We cannot always compare everything.
Here we wanted to keep artist data, provided on the cover.
Your example wanted to remove title data, lacking on the cover.
Cover is often not showing everything.
But ok. 