As I told @magicroundabout in notes already, I updated work with infos from liner notes from official release, where group artist is credited as written by. This can count as artist intent and it’s also @jesus2099’s opinion to credit works this way.
On the other hand Relationship Types / Artist-Work / Writer says: “In many cases, the composer, lyricist and/or librettist relationship types should be used, even if the liner notes say this work was “written by” the artist, since we prefer specific relationship types.”, which would go against that practice.
I’m still not sure, how this artist-work-credit looks best.
The one problem with that is that, as @jesus2099 mentioned, relatively often royalty sites will list every member despite some of them having nothing to do with the specific track, just so that everyone gets paid equally. So it’s not really a very clear “who wrote this” claim, as much as “who should get paid for this” claim.
But if the liner notes say “written by band” and the royalty sites list all four members of the band… that is different than when the liner notes say “written by band” and royalty sites list one guy and an outside guy.
That’s what I mean by hype. The press agents tell the story of one thing to create an image, while the truth is something totally different.
Personally I would encourage going beyond artist’s intent with works, in particular when attribution of a work becomes a matter of historical record. It is why we even have, for example, the “previously attributed to” relationship. To me, a work transcends any given set of liner notes, and possibly contradicts them. It is the domain of the librarian, archivist and historian.
And specifically, not the domain of rights societies, although their databases can at times actually be indicative of actual artist involvement.
Semantically, “unofficial” has a cultural implication of hearsay, and applying it even to cases of historical fact might not be ideal. Also, again, a work transcends liner notes not only in the fact that it may contradict them, but that it may be performed, and thus attributed arbitrarily, any number of times. For works, we ought to take liner notes as informative, but not definitive, records of authorship.
Maybe this shows my age. But “in my day”, no one got rich selling records. Records were considered advertising. You advertised your music so that people would come to the live show. Live shows is where you made your money.
And that would make the liner notes, by extension, a press release.
Plus, when it comes to printing, it is much easier to say “written and performed by the band” instead of listing each and every single credit.
Well, actually I guess it’s rather more the case nowadays than it ever used to be.
Now with fewer and fewer people buying records.
Frankly, except in budget various artists compilations like ULTRA BEST OF MEGA DANCE, I don’t think it’s true for original albums and singles.
These credits have always been quite thought out and fruit of a decision.
I think individual credits are preferable, if known.
The members of a group may change with the time.
When the same song appears on a compilation or is covered, there are usually the individual writers mentioned in the liner notes/booklet etc. and it becomes difficult to find the work (especially for covers) if it has someone else as writer.
If you go against artist intent, you must really prove it (who really composed and who really wrote lyrics is not official nor public) and explain in work annotation.
I think we should generally not add composer/lyricist credits etc. according to info from rights societies.
I agree with Jesus that if something is differently credited on the release it’s probably artist intent.
Not sure about the other databases but at least GEMA occasionally has e.g. remixers credited as composers but the fact that they receive royalties for their contribution doesn’t make them composers in MB terminology.
After all, we want to record information about authorship and not about who’s getting paid.
And whatever the outcome in this discussion will be, it should be added to the guidelines or we’ll keep having a mix of the 2 approaches.
But my concern with “artist intent” is the fact that it is the entertainment business. There are a lot of “characters” being played by “actors”. A lot of “press releases” that look like reviews and rumours and biographies. I’ve been an insider too long to believe the things I read.
Alice Cooper is always a good example - because he doesn’t exist, and at the same time it exists in 2 forms.
If a song says written by Alice Cooper, are they referring to the character played by Vincent Furnier, or are they talking about the entire group of guys? *For this conversation, I am ignoring the 3rd option.
And, for the record, I will always “follow the rules” of the site. The site just needs to decide if it wants to be a fact-based database of musical information, or if it wants to be an advertising arm of the entertainment industry.
I am fine with artist intent for spelling (ca$h //\0n3y should be listed as cash money, because that is the intent of the words they stylized) and other things of the sort. But when it comes down to who wrote or performed on a song - why would we bother saying John Smith wrote a song when he didn’t?
Let’s take an example and tell me how you manage:
When a booklet says that FACE TO FACE was written by LUNA SEA (a band).
Stating that 5 members wrote lyrics and 5 members wrote music (splitting credits to members) is not a fact, it’s plain wrong for sure.
If all you know is that Luna Sea wrote it. You put Luna Sea.
But when it is easily accessible to see that 5 people wrote the song, you write the five people.
Will this ever happen in reality?
And if it does happen, which is IMO highly unlikely, will you know? How?
I think this topic elaborates around something that is very rare in fact, or even that never occurs (that both all members participate and that we can know it for sure).
Of course, when more specific confirmed information is available (e.g. from an artists website, other releases, interviews, fan sites, …) we should use it.
But in Jesus’ example: even if all 5 members of Luna Sea receive royalties for the song this does not necessarily mean that they all contributed to the writing.
It’s just not the same kind of information (even though it correlates in most cases). And I don’t see how assuming a 1:1 correlation helps to improve data quality compared to having credits as available from official sources.
BTW, “characters” whose names might stand for a person or a band (Alice Cooper, Marilyn Manson, Mortiis, ASP, …) are a different story. The challenge is to find out who is meant if the “character” is credited for something.
Even if according to BMI all members of the Alice Cooper band receive royalties for “Poison” this does not necessarily mean that McCurry and Child contributed to the lyrics.
Then don’t put that the five individual names wrote lyrics and wrote music.
Just say that they were writers.
Think about it. You are, in fact, crediting all five guys with writing the song by listing the band name. So, how is that any different than listing them individually if you have a list of their names somewhere?
And, as someone previously mentioned, by listing the band name, the question becomes “when a band’s personnel changes, which members of the band wrote it if you are simply crediting the band as the writers”
Plus, let’s face it. Liner notes can say that the band wrote it. But if a royalty site says that only 4 wrote it, then you known darn well that the 5th guy didn’t participate.
No you’re not—you’re crediting the organization. That’s different.
With a small band, it’s often the same thing, but not always. But think of larger “bands”: not every member of an orchestra, choir, etc. may play on every track credited to the orchestra (choir, etc.).
Take for example https://musicbrainz.org/release/d9e473ff-8889-470c-929d-cb598927e784 where the choir and orchestra is probably over 100 musicians; and yet on most of those tracks entire sections of the orchestra are absent. But saying the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra played on them is still correct. If you actually knew which particular members of the choir and orchestra performed on each track, it’d be correct to credit them too. Those are clearly different both are/would be correct. Listing all 100+ musicians on each track would be a very different claim and is incorrect.
Additionally to the problem where they expand band to members for their own specific purpose, royalty databases will also replace actual writers by PD/DP public domain once the work royalties expire.
They would also credit real names instead of pen-names sometimes.
