Error report
Day After Day by Ben Monder
Submitted by
On September 10, 2020
Performance
Error description
History
I didn't add add that tag, VV did.
The version may be a droney instrumental and "unrecognizable" a subjective evaluation (possibly also applying to other tracks on the album). However, it's credited to Pete Ham only (see last track on the list: https://secondhandsongs.com/attachment/179498 ), so officially, it's a cover version.
Do you think the tag should be removed?
I couldn't care less about the tag.
Here's the guideline I have access to about "adaptation." If this is current, it does not say that "credited to" is anything more than one clue about whether a song is an adaptation. And if it's "unrecognizable," then surely it has had "substantial changes" to music or lyrics.
https://secondhandsongs.com/page/Guidelines/Entities/Works/WorksCreation
Just happened to spot this flowing through, a good place for the VirileVagabond tag?
Anyway, I reserve the "unrecognizable" tag for highly rearranged instrumentals on site in which I can't recognize any elements, etc. from the original work even knowing what it's supposed to be. If the tag is already there and I can hear it, I can acknowledge that others could easily not so I have no problems with the tag.
If the instrumental performance isn't on site, I will usually ask in the forum for opinions prior to finishing my review and submitting.
Recordings with vocals on site that I can't recognize as a cover get my now classic "are we sure" or "this may be a cover but not of" error reports. If I can't recognize a vocal recording not on site I will treat as a false lead but keep in my notes to keep from re-researching.
JC: Crediting composers and lyricists is the A and O for adding works of any kind. Maybe that's being taken for too self-evident to write it down explicitely in the guidelines. The three criteria listed for adaptations:
- The existence of a specific PRO entry
- Known adapting artists of music or lyrics
- Substantial changes to music or lyrics
A specific PRO entry means an official songwriter registration (= the credits). The latter mainly aims at preventing 'adaptations' co-registered by someone in spite of only minimal changes from being added.
VV: Your approach as explained seems well-thought.
My professional musician neighbor after less than a minute of listening (laughingly) asked "is that the old Badfinger song?", I really had to concentrate to recognize it, etc. That's what I mean to say with the above subjective evaluation.
In other words, "unrecognizable" doesn't mirror a fact (unlike, say, "live"). But tagging a sophisticated version as such may serve as a "warning" for users preferring versions close to originals.
However, JC's intervening "I couldn't care less about the tag" (itself) shows another aspect: Because obstensibly categorized as unrecognizable, questioning that the recording should at all be considered a cover version.
Last updated by camembert electrique on 2020-09-11 20:43:34 UTC - Show original message
"The three criteria listed for adaptations..."
I don't read the Guideline this way.
A different arrangement (which is what I think we're discussing) isn't new musical elements....
Here's a couple of "adaptations" that have no new songwriter "credits:"
(Stuff I found while looking for something else....)
(And, of course, the Elvis version of "Hound Dog" has radically different lyrics from the Thornton version, and neither Leiber nor Stoller wrote them, but there it is listed as the L&S song without being called an "adaptation." Go figure....)
Last updated by JeffC on 2020-09-12 02:40:10 UTC - Show original message
CE: The three criteria listed for adaptations...
JC: I don't read the Guideline this way
I don't know to which (or all three?) part(s) you're referring. *One is quite mandatory, but of course, there are unavoidable exceptions, and *3 has been discussed at length elsewhere.
VV: A different arrangement (which is what I think we're discussing) isn't new musical elements....
We're indeed talking about an unusually advanced and not easily comprehensable arranged version, but that doesn't per se constitute an adaptation...
To cut the story short: We don't really have any objective reasons to switch Monder's version to an adaptation. So, sorry, in order to avoid an endless discussion in the end leading to the same outcome and costing all of us time we could spend more effectibly, I won't do so.
Here's a couple of "adaptations" that have no new songwriter "credits:"
Sorry, but I'm not going to comment on or take the blame (should there be any) for other editors' way of working or additions - in the cases mentioned, unlike the one in question here, even using different titles (which indicates a lot). If in doubt, please contact whoever is in charge for respective entries...