Search

Feedback

Writing Credit Discrepancies

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5771

Tar Heel @ 2018-02-22 07:43:58 UTC

I regularly run across song writing discrepancies between (e.g.) images on the actual related releases and official sources (e.g. ASCAP). This is a constant source of irritation for me, as I tend to default to the credits printed on the relevant releases while SHS seems to default to ASCAP, etc. Two recent examples:


This Love

All the Small Things


While I understand that some decision has to be made based on a preferred source, I would also think that when there are such discrepancies between two or more strong sources, they need to be noted publicly in the comments. Such a policy would not only memorialize the findings but would also serve to mitigate against error reports on those questions.

tsk

Retired Editor
Posts: 6484

tsk @ 2018-02-22 12:59:24 UTC

VV:


Credits on the label are not as accurate as the copyright houses. Indeed, they are wrong with some frequency. For instance, credits on labels for "Stormy Monday Blues" and "They Call It Stormy Monday" are often wrong, and that is true of other different songs. Some songs do have a story about their authorship, and in those instances -- when I recognize them -- I will create a public comment. That said, the mere difference in attribution of songwriting credits between label and another source does not warrant a note, as the label attribution more often than not is demonstrably wrong.


Tim

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5771

Tar Heel @ 2018-02-22 14:12:36 UTC

Credits on the label are not as accurate as the copyright houses. Indeed, they are wrong with some frequency. For instance, credits on labels for "Stormy Monday Blues" and "They Call It Stormy Monday" are often wrong, and that is true of other different songs. Some songs do have a story about their authorship, and in those instances -- when I recognize them -- I will create a public comment. That said, the mere difference in attribution of songwriting credits between label and another source does not warrant a note, as the label attribution more often than not is demonstrably wrong.


I can easily see how that may be true for older recordings, not so much for more recent releases. Moreover, I typically look at various official releases of the same song (e.g. album, single, compilation) to see if the printed credits remain consistent before I put them in the discrepancy category.


Now I understand that subsequent litigation can result in altered credits, but that would justify a public comment as well in my view.

artsinspired

Managing Editor
Posts: 1393

artsinspired @ 2018-02-24 17:19:26 UTC

This topic was most recently discussed here but devolved into a discussion about sample credits.


I do think that we should be consistent in our approach, but where liner notes and royalty sites disagree, there generally doesn't need to be a comment. But things like the Clash album London Calling bother me and should be cleaned up. The songs were entered by different editors, and some followed the royalty sites while others seem to have followed the album notes (photos of the album are on the site).


Do we have a public policy page or something of that ilk in which things like this are stated? Might be a good idea.

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5771

Tar Heel @ 2018-02-24 17:31:49 UTC

...where liner notes and royalty sites disagree, there generally doesn't need to be a comment.


Art... Why do you take the position against a public comment? I see no harm but do see some advantages. The primary advantage that I see (as noted in my original post) is to avoid error reports on the question.


In short, if a user finds a discrepancy, they may hit the error button; however, if the different credits are noted in the comments then they might not.

tsk

Retired Editor
Posts: 6484

tsk @ 2018-02-25 00:50:31 UTC

As I indicated, sometimes there is a good reason to note discrepancies, but more often than not, you would be noting a discrepancy where one of the sources is simply wrong -- usually the label credits. To me, it is not productive to publicly state that the label credits and the copyright houses disagree, if there is no question that one of them is wrong. We don't get too many error reports involving attribution of songwriting credits, but if one is made based on label credits that are wrong, it is easy enough to reject the error report.

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5771

Tar Heel @ 2018-02-25 01:32:48 UTC

As I indicated, sometimes there is a good reason to note discrepancies, but more often than not, you would be noting a discrepancy where one of the sources is simply wrong -- usually the label credits. To me, it is not productive to publicly state that the label credits and the copyright houses disagree, if there is no question that one of them is wrong. We don't get too many error reports involving attribution of songwriting credits, but if one is made based on label credits that are wrong, it is easy enough to reject the error report.


I suppose that I currently don't have as much faith in the copyright credits as SHS management. Moreover (as stated above), I find it somewhat hard to believe that the same printing error will be repeated over a number of years and releases.


Finally, I will note that many users will likely miss a previously rejected error report than they would a public comment. Frankly, I find a discrepancy between the liner notes and the houses material and noteworthy rather than say between wiki, etc.

tsk

Retired Editor
Posts: 6484

tsk @ 2018-02-25 14:06:53 UTC

The copyright houses are clearly not perfect. There are works for hire or sold where the copyright is not in the name of the actual writer, but that situation isn't the typical inconsistency between label and copyright house. For older works, I actually think contemporaneous sheet music is a better source than the copyright houses, which often fail to distinguish lyricist and composer where the work isn't completely a joint effort. There are some really interesting stories about who should be credited for some works. For instance, we have relatively long public comments for "Hey Joe, Where You Gonna Go" and "You Are My Sunshine" relating to who deserves writing credit. I would certainly be willing to make a public comment when a label v. copyright house discrepancy arises, if the person noting the discrepancy actually has other information that supports the label attribution. Making a comment based on mere fact of a discrepancy with nothing more, however, seems to me that it can raise doubts about attribution where there really is no doubt.

Quentin

Retired Editor
Posts: 3427

Quentin @ 2018-02-25 15:10:02 UTC

1. Copyright houses don't tell you who wrote the song, they tell you who get the money... sometimes the actual writers get their share, sometimes other people do;

2. Credits on the release don't always tell the whole story... for instance, I may not want to be publicly credited for a song, but I may want to be paid for it... or (less likely) I want my name to appear on the sleeve, even though I won't be among the "right holders".

3. The biggest source of our problems: more or less tacit agreements among songwriters or band members. For instance, lyricist X writes the lyrics, composer Y writes the music, but the song is registered as Music & Lyrics= X+Y. Or band members A, B and C write their songs separately but sign them together. Unless we find some "public statements" or thorough researches, we'll never know if A wrote the song alone or was somehow helped by his bandmates (a bass line here, a drum beat there, add this rhyme, change this chord...)

To sum up: neither copyright houses nor releases are 100% accurate and reliable, and (despite what some people think and suggest) we are not supposed to brainlessly follow one source or the other. In fact, we are supposed to explain the reason why we followed one source or the other.

______
坐低飲啖茶,食個包

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5771

Tar Heel @ 2018-02-25 15:56:06 UTC

It seems like we've opened another related question that I've touched on several times before and I disagree with how SHS currently handles, namely when the "official" credits differ from who we know really wrote the song.


My position is that we always list who gets the official credit. This means (e.g.) Vince Ford rather than Marley for No Woman, No Cry ..., with the actual songwriters noted in the comments. Right now we are inconsistent with treatment. The Beatles are full of this, as most songs were written by either Lennon or McCartney, but officially credited to both per their partnership.


I've even pointed out an example where SHS credits an official fake songwriter and an unofficial real songwriter rather than either the real or both fakes. We aren't even consistent with the credits of a single work in that case.


Anyway, I didn't expect to get this much resistance to noting (what I consider material) discrepancies in the writing credits. I must be missing something, as I still don't see the harm but do see the advantages.

Tar Heel

Member
Posts: 5771

Tar Heel @ 2018-02-25 19:05:31 UTC

Just look at this one....


Am I to believe that a well-known songwriter is going to repeatedly get the credits wrong for Lawyers, Guns and Money ....? Perhaps I am missing it, but I don't see Hank Jr. credited on any of these:

https://www.discogs.com/Warren-Zevon-Excitable-Boy/release/1300351

https://www.discogs.com/Warren-Zevon-A-Quiet-Normal-Life-The-Best-Of-Warren-Zevo…

https://www.discogs.com/Warren-Zevon-Genius-The-Best-Of-Warren-Zevon/release/263…