I don't see the problem VV
the stones are neatly put in place as a cover of the irma thomas version, which in turn is an adaptation of the kai winding version.
just like 'Round Midnight and Autour de minuit and 'Round About Midnight and 'Round Midnight are adaptations of 'Round Midnight
JoJo greets
I don't see the problem VV
the stones are neatly put in place as a cover of the irma thomas version, which in turn is an adaptation of the kai winding version.
just like 'Round Midnight and Autour de minuit and 'Round About Midnight and 'Round Midnight are adaptations of 'Round Midnight
JoJo greets
I'm not questioning the placement of the Stones. In fact I'm relying on the SHS finding that the most familiar version is an adaption of the root work. I'm questioning whether the non-English recordings on site are direct adaptions of the root work or of the version made famous by the Stones.
Frankly, this ain't brain science or rocket surgery....
Which brings us to the crux. Do the non-English adaptions have translated or inspired lyrics that also include the "extra lyrics" that justified making the Stones version a different adaption?
Yes they have, but if you would "care" about the root work, you would know that the melody of the non-existent lyrics are played by a trombone.
Why do you keep referencing Irma Thomas and keep ignoring "as made famous by" (or something to that effect after I have explained already? Most people would be most familiar with these works (and would have an interest in this question) due to the Stones recording; therefore, I present the issues in that light for convenience.
In the song adaptation tree is "as made famous by" not relevant.
Which brings us to the crux. Do the non-English adaptions have translated or inspired lyrics that also include the "extra lyrics" that justified making the Stones version a different adaption?
Yes they have, but if you would "care" about the root work, you would know that the melody of the non-existent lyrics are played by a trombone.
Why do you keep referencing Irma Thomas and keep ignoring "as made famous by" (or something to that effect after I have explained already? Most people would be most familiar with these works (and would have an interest in this question) due to the Stones recording; therefore, I present the issues in that light for convenience.
In the song adaptation tree is "as made famous by" not relevant.
a) A work could include the root's music note for note (if not the same backing track) but have entirely new lyrics, resulting in a new adaption. In this specific case, if the non-English adaptions use the lyrics of the mfb Stones version, then I am correct and the current coding is incorrect for those non-English performances.
b) I agree for the adaption tree, but completely relevant for convenience and general discussion purposes. First (as now explained ad nausea), most people are most familiar with the Stones version. Second, since the Stones version is the definitive one, subsequent covers and adaptions are likely covering and further adapting that performance.
As I see it, we have finally reached an accord determining that there is indeed incorrect coding (assuming not visualization). Shall this serve as an error report for those non-English adaptions or should I file separately for each?
a) A work could include the root's music note for note (if not the same backing track) but have entirely new lyrics, resulting in a new adaption. In this specific case, if the non-English adaptions use the lyrics of the mfb Stones version, then I am correct and the current coding is incorrect for those non-English performances.
How can "non-English adaptions use the lyrics of the mfb Stones version"?
The non-English and English adaptions use the notes written by the composer Jerry Ragovoy.
As I see it, we have finally reached an accord determining that there is indeed incorrect coding (assuming not visualization). Shall this serve as an error report for those non-English adaptions or should I file separately for each?
What do you mean exactly by "incorrect coding"?
"How can "non-English adaptions use the lyrics of the mfb Stones version"?
The non-English and English adaptions use the notes written by the composer Jerry Ragovoy"
Easy, by translating or being inspired by. Just like a (for example) Japanese translation of "My Way" rather than the root work.
"What do you mean exactly by "incorrect coding"?"
The non-English adaptions are missing additional credits, namely from the mfb Stones version. In other words, by your own analysis in this thread, these non-English performances are 3rd generation adaptions of the 2nd generation adaption (mfb the Stones) of the 1st generation root work.
Easy, by translating or being inspired by. Just like a (for example) Japanese translation of "My Way" rather than the root work.
Japanese or french, it should be connected to the root work anytime with the exception when the new language version is unmistakingly copied from another one: ex. most "My Way" versions are based on Paul Anka's lyrics, not Clo-Clo's lyrics which have a different meaning. But that's not the case here.
The non-English adaptions are missing additional credits, namely from the mfb Stones version. In other words, by your own analysis in this thread, these non-English performances are 3rd generation adaptions of the 2nd generation adaption (mfb the Stones) of the 1st generation root work.
They don't miss anything and they're not 3rd generation. They are equally treated as the Irma Thomas/Stones versions.
Japanese or french, it should be connected to the root work anytime with the exception when the new language version is unmistakingly copied from another one: ex. most "My Way" versions are based on Paul Anka's lyrics, not Clo-Clo's lyrics which have a different meaning. But that's not the case here.
But you have already stated that the non-English adaptions include translations of/inspirations from the extra lyrics from the Stones adaption. The 3rd generation adaptions are connected to the root work via the 2nd generation adaption. The difference between "My Way" and "Time On My Side" are simply a matter of degree, with "My" having completely new lyrics and "Time" having some new lyrics. The principle remains the same since the additions were enough to pass the new adaption threshold for both cases.
They don't miss anything and they're not 3rd generation. They are equally treated as the Irma Thomas/Stones versions.
Nope, by your own findings (above), they are 3rd. Again, we are back on the carousel. My position differs from SHS on situations like these, yet the world won't end. I will treat per my conclusions, SHS per its. No worries.
VV,
In the attached schedule below, where would The Stones version fit in, if you would change things:
Attachments:
But you have already stated that the non-English adaptions include translations of/inspirations from the extra lyrics from the Stones adaption.
In a way, yes, but it really doesn't matter. Again, you're too focused on the lyrics (and the Stones), it's all about the notes!
If you don't get that concept, I hoped you would, fine. But please don't send us error reports on similar cases, cause it would be a waste of time.
...where would The Stones version fit in, if you would change things:
JoJo... I'm not suggesting a change in treatment for the Stones recording. Actually, I'm taking that current treatment as gospel for this analysis.
Again, you're too focused on the lyrics (and the Stones), it's all about the notes!
If you don't get that concept, I hoped you would, fine. But please don't send us error reports on similar cases, cause it would be a waste of time.
Nope, as you've already conceded that a Japanese translation of "My Way" would be 3rd generation, so it's not "all about the notes".
I see that it is you who do not get the concept:
B is an adaption of A
C is a translation of B
Therefore
C is an adaption of B
If C had gone back to A for it's lyric translation and/or inspiration, the current coding would be correct. But in this case, C went to B (and it's extra lyrics) instead.
If a lyrical addition or change is deemed material enough to merit adaption treatment, then certainly that adaption is independent enough to be the basis of further adaptions.
Take Surfin' USA as another example. If a Spanish translator uses the notes but has lyrics about beach life and wind surfing on the Costa del Sol, would that be a 3rd/4th generation adaption of "Surfin'" or a 1st/2nd gen adaption of Route "90" or Sweet Little Sixteen ....? If a lyricist is translated or the source of inspiration for a different language adaption (as we have here with the Stones' "Time"), they deserve a credit.
We can use Tainted Love as an opposing example. One can easily argue that all of the post Soft Cell recordings were released as a result of their hit version and the inspiration (a term used differently than earlier in this thread) of those covers; however, SC's performance was a different arrangement but wasn't a new adaption. I certainly agree that all of the recordings are actually covers of Gloria Jones ....
However, let's revise history and say that Jones' version had lyrics limited to just repeating "tainted love" sporadically and that Soft Cell rearranged the music and created verses and expanded the refrain. Any subsequent non-English adaptions that included these verses and expanded refrains would be 3rd gen works, covering Soft Cell and not directly Jones.
Last edit: 2018-03-29 15:19:50 UTC by Tar Heel
VV, we discussed this last year on the board, this was the outcome:
"By default an adaptation in a new language is linked to the root work, except if the subject of the lyrics are very close to another adaptation, and remarkably different from the root work.
When the editor choses to link the adaptation and not the root work, an explanatory comment is required in the editor notes."
The non-English versions don't fall into that category.
VV, we discussed this last year on the board, this was the outcome:
"By default an adaptation in a new language is linked to the root work, except if the subject of the lyrics are very close to another adaptation, and remarkably different from the root work.
When the editor choses to link the adaptation and not the root work, an explanatory comment is required in the editor notes."
The non-English versions don't fall into that category.
I understand and disagree with the SHS position. If a revision is material enough to merit a new 2nd gen adaption, a further adaption that incorporates those revisions should be tied to the 2nd gen work and not the root. The SHS position is inconsistent on its face (tho I can imagine some subjective close calls).
(I was revising my prior post to add an opposing example as you were responding. That may be helpful in better explaining my reasoning.)
I understand and disagree with the SHS position.
You have of course a right to disagree, but now you "understand", think twice before you send us error reports with similar cases.
I understand and disagree with the SHS position.
You have of course a right to disagree, but now you "understand", think twice before you send us error reports with similar cases.
I always understood. My impression was that you thought I was asking why (e.g.) "Both Sides Now" recordings aren't covers of Joni Mitchell. That isn't the situation we have here with "Time".
SHS is just dead wrong and inconsistent in it's treatments. It's not the end of the world to be either, but surprising given the site's goal of precision and accuracy.
The incorrect indexing does cause real life problems for me, in that I need to know what song is intended to be covered when dealing with non-English recordings. Of course that's my issue and not SHS's.
