Joint Performing Artist Credits

There are two issues regarding more than one performing artist credits that I seem to come across from time to time. The first is what evidence rises to the level of a credit? Editors seem to have different thresholds in these cases. While this issue may be unguidelineable; nevertheless, no objective guidance makes applicable submissions and error reports difficult.

Consider Remodel by Bernhard Eder

https://music.apple.com/us/album/remodel/1372021482

This release was added by an experienced editor and obviously decided that "Tonight, Tonight" and "I Feel You" should not be added on site notwithstanding the co-performer credits on iTunes (the joint credits are also in the autogen notes), deeming the tracks duplicates of recordings already on site.

The second issue is when there is no joint credit on the original release, but later releases of the same recording (e.g. a single, reissue, compilation) do have official joint credits.

As it is my understanding that SHS "errs on the side of inclusion", my position is that we should correspondingly err on the side of co-credits, adding any comments deemed advisable to clarify the entry. If an editor determines that evidence for co-credit is not strong enough, a similar comment should be added to account for that evidence.

Three days and no response. Error report filed to track matter:

https://secondhandsongs.com/error-report/39509

Thanks for the experienced editor. Nevertheless, I am not following or looking up each and every new topic started, plus I take the freedom not be present 24/7. In that respect, an error report (if at all) was not a bad thing to do. Mainly, I'm not slow at caring for such.

Neither did I randomly decide that "Tonight, Tonight" and "I Feel You" should not be added on site (probably meaning to Remodel) nor would I accuse any other editor of arbitrarily doing so. More to the point, I did not add those two tracks as they had previously been included on Remake.

I added three external links to the Remodel page (two of those for release pages by the recording artist himself) and none credits any co-performer. Building accusations like the above (a. o. notwithstanding...) based on an iTunes page, which mentions one and was added by your very self in the afterhand, is not exactly what could be called fairplay, though.

Last edit: 2020-07-28 01:46:21 UTC by camembert electrique

a) I wasn't (and still am not) looking for a response from any specific editor, CC, etc. I am looking for guidance from anyone with standing to provide. The referenced release was just an example, as some editors (e.g. Bastian) almost always asks for one. Since I wanted to finish syncing my notes with SHS for that artist, I decided to accelerate the mater after three days (plenty of time for someone, anyone to respond in my view).

b) The two example tracks are not the same recordings. So they are either duplicates (i.e. no joint performer) so not eligible for adding or eligible due to the joint performer.

c) What is sufficient evidence of a co-credit remains unanswered as far as I can tell. In this example, I could have submitted, risk rejection, and waste efforts. On the other hand, I could ignore. The middle ground was to make general and specific inquires, the option I took.

d) My guess is that if I had submitted with the additional sources (i.e. iTunes and autogens), they would have been rejected with a comment e.g. "not good enough evidence to add, duplicates".

e) I could have filed an error report on the release suggesting a comment that some sources co-credit Sue Singer on new live recordings of Song 1 and Song 2; however, hostility there would not be unprecentented.

The bottom line is that editors are inconsistent here, perhaps unavoidably. A "some sources" comment should usually mitigate the grey cases and at least account for the discrepancies.

Note that I regularly run across additional performer/featuring credits in autogen notes that are not on site, either as an official credit or as an informational comment. Given the sometimes "who is that other vocalist" questions I see from time to time, I am tempted, but generally just move on.

In the meantime, the issues highlighted here in a way not only craving for a personal answer (semper aliquid haeret...) and presented in https://secondhandsongs.com/error-report/39509 have been researched and processed accordingly.

VV, to get an authoritative answer you should file a reply request to/for someone in power to give one.

Last edit: 2020-07-28 01:49:08 UTC by camembert electrique

Quote from camembert electrique

VV, to get an authoritative answer you should file a reply request to/for someone in power to give one.

For the record, I do not have the ability to file a reply request (as far as I can see). Moreover, I doubt there's an "all with standing" option nor would I want to clutter the thread with a string of "read"s.

If you start a new comment, doesn't the space at the bottom of the attached pic show to you? If not, it's possibly reserved to editors.

Adding an editor's or manager's name only informs that person and does not cause anybody to confirm having read.

I see nothing special. Frankly, if I had a name I'd likely start the thread and then send an internal email asking for thoughts. Usually, I'm looking for several voices hacking through an issue to get the best policy.

Another example: Twilight Zone by Thomas Zwijsen

Here some editors would likely enter with a featuring credit while others (including the processing editor) would not (see back cover art):

https://www.discogs.com/Thomas-Zwijsen-Nylonized/release/5286767

In this example, the editor covered all bases by adding the comment: Vocals by Tess Gaerthé