VV, I must have a malfunction, since I don't show the part about showing that "the PRO writer is Vincent." On my screen it says "written by."
No malfunction. All experienced SHS users know that "written by" in the SHS context is as per the PROs and any new user that sticks around will soon learn the same.
If we know that a song was written by DEF, why not say so? What is the problem with saying "written by DEF", why is it so difficult?
Because the song is almost everywhere associated with ABC, we must respect that. While adding covers, the song stays recognizable for everyone. If it says DEF, one less attentive editor will think it's another song (with the same title).
I repeat my other earlier suggestion though: why don't we add both parties? If we credit 'No Woman, No Cry' to Ford AND Marley, the latter doesn't loose considerable places in the "most covered author" list. Same for those artists that credit their wives: Flatt & Scruggs, Louis Jordan, etc. NOT in cases where "Pearl King", the wive of Dave Bartholomew, may be the actual writer after all, we must be sure and sourced accordingly.
Because the song is almost everywhere associated with ABC
This is not always the case. It also means that if a song is associated wrongly with ABC we are perpetuating a falsehood and it becomes much more difficult to put that falsehood right. I do have some sympathy with this argument (e.g. Lennon/McCartney, etc) but I don't think it should be a rule.
If it says DEF, one less attentive editor will think it's another song (with the same title).
This is not an argument for me, editors should be attentive.
______
Really wild, General!
If we know that a song was written by DEF, why not say so? What is the problem with saying "written by DEF", why is it so difficult?
This has been asked and answered several times in this and/or the thread below:
https://secondhandsongs.com/topic/75451
It probably would have been best if Bastien had first posted that he reached a decision on the "actual vs. legal" debate and the reasons for that decision, but here we are.
While adding covers, the song stays recognizable for everyone.
This is a big deal in my opinion. And everyone is not only the editors, but the wider music community.
I repeat my other earlier suggestion though: why don't we 'add both parties'?
Although I see where you're coming from, this is not my preferred option. I can see similar endless discussions arise (the can-of-worms argument) as in the "actual authors"-scenario. Plus I'm afraid things will get more confusing.
The cleanest option in my opinion, is to tag works where legal >< actual authors with a disputed credits-tag. When they are identified, this offers a wide range of programming options in terms of:
It also means that if a song is associated wrongly with ABC we are perpetuating a falsehood and it becomes much more difficult to put that falsehood right.
Not if we identify those entries. Hence the tag-proposal.
This is not an argument for me, editors should be attentive.
You just KNOW this is going to generate mistakes. Nobody is 100% attentive all of the time.
It probably would have been best if Bastien had first posted that he reached a decision on the "actual vs. legal" debate and the reasons for that decision, but here we are.
The guidelines are unambiguous on that topic.
Then why did you let a taste great vs. less filling go on and on, rather than state that the matter had already been decided?
