Liner Note Accuracy vs. Assumed Artist Intent

On a bit of a tangent, I'm actually in the middle of doing some album cover design work, at work. We usually don't do this kind of freelance gig, especially on spec - I don't know if this will actually be used on the release, and it's being done on a work for hire contract: We are being paid hourly rates, and the label (not the artist) will own all the work done, and hold the copyright on it.  Anyway, despite it being a little off our beaten track, and the unusually restrictive contract terms, I said yes to this one purely to get some insight on just how much artist intent goes into this stuff. 

I don't expect my experience to apply globally, but this is for a fairly mainstream artist on a big label, so it's a data point at least. 

So far I can say, even though I was initially approached by the artist (friend of a friend), and they had some ideas and input into the overall design, I've been given a lot of leeway.  Choosing the precise font, capitalisation and graphics choices have been up to me, and the text has been variously supplied and approved by artist management (the tracklisting itself, track timings, the song lyrics and obviously the album title, some of the liner notes, the "and this album wouldn't have been made without...." thanks text) and the label (the remaining liner notes, the precise and non-negotiable wording for the credits, and what additional texts they require to be on the back cover and spine.)  The label also supplied vector art for the CD logo, the label logo, the barcode, and very precise rules about what I was allowed to do with those, and where to put them.   

I ferretted out while discussing this that the artist himself is only getting this much input because he's had several albums out before, both solo and with a band and his current contract specifies that he can.  The first few releases, he pretty much got handed cover art by the label and told "This is what your album will look like". 

Obviously none of this applies to indie artists who produce their own covers, and it seems the more successful artists with multiple albums behind them, can wield more of their own clout.  I bet they are still hamstrung by the label when it comes to the _text_ however, because it is very clear to me that the label is very involved at all points.  However, they are not doing QA here, they are mostly thinking about covering their own butts legally: correct attributions, who gets a musician credit and who is only getting a 'thanks to...' (already had one alteration requested to the text involving those) correct writer credits on the songs, etc.  Most of the proofreading that's going on is either by me, or the Warner legal department.

To answer Kerensky's question, I'm far more inclined to want to correct known typo's in tracklistings than I was before.  In this case, widespread or not, we know it was a typo, other than for trivia gathering purposes, there's no real point in keeping it.

to be honest I think that the Jimmy case is not the one to use in this case, since 'Foxey Lady' is not the *only* strangely capped/named song of his. I only have to mention "Voodoo Child/Chile" "Moon, Turn the Tides... gently gently away" for a few, that are 'odd'.

In the liner notes of the "Electric Ladyland" issue I have (it's one of those remastered, gold re-issue ladedida deluxe edition type things) there are pages with scans of the *actual* papers of writing from Jimmy to the record making people; on what text he wants to put in the liner, and how and where he and the band wants the text/pictures.
It seems to me he was very much in control of these types of things. at-least for "Electric Ladyland".
It also strikes me as odd that if it was indeed a typo, really, then the remasters of those albums, would have it fixed. As they are done by his family/in memoriam, by people who did this *specifically* to honour him. Who did their uppermost to research it, and put info in the liner (I swear the liner is 37 pages thick)
just saying.

that is to say I don't disagree with the point that Kerensky is trying to make here, that if we *know* it is an unintended typo that possibly even aggrivates the artist (eg censoring) we should fix it.
I definitely agree to that.

~mo

Whether or not Foxey Lady is or is not artist intent is, I think, at this distance from the original recording irrelevant.

It has been written as Foxey Lady for nearly 40 years now and if it has not been amended in all that time by whatever record company reissues it, time and again, then to my mind it is "Foxey".

As Jimi Hendrix has been dead for 36 years we will never know his intention and, therefore, we can only go by usage over intervening period between first release and now.

Foxy 45

Foxey Album

We could come up with a great page of odd music trivia with what we dig up on this site.

No version info should be removed from titles, if it says album version, it should be entered as album version. If it doesn't have any version info, none should be added (unless the lack of version info is an error that can be proven to be an error).

Same again, if it's titled Blah blah blah (live in Mongolia) thats how you should enter it. No-one should be telling you to remove it.

If its only mentioned in the liner notes that its recorded in Mongolia, then you can add that info to the annotation.

the actual line is

The LiveTrackStyle page also says:

I disagree with voting no on what are valid edits (that don't go against the existing styleguidelines)
I disagree with removing version info from track titles. And date & venue ARE version info for some tracks.
I also disagree with reordering and changing version info as proposed in that style guide.

In short, I disagree with the whole proposed style.