• Registered: 2008-01-25

Topic: Composer != Performer (Artist)

I want to start a new discussion about the practice of using the composer as artist with classical and many ost releases.
If we leave out tagging for a moment, I see no reason in flexing the term artist to this extent. Let's pretend tagging was a non-issue, we could easily credit performers and composers correctly without even thinking about it. This would reduce the number of exception rules dramatically. I was inspired by this thread, specifically this work listing. We should not let the main concepts in this db be ruled by what I think is only one usage of mb. Composer should be composer, artist should be performer.
Lets take tagging back in. Not all users agree with the common practice. This becomes especially evident with OST releases. If we could move to a system where the concept of artist is very strict, but the user can choose if he wants to have the artist replaced by the composer within Picard, this would make much more sense. I don't see at the moment how this could be implemented (except having a 'classical release' tag), but the should be topic of this discussion, too.
I am well aware that this is nothing that can be changed within months, this should only be a debate on the principles of mb.

  • From: Singapore
  • Registered: 2007-02-13

Re: Composer != Performer (Artist)

The debate has been had many times before; mainly on the Style list of course. :)

I may not have any disagreement with the end conclusion of your argument (tagging flexibility is key), but I completely disagree with

"artist should be performer"

Artist should mean "credited artist". This could be a composer, performer, producer, hype man, fictitious character - anyone who happened to be credited when it was released. To conclude anything else either excludes entire genres (dance music often has no performers; only producers) But that still does not allow you to choose when both a composer and performer is credited. I think any blanket rule "use composer for X" or "use performer for Y" will never work for everything; we'd just be having the argument the other way around.

voiceinsideyou's Website

3 Reply by ym

  • ym
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Istanbul, Turkey
  • Registered: 2008-10-08

Re: Composer != Performer (Artist)

My old edit was voted down because of this issue. It's nice to see people finally found the correct path :P

and for the topic; my thoughts are also similar with voiceinsideyou.
When you go to a store you don't "generally" check who the composer of an album is. You check, film title for OST, artist/band name for popular music etc. The only exception might be the classical music stuff, and for those you probably want to even know where it is recorded...

  • Registered: 2011-11-19

Re: Composer != Performer (Artist)

voiceinsideyou wrote:

Artist should mean "credited artist".

If we take this at face value the implication is that the classical style guide should remain silent about who the artist should be and the general style principle of taking the artist credited on the release itself should apply.  In this case there would be a mix of performer and composer in classical releases.

In very many cases releases are credited and marketed based on the composer and in other cases, particularly when a well known solo performer is involved, based on the solo artist.  I also find I think differently about different classical releases.  As an example if I fancy listening to Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony I would expect to look under Tchaikovsky rather than the Lenningrad Philharmonic Orchestra.  On the other hand I may well think to myself "I fancy listening to a bit of Bryn Terfel, which of his albums shall I listen to - oh the one of Handel Arias".  In this latter case the arias are out of context and the album is a kind of compilation like those chillout albums even though all the music is composed by Handel.

There is also the issue of "Various Artists".  In practical terms this means "there is nothing useful recorded as the artist for the release, no point in searching on artist".  In fact one could make out a case for simply not having a release artist in this case.  There are occasions though when there is a common link between the recordings on a release which may be worth recording.  This could be a classical release where the composers vary across the works on the release but all the recording are of the same performer (e.g Bryn Terfel's CD of Opera Arias) or it could be the other way round for example the CD "Two Rooms" where the performers differ but all the music was written by Elton John with Lyrics by Bernie Taupin.

  • From: Oakland
  • Registered: 2009-04-07

Re: Composer != Performer (Artist)

voiceinsideyou wrote:

Artist should mean "credited artist"... [snip]... I think any blanket rule "use composer for X" or "use performer for Y" will never work for everything; we'd just be having the argument the other way around.

Related thread on [mb-style].

  • Registered: 2012-09-07

Re: Composer != Performer (Artist)

As for me it’s at least of great significance who will perform the composition as it can sound completely different. And from this point performer is no less important than a composer who created a beautiful melody! I proved it for myself once again recently, when at onyxclassics site I found a new recording of Beethoven’s works performed by Maxim Rysanov, Blaumane and Jacob Katsnelson. I can tell that performance is unbelievable and no one else could do it like that. So in this record the performers are as much important as and composer.