• Registered: 2012-04-25

Topic: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

I've began adding a release of 'The Swing Era' (vinyl, from Time-Life Records),
and I get a bit confused over a) what would be the correct way of doing it, and
b) how it has been done earlier.  So I though I'd better check what the current
wisdom is before I commit some kind of atrocity.

This is a set of boxes issued by Time-Life Records in 1971 (CD versions followed
later), and are new recordings of transcriptions of the old swing classics. That
is, the recording of, say, 'In The Mood' sounds just like the original made by
Glenn Miller, but it isn't the real thing (it's in stereo, for one thing ...). 

It's rather like the relation between a genuine Rolex and a replica: these recordings
are to 98% replicas.


Problem nr 1: There is no artist that is clearly relevant for the release.

I see that some existing releases have 'Glen Gray & His orchestra' and
'Billy May & His Orchestra', but there is no clear support for that in the material.
They are named as leaders/conductors but no more.  And as the
personnell is largely the same, regardless of who conducted, I
suspect a studio orchestra recordings. (Occasionally, original band members
or vocalists are part of the recording, though, but it is not a general
practica.)

Other existing releases have 'Various Artists', and are entered as compilations,
but there is not much support for that either (see problem 2, below).

Some of the recordings might be taken from similar recreations Glen Gray
did in the 1950s for Capitol (or perhaps in 1961, which is mentioned in a few
places), also using a studio orchestra, but there is no clear indication of this
either. (External sources, such as the  'Time-Life Album Discography Part 4'
claim it, though I can't see how it can be  correct: neither Billy May or Glen Gray
had a band of their own at this time.  I'm checking this separately with the
authors of that discography.)

The best thing I can come up with is that the artist is some kind of studio
orchestra, created for the purpose, but that does not clearly fit normal
'Artist' style. 'Random Studio Orchestra #1' ?

The next best seems to be '[no artist]', but when I check the discography
for this 'artist' it appears it has not been used in this way earlier.
Or should it perhaps be '[unknown]'?

Suggestions?


Problem nr 2: There are no artists for the separate tracks either.

Most (perhaps all) of the existing releases of these albums have
'Type: compilation'. This is probably because that's what they look
like -- collections, or anthologies. And in these releases, the tracks
are often ascribed to identified artists, though incorrectly so (they're
replicas, remember?)

Most tracks are, as I noted, recreations of the original recordings, and
are listed as modern 'versions' of the originals in the booklets that came with
the records, for example '(Glenn Miller version)'. Some band leaders began
legal proceedings against Time-Life for this: their names appeared on a
recording that they had not been involved with. This practice of referencing
the original artists may have confused earlier release editors -- or they may have
preferred to go for simplicity rather than strict correctness.

Again, it seems as if '[no artist]' (or '[unknown]') would be the most
correct artist to enter.   But perhaps I'm being too strict?

Comments?

2 Reply by ym

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

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

athulin wrote:

but it isn't the real thing (it's in stereo, for one thing ...).

thanks for bringing this issue up. I really wonder the solution to this kind of examples. Since there are a lot of mono recordings (even still today), it seems they deserve a separate recording in MB, but from a performance view, they are the same (ie: artist didn't perform the exact same song two times for each recording or the recording haven't remixed or DJMixed)... I am not sure about this but I think currently "Work" means "performance" and "Recording" means the "recorded performance and/or re(dj)mixed performance recording". Well at least it seems to me like that.

for your other questions can you be more specific about the release title. maybe http://www.timelife.com can help identify too...

3 Reply by athulin (edited by athulin 2012-04-25 17:55:22)

  • Registered: 2012-04-25

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

The particular release I've been working on is 'The Swing Era 1930-1936' (main title), but the same thing applies to every box in this series that Time-Life issued (except for the very last one, with Benny Goodman).

4 Reply by ym

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

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

I would choose, [no-artist] or [Time-Life] for the tracklist, because there is no artist listing on the cover and I would choose [unknown] or [Time-Life] for the artists of recordings, because in fact those recordings come from performances which indeed needs an artist.
But please note this is "only" my way of thinking. It may or may not be the same with MB.

  • From: Tartu, EE
  • Registered: 2010-11-24

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

[no artist] is more for stuff like http://musicbrainz.org/release/1838f6af … 1773107570 "Actions and Musical Interactions With Free-Ranging Whales and Dolphins"

If there's a band playing, but it is unknown, I'd just go with [unknown] - and with either [unknown] or Various Artists for the release depending on whether there are several bands or just one (if you can distinguish that). See http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Unknow … ose_artist

6 Reply by fmera (edited by fmera 2012-04-26 11:17:10)

  • Registered: 2010-11-01

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

i see you've since canceled your edit. i believe you're right that these are 'sound-alike' recreations of popular originals. if the bsnpubs.com reference you gave is correct, then Billy May & His Orchestra and the Glen Gray Casa Loma Orchestra would, between them, be the performers of all of these recordings for Capitol Records, and hence the release/track credits go to them. this discogs entry concurs at least for the 1930-1936 disc: http://www.discogs.com/Various-1930-193 … se/1058845 with a similar note: "This compilation features "modern" stereophonic re-creations recorded in the 1960s and early '70s of the original arrangements of 1930s Swing era recordings."

imo, you may just credit the 1930-1936 release entirely to Billy May & His Orchestra, and add a conductor AR for May if it's supported by info from the release you have in hand.

some examples of how your release might appear:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/80988168 … 048938c9b7
http://musicbrainz.org/release/4d45b0b1 … 1aaee1042a
http://musicbrainz.org/release/a17e61c3 … e956cb0f0c

and one example where all the track credits may be wrong, if compared against a corresponding discogs entry:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/bbec6517 … 6b3290054a (versus http://www.discogs.com/release/1061737 )
(the recreations make particular reference to the original versions that are recreated, eg track 1 is "Liza (All The Clouds'll Roll Away) (Chick Webb Version)"

7 Reply by ym (edited by ym 2012-04-26 11:22:19)

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

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

reosarevok wrote:

but it is unknown, I'd just go with [unknown]

yes this was the same thought I had before NGs, but now we have TrackList which shows what is exactly printed. So, in that manner, we should be able to either leave artist field blank or use [no artist]. This way we can understand that artists wasn't printed on the cover or liner notes. That's why I suggested using [no artist].

  • Registered: 2012-04-25

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

Thanks everyone.

It looks like I'll be going with '[unknown]' unless/until the discographers of this series can convince me that their artist attribution is reliable enough to use.

  • From: Norfolk, England
  • Registered: 2006-10-03

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

ym wrote:

yes this was the same thought I had before NGs, but now we have TrackList which shows what is exactly printed. So, in that manner, we should be able to either leave artist field blank or use [no artist]. This way we can understand that artists wasn't printed on the cover or liner notes. That's why I suggested using [no artist].

No, this is incorrect. [no artist] means exactly that, that no artist is performing the track.

[unknown] should be used when the artist is unknown.

If the track artists are unknown - use [unknown].
If the track artist is credited incorrectly - either use the correct artist if known (and add an annotation stating the artist credited on the release/recording is incorrect) or if the correct artist is unknown, use the artist as credited and add an annotation stating the credited artist is incorrect.

Always add as much info as possible in annotations and edit notes for these cases, this gives the next editor who comes along a head start.

10 Reply by ym

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

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

@mudcrow: will there be any support for not entering any artist in artist field at TrackList level? Like maybe we can use [unknown] as artist but we can also leave the "printed as" field blank? If we can have that, it would be nice.

  • Registered: 2008-01-25

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

IMHO it's a misconception that NGS means "as on cover". That practice has been stopped shortly after NGS was released. Musicbrainz rather wants to store factual data than exact reproductions of cd covers.

  • From: Norfolk, England
  • Registered: 2006-10-03

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

ym: a good idea, although I have no idea whether there will be any support for it.

Maybe we should have more artist fields, something along the lines of "credited artist" and "performing artist", so you could use [none] if no artist is credited and add any artist known to have performed on the track to performing artist. This would also work where artists are credited who didn't perform (i.e. Milli Vinilli) and also help with the never ending debate on how to credit soundtracks.

13 Reply by ym

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

Re: Proper use of [no artist] or [unknown] ?

soulsearchingsun wrote:

IMHO it's a misconception that NGS means "as on cover". That practice has been stopped shortly after NGS was released. Musicbrainz rather wants to store factual data than exact reproductions of cd covers.

"as on cover" is a little "impossible" task IMO. I would rather try to achieve "as it is credited", which I think it is possible and supported in NGS.

mudcrow wrote:

Maybe we should have more artist fields, something along the lines of "credited artist" and "performing artist", so you could use [none] if no artist is credited and add any artist known to have performed on the track to performing artist. This would also work where artists are credited who didn't perform (i.e. Milli Vinilli) and also help with the never ending debate on how to credit soundtracks.

I think you are talking about the recordings here? if that's true, then it's nice idea. However, I have a better solution, also expressed it in http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=3503 , like; why the hell do we have artists in recordings?