The problem with Discogs

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 08:23 AM

Sometimes the misinformation is all a would-be listener has to go on. Try finding a version of "Albinoni"'s Adagio or the "Bach Toccata and Fugue in D minor" (not by Bach, not for the organ, not a toccata and not originally in D minor" where the primary credit is given correctly.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 08:33 AM

With all due respects to songwriters who fall under the title of 'folk' traditional singers have been producing version of folk songs since the genre caught the interest of the wider world, without being reward in any shape or form, beyond the odd pint (maybe) or the handshake and thanks
"Arrangements" of their songs have been made and copyrighted, without payment or even credit
They have us their songs and time freely, only to have them sold off or used without being consulted or without reward
None of this, of course, means that songwriters aren't entitled to remuneration for their efforts - of course they are, but as far as i'm concerned, they come fairly well down the pecking order of entitlement
Technically, 'folk' comes within the realms of 'the public domain', and for many of the early songwriters on the scene, money was the last thing on their mind when they composed their songs - that it seems to have become a dominant paert of the folk scene is, for me, a pretty convincing sign that 'The times they are a-changing'
If Discogs is a parasitic set-up, what does that make a folk scene that has relied on songs and music passed on to us for over a century without us having to pay for it
My heart really does bleed - maybe it's time to recompose a song and give it the title, "Pity the downtrodden singer-songwriter"
Priorities bro - priorities
Anybody seeking to make money from the folk scene is really looking in the wrong place
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 08:57 AM

Jim - see my post earlier in this thread...


"Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: punkfolkrocker - PM
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 02:58 PM "

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 09:04 AM

Sorry PFR - I missed that entirely
I totally agree with your sentiments "That's the way to do it" as a friend on the steps of "ST GEORGE'S HALL " use to say regularly when I was a kid
Jim

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 09:59 AM

Jim I am not referring to historic folk songs, but modern copyright works. Also what is the point of these pages?   I can understand the idea of a discography. But to base a database of what is supposedly song's authorship/composition on cover credits and to list each song on that basis, is creating wonky details for the sake of it. It would be far better sticking to lists of tracks and albums etc.    Music historians study the origins of works, and now it is a subject which is part of academic University courses. As archivists (as anybody who contributes to putting down the origins of songs), we owe it to posterity to give as accurate an idea as possible for cultural study.    Now to reproduce a cover credit is just transferring information, and you may be just factually reproducing what you see. But when you form a new database from the credit and it is wrong, and you know its wrong, then that is creating its own standalone false factual piece of information. The reason why I think they are parasitic is that they are not doing this for academic study, but selling records. It is a commercial concern which relies on others to submit data. Data which is often wrong. All I pointed out is that there is a deep flaw in the whole methodology of using cover credits, and when there are none given, an autocreation process by tech churning out wrong details.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 10:41 AM

"Jim I am not referring to historic folk songs, but modern copyright works. "
I know what you are referring to - the claim that anybody can write a folk-song a=has blurred the lines - it didn't bother the old crowd, it seems to now
An old fiddle player from around here summed up my feelings perfectly "One you introduce money onto the scene you kill off the reason fro playing the music
Works for me
Discogs isn't and 'archive' - they do their bast as far as I can see - it's up to those involved to check on the facts
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 11:45 AM

Ross: " They put in moral and paternity rights into the 1988 copyright act for a reason, and now these parasites like Discogs come along and undo the work to give songwriters their due.

ISO TC 46/SC 9. Yah, I know. I was present and attending when it was incorporated into the working Yank standards. They were all harmonized with the UK, pre-Brexit anywho.

And you assume we are leaving out Discogs et al out just by accident? Nope. The subject of internet censorship and copyrights does not rest on your emotions.

Discogs does not document woulda, coulda, shoulda, outghta. It documents what really is, warts and all. You object and are misusing it as a vetted copyright source. Stop that and you'll feel better.

I, for one, never saw this as an intellectual or physical issue for you. It's mostly emotional. When you begin to address it as such you will begin to feel better.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 01:21 PM

Phil you don't get it. Discogs is sometimes cicrulating drivel.. it's auto created composer/author pages are linked to Google - this is nothing to do with submitters - it's the tech harvesting. Also the miscredits are coming up as fact.. separately linking songs to performers who had nothing to do with the work, misspelled names, wrong authors etc. It is not just the original submission page but spurious 'facts' that appear when you Google a song, without even visiting the site. The public see this wrong information as fact.   It is not documenting 'what is'.. it's creating false examples of 'what is' in its own separate composition pages when you click on a title. This is not the legal writers of works, this is infringement of the paternity right. These false credits are appearing high up when you Google a song title and shouldn't even be there.   it's also giving out drivel about when a song first appears, and is often unable to differentiate between different recordings of the same song.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 02:25 PM

Discogs' primary use is to help people find album artwork for stuff they've downloaded.

Getting credits right is a counterproductive distraction from that. You might as well worry about whether the designer gear worn in movies is fake.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 02:51 PM

It doesn't matter what Discogs original purpose is.. it's still creating false information as to who wrote copyright works and appearing on Google searches of songs with false writers linked and given out as fact. There is no need for this information to appear in the first place, as there are so many pitfalls involved.. the site itself is often generating false credits in the absence of information. So it goes round.. even when they don't have false credits due to misprints or errors, they have them due to putting in their own invented composition details through their software.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 03:05 PM

If I've ever googled and gone there, it's to check on obscure LPs and track lists...

eg, LPs by the Equals..

I'd guess that's what most average folks use it for...???

Rossey - the problems you continue to outline are real;
but to what serious extent do they actually adversely affect site visitors in the outside world...???

1 in 10..
1 in 1000..
1 in 1000000..

do we need more "000"s...???

Of course, as humans, individuals..
anything that upsets us personally is usually the only thing that matters,
and sod keeping it in perspective...!!!

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 12 Apr 19 - 09:01 AM

Hi Punkfolk rocker, I was just trying to give an idea of what happens when you Google a song title. Discogs results force their way onto Google's engine, and show as false facts (or as Trump's reps. would say 'alternate facts'), either created by auto software, or by an original cover error from years ago being brought up and shown in the result as inferred evidence of the work's composition/authorship.   The reason I brought this here, was that I've contributed pearls of (non-wisdom) for years to Mudcat, and it is a platform where others do try and study the origins of songs and tunes and get to the bottom of where they come from. So I was just pointing out that sites like Discogs are throwing up false pieces of information on composition and authorship and the pitfalls involved. I do try and give credit to correct parties when discussing songs, and have an old fashioned ethic about giving people their due recognition - and if possible also the correct story of where they came from and the background of how they were written.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Apr 19 - 11:28 AM

Rossey - So then it seems to me
you have already accomplished more than enough with this thread,
in bringing to the attention of mudcatters
that Discogs is an unreliable source for serious research..

One way or another, it needs improvement.
and you may become a primary motivator in achieving this more positive goal.

For casual users, we can just take any info there with caution,
as we would with any other internet site.
Cross refering with other sources where possible...

If for example, I want to check that CD reissue Complete boxsets really do contain an artist's entire career output
then Discogs may be a start, but not to be trusted as gospel.

But still better than nothing, and more effective than life pre-internet days...

Collecting an artist's LPs was really hit and miss
when all we had to rely on were a few out of date stodgy old library books,
and the word of a bored teenager working on Woolworths record department desk...

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 12 Apr 19 - 12:05 PM

A 'vast advance' in the 1990s was monthly Record Collector magazine [is it still going..??]
Buying, or standing reading it in WH Smiths for as long as the shop assistant's tolerated,
was a ritual, in hope that an artist of interest might be covered that month...

A slight impovement on life before this magazine,
but moving home involved lugging heavy boxes of mags
from one city or town to another..

I had to throw out all mine 15 years ago when they went mouldy in storage...

So for all it's flaws, I prefer modern life and site's like discogs...
Serious music bloggers should already know well enough to be wary
of discog's reliability...???

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Apr 19 - 12:32 PM

It isn't just the amateurs who can't be bothered with composer attributions. worldcat.org is the world's main union catalogue of reference libraries. Search their CD section for "The Dark Island" and try finding the composer or lyricist.

If THEY don't care, you might as well accept that the Almighty doesn't either.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 12 Apr 19 - 01:05 PM

If you believe you have a legitimate claim: Discogs Intellectual Property Policy

Remain calm, follow the rules. Usually doesn't take too long to get a reply. Remember, this is not the same as notifying the “proper authorities.”

Note: The works on Discogs are typically covered by a (p)honographic and release (c)opyright good for one recording. They may cover dozens of individual songs on a CD or LP box set or just one digital single. With all the industry/society/union bylaws and arbitration clauses attached it's not a given all product reflecting “errata” gets destroyed or deplatformed, way back then or today.

Old whine... new skin: "The story of Choucoune Stolen Legacy: The ordeal of Choucoune. By Louis J. Auguste, MD."

Why not just AskJeeves?

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 15 Apr 19 - 10:54 AM

Discogs is basically a buying and selling site,accessible worldwide, with information largely supplied by its users. As such,it is no more reliable than hearsay evidence would be in a court of law.

I can't imagine any prospective record publisher using the site to ascertain correct copyright attribution. Seriously, how big a problem can that be?

I have found it very useful for tracking down albums I couldn't otherwise find, and often had albums flagged up that I wasn't even aware of.

Ross

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 15 Apr 19 - 11:56 AM

It is more of a problem than you think. I have seen time and again, miscredits on LP's, CD's and downloads due to cover errors from previous releases. When an artist who likes a song and wants to record it, Googles a song title and it says 'Composed by' as a matter of fact, that adds to the chances of them taking that and putting it on their own release. Sometimes it works in favour, if the information is correct, but often it isn't, and Discogs was autocreating false credits from an auto-harvesting feature.    Believe me, I have seen copyright problems snowballing due to this type of thing many times over. I have no complaint whatsoever as a source of finding albums, but is the sticking its oar into waters and Google linking spurious credits and bringing back misprints of song credits that I have the problem with. Unless you are involved in song copyright then you probably wont get how easily these false attributions by misunderstanding happen. Also it can't differentiate between different versions of songs, or songs under alternate titles, different spellings of the author composer's name and the claims of dates when they first appeared.   Less is more... they would have been better sticking to a source of recordings as a discography, which is useful.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 15 Apr 19 - 09:35 PM

Ross: "...song credits that I have the problem with."

About 15:1 in this thread aren't so confused about how the internet works. Guess who the one (1) is? You are the root cause of your problem. Just be the solution. Simple really!

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 15 Apr 19 - 09:52 PM

The people replying aren't the ones who have had song credits butchered by your site and false attributions put down. Alter your method of recording information and stop creating rubbish, simple. You always have to get the last word don't you Phil? I keep having to come back on to explain to these people who haven't read about the Tech. problems of your site's methodology and the false information it throws up in search engines when you Google a song title. Even you agreed there are problems with Discogs as a source of song composition data, can we not just leave it at that?   This was just about to fall off the page as having run its course, but no you had to bring it back.