The problem with Discogs

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.

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 - 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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
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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 19 - 07:45 AM

Gerry sarastic prat. There are serious ethical and emotional issues depending on how you value the work of songwriters and the meaning of credits to the family of a writer. Plus there are practical losses of copyright through misinformation snowballing. What gets put in one site finds its way into others, or artists take it as fact.

Apart from auto pages with wrong information, there is another problem in the ethics of deliberately reproducing a credit page based on information from an old cover that is known to be wrong due to previous errors of some kind, and has been corrected elsewhere. So for people who study the origins of songs or are connected to them, it does all have a consequence. Unless you know what its like to have a song miscredited on a major basis and to lose financial and the emotional issues and the kudos attached to a song, then you truly cannot know how it feels. 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. Such is the beast that is the Internet.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 07:58 PM

Someone is wrong on the internet.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 05:34 PM

Twas ever thus. Mexican AM radio was so bad it was good.

Ross “...without additional knowledge or general formal acceptance over who composed or authored a song.”

The whole world… by hand? Fuggedabouddit. You'll need a censorship machine ('auto-bot') running on a crowd sourced copyright database. Big Data “Tracks” on AI steroids with sharp, pointy teeths.

Your first two or three copyright violation exchanges with YouTube won't involve flesh and blood humanity… auto-bots.

Any user can correct typos and transcription errors on Discogs but the database is not subject to the various industry copyright machines because... legalities & technicalities n'stuff.

If one does have court/industry paperwork of something blatantly illegal on Discogs they'll remove it from the marketplace but it will remain in the artwork database; flagged under a dedicated “Unofficial” or counterfeit record label. Afaik only exception is active registered trademarks.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 09:47 AM

There are two separate issues here. One is the general quality of information on the internet, which I think most people are now aware is of dubious reliability . This doesn't just apply to music attributions but across the board. Anyone can put information on the internet, but often it is wrong - sometimes this is an innocent mistake, sometimes just laziness, sometimes it is malicious. The problem is there is no way of knowing what is correct and what isn't. I fear you are fighting a losing battle trying to stop incorrect attributions from appearing in Google searches, if you correct one entry in Discogs it won't prevent a mistake appearing the next time a recording is entered, and of course there are many other similar sites.

The other, more important, issue is where royalties are concerned. Here again, mistakes can be made, especially with folk music where the tune probably hasn't come from a published version so information may be lacking. It's up to record companies to submit the correct information to the best of their ability, but the rights organisations are usually pretty good at sorting out mistakes.

I have been guilty myself of incorrect attribution. My band Albireo recorded a track called Graemsay Jig which I had originally picked up by ear in a session. Only much later did I learn its title, and I was unable to find out anything more about it when we recorded it, so we credited it as "Traditional". We were later contacted by the son of the composer, Magnus Leask, who had been the lighthouse keeper on the island of Graemsay in Orkney for several years. Magnus was originally from Shetland, and we then discovered he had been at school with our guitarist's mother, and there is even a school photo of them on a Shetland website.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 08:19 AM

Bert's book is, as far as I am concerned, one of the most readable and encouraging introductions to English Folksong I have ever read
Back in 1967, it encouraged me to lift the corner of folk song to see what lay underneath, I'm still doing that
It has its flaws, what pioneering work doesn't, but it remains a fairly precise guide to what folk song is
I was looking forward to Steve Roud ironing out some of the bumps - pity he changed his mind and wrote about something else - still valuable and groundbreaking in its way, but rather than clear up the issues, I feel it has shrouded them in even more confusion
I hope you do read it - and enjoy is as much as I still do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 08:14 AM

No it's not a waste of money, it's an inspiration despite a lot of it being wishful thinking. It complements Roud's more recent book very well.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 06:44 AM

Thanks Jim Carroll. I had considered buying Lloyd's history of folk song, on you view a waste of money?

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 05:07 AM

Lloyd could be absolutely precise when he wanted to be - in his notes to the Penguin Book of English Folk Songs, nearly everything is labelled as being from a specific singer at a particular time and place.

The Unfortunate Rake is one where he either screwed up or faked it. No general conclusion to be drawn from that.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 03:42 AM

"Norfolk had relied for information on sources that turned out to be unreliable"
Bert Lloyd was not an unreliable source any more than Sharp was
Bert and most singers around that time did not say were there songs came from or weer vague about it - they were singers, not researchers
It has become somewhat fashionable with some to tear down the work of the past and replace it with their own theories - we seem to be left with a field of hobby horses rather than sensible information we can work with
If you spend any time with traditional singers you will find that titles are immaterial anyway and not only vary from singer to singer but even from the same singer
It is not the job of Mainly Norfolk or Discogs to 'correct' given information but to report it accurately
I'm realising how dependent I have become on the work of others and am grateful for it - it's my job to pick what I believe to be reliable or otherwise
Wan't a list of sites and labels that call their products 'folk' or even 'traditional' and have nothing to do with either - you might start with this one
The joy of using them is being able to discuss your own opinions and listening to those of others
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 03:42 AM

The main problem with all this is that it's the internet we're talking about and, quite often, the gold that's in there is buried under a heap of crap. Try the experiment for yourself:

Do a Google search for a song, being careful to add the word "lyrics" to the search - in the vain hope that you'll find the composer. Not a chance. Try "Somewhere Over The Rainbow lyrics". Virtually every site in the search list will say 'lyrics Israel Kamakawiwo'ole', or 'lyrics Judy Garland', or 'lyrics Eva Cassidy'. The composer? Hardly a mention until you get to Wikipedia...

Any database, or so-called database which has little or no overarching control is bound to be dubious. That's just the way it is.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 03:30 AM

Rossey: how did discogs respond when you contacted them asking them to correct the incorrect information?

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 19 - 03:23 AM

I think Howard seems to be talking a lot of sense. His comment that liner notes don't always get things right is apt, though it comes too late for the many many web sites that cite the notes to the Unfortunate Rake LP on Folkways by Goldstein as if they were historically accurate and reliable.

Regarding mainly Norfolk, sorry, Freddy Heady, if the comment that there were 'some good bits' struck people as a bit dismissive. The intention was to allow that some entries are very useful. I can see I should have worded my comment differently.

But by chance when it came to the specific song I was interested in - The Unfortunate Rake, it turned out that Mainly Norfolk had relied for information on sources that turned out to be unreliable. These included a mixture of A L Lloyd and Goldstein as both appear to have been involved in the incorrect information given in the liner notes.


For example, the liner notes state that a song called My Jewel My Joy was collected in Dublin. It was collected in Cork from somebody who heard it in Cork.   This mistake also occurs in one of the journal articles cited by Goldstein. This shows not only that liner notes and discogs need to be taken with a pinch of salt but also that journal articles also need to be checked out for accuracy. Mainly Norfolk, accurate though it may be in many places, has not checked back to see whether Goldstein got stuff right, as if they had done so they would have seen that the earliest source on My Jewel My Joy ( a collected called Joyce) says Cork not Dublin. Joyce took the song from an unpublished collection made by an antiquarian called Forde and published it with the notes made by Forde. These clearly say Cork not Dublin.

To the person who told me to 'go read Mainly Norfolk', this would be a bad idea if accurate information about the history of the song 'The Unfortunate Rake' was what was wanted. There is no record of any broadsheet containing a song of that name. Goldstein claims that A L Lloyd is singing a broadsheet version, but he is not. The only broadsheet verson A L Loyd ever quotes accurately from is of a song called The Unfortunate Lad. But that is not the song A L Lloyd sings on that LP.


So go do some background research matey.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 09 Apr 19 - 08:13 PM

It's all very well putting weasel clauses in claiming Discogs has no legal responsibility etc., but it's not just the user site pages itself - but the auto created ones - which clearly Discogs IS responsible for and how they appear on Google. It is responsible for false statements of who composed a work which prominently shows on Google searches as factual statements without visiting their site. This breaches the paternity right of the real composer/author and also potentially damages the copyright. It would be far better if it was kept to just a list of track titles on albums and singles - and avoided the whole cover credit and composition issue.

I can tell you that there are many versions that came out of my father's songs on LP's and CDs (and he is just one of untold numbers of modern writers), where there were printing errors, miscredits of all kinds, and misspellings of his name. These had been dealt with, but brought back by Discogs in a totally irresponsible way. I spent years of work getting errors on CD sleeves altered, and this site creates a nightmare. To add insult to injury, the auto page feature is spouting out its own rubbish linked to Google with the artist performer put down as Composer or someone else who had nothing to do with the work, and that is not the users at fault - but the people who are behind the site. One example is a song my father wrote, though a rubbish one, called 'Sing me a good old country song' which was the title track of an LP by an Irish artist. Unfortunately the record company mixed it up with another song called 'Sing Me An Old Fashioned Song', and credited it on the cover to the writers of that song, though the royalties were diverted and the registration correctly put down as Stewart Ross. Its been re-issued as a download and the credit is now completely correct, but that is the kind of error that happens on many occasions. Ironically, my father got sent a copy to review for a country music paper, stuck the album on - and found it was his own song that was on it! Another one a record company accidentally printed the credit from the song above, and printed it twice. There are dozens of ones I can think of.. and that's just my father's songs. One of the many millions, and why record label credits are not to be trusted for this database purpose without additional knowledge or general formal acceptance over who composed or authored a song. Discogs should stick to plain Discographies. Anyway we are now going round in circles - but the point is made!

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 09 Apr 19 - 05:47 PM

As a measure of how little the underlying music means on Discogs consider: Users do not need a record, tape or CD player to make a submission. The only requirement is having the physical media in one's current possession.

All 'music' data is transcribed from the media jacket, labels, matrix stamps &c by the users. Management doesn't upload anything... except one-at-a-time via their individual user accounts just like me.

The common practice of transposing mechanical rights for 'writers' means lyricists appearing on instrumentals and other musical oddities.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 09 Apr 19 - 05:11 PM

Discogs accuracy promises/requirements in general: See the usual “Disclaimer of Warranties” copypasta in the usual boilerplate sections.

"Tracks" project in particular: At the top-center of every 'Composition' page -

"Tracks" is currently in Beta. Based on your feedback, we are working on improvements. Read more about it in our [help] section.

Do I have to say “Beta” ain't the routine, pre-release validation it means elsewhere? Yes.I.do.

Click and you get the marketing rah-rah and the concept overview linked upthread. It's better than the average Klingon but it's still Klingon.

Drill down to the, nine month running, forum discussion, moderated by one of the site founders, and you'll find all of OP's concerns already voiced in triplicate by users... sans name calling & vitriol.

IMNSHO – “Tracks” could be the answer to the question nobody is asking but probably won't.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 19 - 11:34 AM

Quote from post above:

"The song generally referred to as 'The Unfortunate Rake' has appeared on hundreds of broadsides, which is why it is regarded as the widest travelled and adapted of all our folk songs
Go check on Mainly Norfolk"

I checked here (again in case it had been updated since I last looked)

https://mainlynorfolk.info/lloyd/songs/theunfortunaterake.html

This web site provides no evidence that a song entitled 'The Unfortunate Rake' appeared on any broadside.

It asserts that liner notes written by somebody called 'Goldstein' are essential reading. They are useful notes in that they lead to various articles on the topic, but unfortunately they do not accurately sum up what it says on all those articles.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Howard Jones
Date: 09 Apr 19 - 11:27 AM

Yes, as I pointed out in my previous email their approach is to put the artist where there is no composer credit in the album details itself. I agree that is a mistaken approach and contradicts their intention of making the database as accurate as possible - it would be better to leave the composer details blank rather than make a guess which stands a good chance of being wrong.

I'm not surprised to learn Discogs contains inaccurate information, and I would always treat anything on one of these sites as suspect. However if you're unable to correct false information, that is of more widespread concern,as they make a big deal about relying on their community to make the database accurate and complete. However you're more likely to get something done about it by going on the Discogs forum rather than here, where you could also point out the problems they're causing themselves by making incorrect assumptions about artists also being composers.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 06:59 PM

The problem Howard is that when you type in 'Home to Inverness' 'Joss Esplin' into Google it has it as a separate song. its their false attribution in Google links that comes up in open searches as the album by Joss doesn't have information on Discogs - so the autobot created one.                                                             without even visiting the page This is how it appears in Google:    Home To Inverness - Composition by Joss Esplin, Sandra ... - Discogs
https://www.discogs.com/.../a0c9c48f-f9aa-4e0a-b7a0-e9854efa38f9-Home-To-Inverne...
Discover Sandra Wright (3) & Joss Esplin's track Home To Inverness. Complete your Sandra Wright (3) & Joss Esplin record collection. Shop new and used Vinyl ...   As you know Joss Esplin is the performer NOT the composer.. this is just the tip of the iceberg. Discogs tech is wrongly linking works.   SO even though my father's own earlier recording is up (I put on the attribution on the earlier recording to stop others putting wonky info. up)

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 03:51 PM

Incidentally, when I used Discogs' own search to look for "Home to Inverness" top of the list of results was this:

The Stewart Ross Dance Band ?– The Highland Road

Track B2 Home To Inverness Songwriter – Stewart Ross

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 03:37 PM

So information on the internet is wrong! This is news? Discogs is just one of many websites attempting to catalogue music recordings. Most of them are fairly rubbish, and rely either on unreliable bots or unreliable humans to supply the data, which is often sparse or simply wrong. Discogs do at least say they to want to achieve accuracy, and ask their users to add information and correct errors. Some other sites don't seem very interested - I've been trying on and off for about 8 years to get All Music Guide to change the genre of my band's album from "Pop/Rock" to "Folk" but despite repeated submissions through the corrections page nothing is done.

The mistakes you complain about seem to arise from a deliberate choice Discogs have made to credit the main artist when specific information about a composer is not available. I think that's a highly questionable approach and it would be preferable to leave it blank, but they do ask their users to correct errors. This does seem to be a fairly new feature, and a very superficial glance at the user forums suggests you are not the only one to point out the flaws in this approach. If you are having difficulty correcting the error then I suggest you focus your complaints on that, rather than simply complaining it is wrong, which I'm afraid is endemic to the internet, especially when what was a hobby site grows out of control.

Overview of the Tracks feature

Google will only turn up search results, if those are inaccurate it's hardly google's fault. However I searched for '"Home to Inverness" composer' and the first result was Stewart Ross with the Tryst Players which correctly shows the composer as Stewart Ross. Joss Esplin would have been third, but has been pushed down the rankings by two links to this thread (so I suppose it has achieved one of your objectives).

I do wonder what purpose these sites think they serve, as they are so often riddled with errors. I agree that anyone researching the source of a piece of music should treat all these sites with considerable caution, and where possible go to the official databases held by the performing rights organisations.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 08:16 AM

Hi Howard, Jack etc. the problem is that there is an autofeature which is harvesting data, then churning out a page which is linked to Google. So when you do a search of a song in the results a heading prominently pops up saying eg. 'Home to Inverness' COMPOSITION by Joss Esplin (he is the performer , NOT the composer - Stewart Ross is the composer), so that is stated as fact.    There is no direct way of altering these auto created pages.   They create these false credits in the absence of information.    Anybody looking for the attribution of a song would assume that the credit given by Discogs is therefore to the person they list.   After a tortuous process I got one Discogs auto page altered by writing to the admin, as the Google search result was very high up and prominent when you typed in a search.   This involved a platinum selling album track that my father wrote, and it had the arranger of the record down as a song 'COMPOSED BY' even though he had nothing to do with the song, and is not listed anywhere other for arranging the whole album.   It glared out during any search. This would lead artists to cover it with the wrong person's name on it   So you don't even have to visit the site to have this false information thrown at you. I have no problem with it as a discography source... it is the inclusion of false label credits, misprints and also autocreating pages which claim to give authorship/composition data which is wrong, and this being linked to Google - with no correction process on that side.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 06:16 AM

It's not clear to me whether Discogs uses bots, but a large number of entries seem to come from individuals who contribute details from albums in their own collections using information off the sleevenotes. There is certainly plenty of scope for error and misunderstanding, especially where there are different artists with the same name - I am identified as Howard Jones (7) and Howard Jones (10) in the entries for the same album. Also some sleevenotes are lacking in information, or may have made a mistake in attribution.

The whole idea of Discogs is that it relies on crowdsourcing, so since you're that bothered about it it should be possible for you to edit incorrect entries yourself.

While misattributions are annoying, when it comes to royalty payments these are based on the databases run by the performing rights associations - in the UK, this is PRS/MCPS. You should be more concerned that these contain the correct information, although be aware that it is entirely legitimate to claim copyright on an arrangement, which is entirely separate from rights in the original which remain with the original copyright owner.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 05:50 AM

For pity's sake
GUEST,Guest - PM
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 08:07 PM
"some good bits"
!
Mainly Norfolk quotes text and says where the quote is from.

~~~~~~~
I've always assumed that Discogs was no more than a database of albums and the names of the songs on them.
But they could put up a better disclaimer regarding the likely accuracy of the information and a better listing of other tracks with the same name.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 04:48 AM

No they don't - they work on the information provided in the notes as do all such sites
Issues of copyright are an issue to be taken up by the composer and the user - not list-makers
Jim

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 04:38 AM

Does Discogs actually claim to be providing reliable information about who composed what?

If they don't explicitly say so they can't be liable for anything.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 04:24 AM

Jim it is technology at fault... read what I say.   It's not nitpicking. They are giving out false information on songs my father wrote and thousands of other people's works. They are destroying the copyright in works by claiming as fact, what is fiction due to technology flaws in processing, plus bringing back misprints on covers that were due to errors, then re-hashing these as evidence of composition. For those reasons, it is not a reliable factual source. Plus they are as far as I am concerned legally liable for spreading misinformation.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 19 - 02:37 AM

"Mainly Norfolk has some good bits"
THat's called 'damning with faint praise'
Sites like Discogs are very extensive lists and little more - they are run by human beings who make mistakes - if you can't live with that, go build a machine
Reinhard takes the trouble by extending that, for which, I am extremely grateful
We have a saying "Those who can, do - those who can't, stand on the sidelines and nitpick

For the record (pun intended) Bert Lloyd has never been proved to have written a song he claimed to be a folk song
The song generally referred to as 'The Unfortunate Rake' has appeared on hundreds of broadsides, which is why it is regarded as the widest travelled and adapted of all our folk songs
Go check on Mainly Norfolk
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 08:07 PM

Mainly Norfolk has some good bits, but on The Unfortunate Rake it cites Goldstein's liner notes and asserts that A L Lloyd is singing an old song whereas A L Lloyd sings two versions both of which he appears to have written. There is no evidence of any broadside song called The Unfortunate Rake.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 07:17 PM

Oy. "a composition by" on Discogs ain't Oxford English neither. It's Discogs speak. Do not attempt any translations to plain English. It's a gross misapplication of their database for which you can provide no normative reference both you and Discogs have agreed upon.

Auto-bots - auto-generated - standard relational database function, whatevs. See above.

You: "That is why I say that Discogs is not a reliable source of information on songs, and should be treated with caution. There are thousands of songs that will be wrongly linked."

Me: "Garbage in - garbage out. Social media does not produce high quality data. The user qualifications are "has internet access." The forum based rules & guidelines are social media in and of themselves."

The Klingon-English-Discogspeak social media guideline is their ethical normative reference, ignore it at your own peril. Even as a graphics arts database it's out of control. It's no secret to users and it's allowed. No surprise, the commercial marketplace that uses the same d/b for inventory control is an unqualified disaster, also allowed.

Shall we call it a belligerent agreement then?

That said, my current Yellow Bird 'discography' is 2000+ lines. Can't imagine doing that by hand. I can download, import and rotate the lot as a .csv file of Chicago Style Guide citations in a blink, images and all, but it does require some validation & maintenance... just like the users.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Vic Smith
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 05:52 PM

I must add.. there are at least another two of me signed on with my Doctor's surgery..
Memory stirred by this.....

I went for a hospital appointment. My name was called and I went in to see the consultant who was examining my notes:-
"How are you feeling since the operation?"
"I haven't had an operation."
"Are you sure you haven't had an operation? It says in your notes that you had one last month."
"The last operation I had was having my tonsils out when I was five."
"You are Victor Smith?"
"Yes"
"Well your notes say that had an eye operation last month."
"Could I see them please?" He hands them to me an I look at the date of birth. "Do I look as if I am 87?"

I went back to the waiting room where a dear old man was fast asleep in a wheelchair. I woke him gently.
"Is your name Victor Smith?"
"Yes."
"I think the consultant will see you now....."