The problem with Discogs

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 05:48 PM

So Phil my main points were...   Discogs is flagrantly breaching songwriter's rights by giving out wrong information, irrespective of the cover information. Its software is autogenerating pages which Google prominently heads "Composition By", (instead of recorded by) with some piece of spurious information attached, picked up by its software. This means that it is stated as fact when you Google a song and people see that, and expect that the statement is true.    It creates multiple versions of the same song, with the song often being given a spurious date of initial recording - as the software is frequently unable to see that there is another earlier recording of the work. The separate issue is over cover errors and reproducing these when the errors have been corrected in copyright databases or subsequent pressings. Again this can lead to the software creating separate false 'composition by' pages crediting a writer or performer who had nothing to do with that work, which is breaching the copyright owners rights by creating fresh false information. 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.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 04:03 PM

This is an example. Nowhere on the CD does it list Joss Esplin as having composed this song. Google's heading for Discogs page states "a composition by Joss Esplin" (sic). The CD release correctly states Stewart Ross, and it was also on a 1970 LP (listed elsewhere on Discogs) and first appeared on a 1969 A-side single. The only place this wonky information exists is on Discogs, and this site is responsible for creating that information - not any user Phil.    Home To Inverness
First Appeared on Joss Esplin – Scotland Till I Return
Release Date
1992
Stats
Have: 1
Notes
This composition was automatically generated from Discogs data.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 03:47 PM

Phil you are talking babble through your bottom. There are separate pages auto created,                                                             Here is an example. There is no facility on this page to correct errors created by the auto generation process. That is the site's fault so don't blame the users.   
My Bonnie Maureen
First Appeared on Daniel O'Donnell – From The Heart
Release Date
1988
Stats
Have: 37 Want: 2
Notes
This composition was automatically generated from Discogs data   , we are working on improvements. Read more about it in our help section.

My Bonnie Maureen
First Appeared on Stewart Ross – (The Man Frae Inverness) In Music And Song
Release Date
1971
Stats
Have: 2 Want: 1
Notes
This composition was automatically generated from Discogs data. Both are the same song so your site isn't wonky then?   An example of auto created drivel Same with songwriting credits where the same auto generated process gives the performer as having written the song when it doesn't have the data. This site is responsible for the data it gives out.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 03:12 PM

OP: "It has an autobot harvest feature..with separate song composition data automatically created by Discogs It is spouting out garbage..."

Your 'autobot' is a standard relational graphic arts database misapplied by you as real world discography. They never claimed to be what you say they are not.

On discogs "Written by" is not Oxford English. Don't try to speak Discogs in the real world. Just on Discogs where "written by" is the mechanical rights assign just below or after the track title on the product dress. It's entered, or not, by the users, not 'autobots.' It's entirely and completely optional by the rules of Discogs.

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.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 03:06 PM

I must add.. there are at least another two of me signed on with my Doctor's surgery..
That has been a source of problems potentially far more serious
than me being mistaken for the 2nd assistantmake up artist on a crap zombie movie...

To be fair, me and my mate get confused over who wrote what
of some of our teenage punk smash non hits;
so I defer to his more needy ego...
I think the band made a total of one quid on signing a record deal that fell apart in 1981...

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 02:54 PM

Rossey - my real life name ain't as common as "John Smith".. but it's not that far off..

I've lost count of the number of various individual's in the music and movie industries who have my name...

None are A grade celebs.. but I see my name so many times in movie credits
and on CD sleeves...

Of course, if I was a con man, it'd be a potentially brilliant scam...

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 02:39 PM

It's when a site claims to be giving correct information, and some autobot they created screws it up (though the other issue over cover printing errors is equally annoying and has often been dealt with, only to be brought back by Discogs and their ilk. Argggh!   It's like my Tartan and Country singing brother Ronnie Ross, often has his biography and playlists on Google pages mixed up with the cool jazz player of the same name who played on Bowie and Lou Reed etc. Same with a Tartan singer Called Carl Wilson who shares his name with the Beach Boy. Autobots! Think how irritating and disheartening it is when you type in a title of a song on Google and Discogs comes up with 'Composed by..' (false info), without even visiting their page, and all down to some eejits who create a false piece of information which could easily be verified and fixed (alas they have no method of public correction on the Autobot page). The mudcat cafe is a site where people try and get the true stories of songs, and I as a historian and copyright owner share that ethic.

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

If I published songs i'd be concerned to get the fair royalty payments to supplement my meagre pension...

But if I had kids who wanted to profit from my 'talents' long after I'm gone
I'd tell 'em to eff off and write their own bleedin' songs...

.. and i wouldn't give a monkeys about how history regarded my 'legacy'...
As long as anyone who wanted to enjoy the products of my love and hard work
had easy affordable access..

Not getting at you personally Rossey, but you've raised an interesting issue..

I'm just fed up with all the bitter disputes between various deceased artist's estate rights holders
who prevent good LPs ever getting released again..

..while the tapes moulder and decay...

I'd be keen on rights becoming public domain
on death of artist and immediate spouse, maybe extended until their kids are 18...

Of couse, as benefitial as that might be for the 'folk process',
it'll never become law anywhere music corporations
and worst undeserving overentitled families* extend their greed...

[* I'd dread to think my songwriting fortune ended up uner control of some of my family...
bloody good job I'm talentless and skint..]

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 02:29 PM

Ed.. it has the same song listed as two songs. One correct. the other as Composed by Joss Esplin and Sandra Wright. When you Google it comes up with "composition by..Joss Esplin" Its autobots, in the absence of other information they create a song page, giving out information that the performer on the record composed it. This is a breach of paternity rights. and also one of the reasons it should not be used as a source of copyright information. That information is not on the CD it is created by this parasitic database.that undoes all the work to ensure that correct writers and registrations are held on songs. Also as I say covers frequently have miscredits, due to human error and printing issues.

Discogs autobots do create separate pages for the same songs with garbage given for when they first appeared.   Take 'My Bonnie Maureen' written by my father - it says 1988..and has Daniel O' Donnell's version as the first recording. Elsewhere it has another version by my father recorded in 1971 (which is the real first appearance).   It's creating false song profiles, listing different versions of the same song in umpteen different ways often with wrong composition details. This is being stated as fact and is damaging to the song copyright.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 01:22 PM

Can't fualt your site Reinhard - "handier than a small pot", as they say in here in Ireland
I haven't forgotten that I said I'd let you have copies of our sleeve notes, which I will when/if they ever get finished
Jim

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 12:31 PM

Rossey,

Whilst it's clear that you are extremely pissed off, you may want to calm down a bit.

To take your example of 'Home to Inverness', I searched Discogs for it, and guess what it came back with?

Songwriter - Stewart Ross

OK, it gives that date as 1970 rather than 1969, but that appears to be when the album, 'The Highland Road' was released. So they missed an earlier B-Side release. That's hardly unforgivable, I wouldn't have thought?

As I'm sure you are aware, the database consists, largely, of contributions made by a vast number of volunteers. To call them 'vultures' and 'parasites' seems more than a little harsh.

You mention that, "This site is flagrantly claiming to give copyright information.". I can't find any evidence of that, but I'm happy to be corrected.

Your distress at what you seem to think is a desecration of your father's memory, is understandable, but the reason for this rant against 'autobots' isn't clear to me.

I doubt you'll care to know, but it isn't a "so called database", it's a database. No definition of database that I've ever seen, includes the accuracy of the data as being essential component of the concept.

All the best,

Ed

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Reinhard
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 11:16 AM

I have seen a few times that different songs from different authors with just the same title were all credited to one author on Discogs; probably because of autobots having no clue.

Jim, since you mention Mainly Norfolk - all pages are lovingly hand-checked and hand-crafted, so in theory there should be few errors. But of course I'm getting older too and maybe a bit senile occasionally ;-)

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

To reply to your garbage Phil. Discogs doesn't just reprint cover information (which is often wrong). It has an autobot harvest feature..with separate song composition data automatically created by Discogs It is spouting out garbage - the performer is sometimes stated to be the 'composer.. It has a composition first recorded... which is also often garbage. I produced an example.. My father's song is correctly stated on the original CD by Joss Esplin as by Stewart Ross.. (It was written in 1968, and first recorded by Stewart Ross on a 1969 single).. Yet autobots are currently stating the following..Google heading.   "Home To Inverness - Composition by Joss Esplin, Sandra ... - Discogs" It's not printed on the cover, as being composed by Joss Esplin it's not claimed to be written by Joss Esplin... He is only the performer it is purely an autobot creation by Discogs, which is harvested. As far as I am concerned these parasites are creating false copyright information.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 10:42 AM

Joe--- Discogs autobots.. are creating false pages of information. It is harvesting song titles, often putting down as composers the artists who recorded the songs giving entirely wrong information on when songs 'first appeared'. Re-hashing misprints and miscredits. Sometimes a credit is botched on a record or CD cover, you find out later - get it altered - but its out there on past releases. Discogs is now bringing those errors back, and re-inforcing them by making them permanently on record, and stating it as fact, instead of being a temporary problem. They give out wonky information - and damage copyright.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 10:13 AM

I have been researching a couple of hundred songs for a book, and have used several data bases to give the proper attributions. I found discogs.org difficult to use in comparison to Mainly Norfolk which was a mine of information.

I have had to write a paragraph explaining that I have tried to credit the correct authors etc but offering to change incorrect information.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 06:46 AM

Full disclosure: Ogs member in good standing and former GuestProf(essor) here:

Ethics problem Discogs Database

“Many forms of discography have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.…”

Again: Mass media product dress + social media guidelines = social media database not discography; garbage in, garbage out.

Again: If it appeared on a printed surface then it was 'true.' The original 'error(s)' and any later 'correction(s)' are all 'true.'

True does not mean authentic, approved, fair, just, honest or legal. It may look like the English word but we may as well be speaking Klingon.

Discogs.com does not catalog musical content. The product dress, as processed by their unique submission guidelines, is the only reality.

Write that on the palm of your hand.

fwiw: Harry Belafonte screwed up more world copyrights on an average Tuesday than most artists will hold in a lifetime.

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 03:57 AM

I've spent a great deal of time recently researching commercially issued traditional music - I have to say that 'Discogs' and 'Mainly Norfolk' are two of the most helpful
The work that goes into producing that sort of information is bound to meet with a few snags - more power to their elbows, as far as I'm concerned
Can I mention 'The Balladeers' site - not used it or some time, but it's a little gem if your seeking missing album notes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 03:36 AM

I quite like disco music, although I don't know if it'd fit into the 1954 definition of folk? I guess there is probably a Morris troupe somewhere who dance to Donna Summer, though. And if not, there certainly should be. Though I'd advise them to lose the blackface in such circumstances. Ewan MacColl famously said "Oooh, I LOVE the Village People (even though I have reservations about that man being of Indian heritage or not)", so if it's good enough for him etc.

Altogether now - F-O-L-K it's lots of fun at the E F D S S etc

Subject: RE: The problem with Discogs
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 19 - 01:51 AM

I take it you're referring to discogs.com? We have some Mudcatters, most notably Thomas Stern, who do wonderful discography work.
-Joe-

Subject: The problem with Discogs
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 06 Apr 19 - 11:40 PM

Just a warning to anyone using this so called database as a source of authorship information. It is giving wrong data for alleged composers with its auto created 'composition by' feature listing songs on a stand alone basis. I am horrified to find songs my father wrote being stated on pages, to be "composed by" the artists performing them and also the dates are screwed up... take 'Home to Inverness'. it says this is composed by Joss Esplin and Sandra Wright and first recorded in 1992. It was in fact correctly credited on the CD to Stewart Ross, and it's first recording was on a single in 1969. This site is flagrantly claiming to give copyright information and is in fact breaching my father's paternity rights on a number of his songs.   I am also distressed that many printing errors, and miscredits from the past are re-surfacing through this and other such sites. I have in the past gone to the bother of having covers altered and registrations amended, but these vultures are undoing the hard work I and my late father put in to getting corrections made. So do not in any way use this site as an authoritative database for finding out information on songs. There are others of its ilk, but this is the only one with autbots that are creating what claims to be 'composition by'
pages. Misprints and false claims happen, but these sites constantly repeat the errors and remain up there to be googled. Rant over!