new credit role: "Vinyl Cut By" ...

I think it would be great, if we can have an extra credit role to cover the huge amount of contributions regarding the vinyl cut, which are only mentioned as part of the etching on the run-out grooves of records.

Currently the "Mastered By"-role is being used - or better said ABUSED - for this matter.

Am using the word "Abused", because adding a mastering credit for non other given info than a etched name is only speculation, unless the credit itself is explicitely mentioned on the release (saying "Mastering/Mastered by XXX")

Cutting the lacquer for vinyl pressing DOES NOT necessarily imply a mastering at all! Having been responsible for several vinyl productions at a major company back in the days, I can asure to you, that often the mastering is done by a different company- the mastered tracks then given to the cutting studio, which then sends the lacquer to the plant (some plants do the cutting inhouse aswell, without any note on the vinyls)

So assuming, that cutting a vinyl does include mastering is an assumption, but not a proven fact.

Although I agree, that some studios such as "The Exchange" are famous for their masterings. One should "actually" be correct about the fact that at least 99% of The Exchange-cuttings imply a mastering - but still the info is not 100% provided by only having a name and company name etched on a run-out groove...

--> to follow the recent way of listing data on discogs, thereby meaning: "list info as given on the release & as correct as possible", it would be logical to use a new credit role to outline the contribution as it is given on the release.

role suggestions:
- Vinyl Cut By
- Lacquer Cut By (Metalmaster?!)
- Cut By
- Vinyl Cut

you opinions/suggestions please

I have never seen these credits on a release. Are you suggesting that we only have 'Mastered By' when it is mentioned on the release? And have all other 'etched names' attached to a 'Cut By' credit instead?

sjcee is correct here though, schtel the reason you don't see these credits on a release is because quite often after mastering the music is taken somewhere else and cut and that is when the run out groove etchings are added, also the reason why you do see mastering credits on the rear covers of albums and such is because the mastering engineer usually works for the company that employ the artist (unlike the cutting engineer), also as mentioned above some mastering houses will cut the vinyl as well and sometimes its even the same person(s) doing both jobs so.. just because someones name is in the runouts it doesn't mean they did both the mastering and the cutting jobs
EDIT : its the reason i never add mastering credits unless they are specifically stated (not just in runouts)

sjcee
Currently the "Mastered By"-role is being used - or better said ABUSED - for this matter.

the only correct role at the moment is "Technician [Cut By]", imho,
which might be mentioned via a signature etching,

and is very different from, and has nothing in common
with the "Mastered By" processing ..

the mastering involves preparing and optimizing the digital or analogue sound material (frequencies/phase/levels)
for the "master" tape/file by an experienced sound engineer in a studio,
which is then, in a next step, transferred/inscribed (cut) to a metal "mother"
later used for pressing the vinyl.

any use of a "Mastered By" credit for a not explicitly so marked "Etching" is outright not correct,
as the etching of numbers, paroles and signatures can only be done by the cutting technicians,
which have a tradition of "g" their cuts.

(it may also be noted that having "Mastered" something soundwise has become a widespread cliché
and is somehow "chique" or cool, although more often a complete misundestanding of sonic possibilties
vs. that the result now is "fat", "really loud" or somehow "kicks ass" ..)

sjcee
Cutting the lacquer for vinyl pressing DOES NOT necessarily imply a mastering at all!

Mastered By is not an abusing.

The lables send their material to the mastering and cutting studios. The tracks have to be mastered before the lacquer is cutted. Volume, EQ...
Even if the tracks were mastered by the artists themselves, they have to be mastered by the Engineers before the cutting begins.

Stadt.Kind
The lables send their material to the mastering and cutting studios. The tracks have to be mastered before the lacquer is cutted. Volume, EQ...
Even if the tracks were mastered by the artists themselves, they have to be mastered by the Engineers before the cutting begins.

well, you're correct, that the Cutting Engineer has to prepare the audio for cutting. Usually the technican checks the peak of the audiotrack, its frequency-range (+/-) and sometimes the EQ - usually not more, unless you ask for!
But to describe that kind of technical preparation as "Mastering" would lead the role "Mastered By" ad adsurbum.

Mastering tracks in a studio by a professional mastering engineer is something different, than preparing/adjust audio for cutting!

IMO you cannot use the same role for it.

trying to keep it simple again after having shared info above from my longtime experience as a professional soundengineer:

the discogs rule is: As on release.

Stadt.Kind
Mastered By is not an abusing.

whatever you feel to think might turn out to be a myth or misinterpretation,
please only use "Mastered By" when it says so on the release,
add [Cut By] to this credit in case it additionaly says so,

other, i'd use credit "Technician [Cut By]" if there is no indication of any other involvement.

Stadt.Kind
Even if the tracks were mastered by the artists themselves, they have to be mastered by the Engineers before the cutting begins.

that just depends on how well the artists have managed to master the track, i am a sound engineer and although i have seen some bad jobs done by artists that they end up having to go back and fix i have also seen artists master their tracks exceedingly well so it's not always the case, some cutting engineers try to insist on a final master as they may be due a bigger payment i think LOL

sjcee
Currently the "Mastered By"-role is being used - or better said ABUSED - for this matter.

There is actually no definition of the Mastered By credit in the credits list. So it could be interpreted a number of ways. If it is interpreted as the procedure for creating the master sound source from which the final release is created (e.g. preparation and transferring the audio to the final master format followed by transfer from master format to the lacquer), then Mastered By could be used for crediting both as they both involve creating some kind of master that is used in a subsequent stage of producing the final product.

sjcee
Am using the word "Abused", because adding a mastering credit for non other given info than a etched name is only speculation, unless the credit itself is explicitely mentioned on the release (saying "Mastering/Mastered by XXX")

True, but as runout etchings don't contain the role, speculation or leaving them out all together are the only options. Also, by the cryptic nature of these credits they are probably better researched than other explicit credits copied verbatim from the release label/sleeve.

8m2stereo
Technician [Cut By]

This should probably be the role for all runout etching credits where no explicit role is mentioned anywhere else on the release.

helix
There is actually no definition of the Mastered By credit in the credits list. So it could be interpreted a number of ways.

The rule here is very clear
and leaves no room for any kind of interpretation:

"The (credit) role ... should be chosen to match the credit on the release as closely as possible."

hence: use "Mastered By" only in case it says so on release.

8m2stereo
The rule here is very clear and leaves no room for any kind of interpretation:

The rule may be clear but as "Mastered By" has no current discogs definition and is allegedly being used incorrectly anyway, it has been and currently still is open to interpretation.

8m2stereo
hence: use "Mastered By" only in case it says so on release.

As I said before, on most releases there is no role credit for anything, just a cryptic etching and due to this thread and now this thread other information has also been added to the notes of many releases. Therefore, what you say implies removing a lot of the Mastered By credits and release notes that are currently in the database.

Whilst this will be 'as on release', I think it will remove valid information from the database and force it back into hiding in the notes as literal transcription of the etchings.

I agree that we need to differentiate between audio mastering and cutting the lacquer/copper plate, but "mastering" has traditionally been a vaguely defined and thence overused term in the real world.
Glad this is being discussed at last.
Un-happy at all the revisions that will be necessary, and the fact that hundreds of thousands of vinyl releases will need to be revised yet again.
:(

Dead wax inscriptions are the key to ID-ing legitimate pressings.

Counterfeiting is now BIG BUSINESS and is keeping pressing plants alive, mom-and-pop retailers alive, etc etc,
so it's a tricky business, and many feet will be "stepped-on" as a result of the work discoggers are doing.
Businesses large and small will close: for example Juno will probably go out of business when customers and RIAA type organizations start complaining more loudly about the counterfeits and pirates.
The RIAA and the other countries' government agencies will have more of a stranglehold, so it's not a black and white situation with any clear benefits to any particular camp (except for the bland, corporate "Music Industry" of course.)
But as collectors and lovers of music, we owe it to ourselves and to the public to speak the truth regardless of the financial fallout.
ID-ing releases for what they really are is, or should be, a primary mission at discogs in addition to generally catag all music ever manufactured.

I thought I would summarise the current position and options to make the credits more accurate.

Current philosophy as advocated by Forum Thread #182130

1. All explicit and implicit (etched) credits related to the mastering/cutting process use the Mastered By role:

Mastered By/Mastered By [Cut By/Cutting Engineer/whatever] - [artist]

2. Explicit and implicit (etched) company names added to the release notes:

Mastered at [company]
Pressed at [company]

Revised philosophy under discussion here

1. Explicit credits related to the mastering/cutting process use the appropriate role:

Mastered By - [artist]
Technician [Cut By]/Cut By - [artist]

2a. Implicit etched credits assumed to relate to the cutting process only and to use the appropriate role:

Technician [Cut By]/Cut By - [artist]

2b. Implicit etched credits assumed to relate to both the mastering/cutting process and use the Mastered By role:

Mastered By - [artist]

2c. No assumptions to be made about implicit etched credits. No credits to be added. Instead add them to the release notes as part of the literal transcriptions of the runout etchings.

3. Explicit company names added to the release notes:

Mastered at [company]
Pressed at [company]

4a. Implicit etched company names added to the release notes:

Mastered at [company]
Pressed at [company]

4b. No assumptions to be made about implicit etched company names. Instead add them to the release notes as part of the literal transcriptions of the runout etchings.

-------------------
The problem area is runout etchings, as assumptions have to be made when translating them to credits. I think 1, 2b, 3, 4a would have the least impact upon current entries in the database. Possibly some combination of 2a or 2b could be chosen if the artist was known as a mastering engineer/cutting engineer or both.

Please comment on your preferences or if you think I have missed something.

You did a great job summarizing the issues, thanks for your effort.
Since I for one am burnt out and broke, I have no comment yet except that I think the way I have been doing it is adequate and correct.. I use mastered by, I use ANV's including exact spelling as it appears in the deadwax unless there's also a printed label/jacket credit, (example, Herb Powers Jr frequently uses his HERbIE Jr autograph, and Phil Austin usually uses the initials Pa, etc.. etc...
Personally, my desire is to take an "If it aint' broken, don't fix it" approach and incorporate what I do into the guidelines more explicitly. I've also started taking and submitting photos of the dead-wax info to "prove" the legitimacy of a given pressing.
Since most of the releases I have seen, especially older releases, frequently have dead wax ID info that is different from the credited mastering artists, I can see that we do in fact need to address the issue head-on in order for older LP submissions to be accurate.
Of course, this opens a big can of worms in re the issue of separate pressings being considered unique releases, something that Nik seems opposed to according to a post of his I recently read. Whereas, as a collector, I want the best sounding pressing, and usually (though not always) the first pressing sounds better than a later pressing.
But then again, a later Sundazed reissue of an earlier Bob Dylan Mono LP, for example, can blow away the original pressing because the actual master tape was used, and/or for a variety of other technical reasons..
but I digress as usual.
:)

8m2stereo
the discogs rule is: As on release

Care to supply a link to where it exactly says that?

jweijde:

Third sentence of Guidelines -1. General Rules -Valid Information:

.. the physical release must always be the primary source. &

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/submission-guidelines-release-credits.html

Role: The role should be selected from one of the standard credit roles, and
should be chosen to match the credit on the release as closely as possible.

Great summary helix - thanks!

my comments:

helix
2b. Implicit etched credits assumed to relate to both the mastering/cutting process and use the Mastered By role:

Here is one of the main issues IMO.
How can someone be sure 100% of the actual contribution by just having a name and a company name etched?

Whereas 2a. is rather explicit to me - names of the cutting technicians can be gained by the etched names/abreviations (why should s.o. etch the name of someone different?) - 2.b is quite vague, as one is only assuming a "second" contribution out of the etching, which is not mentioned! Who is the one to decide, at which percentage the second role (Mastered By) can be assumed to be correct???

I think 2.b. is contrary to the rule mentioned above: .. the physical release must always be the primary source...
In this very case the physical release is no reliable source, as it doesn't mention the contribution explicitely, apart of the cutting/etching process, which is obvious by it's nature (appearence)

helix
I think 1, 2b, 3, 4a would have the least impact upon current entries in the database.

I wonder if that is something we should care about! I'd rather care for correct information (even if that would mean changing credits én masse), than on keeping things as they are, just because it's the easier way...
Best example is "cat# as on release" - how many cat# have been made up for consistency on label pages..., due to the new rule, a lot of updates have been made only for that matter - and I think that's for the better...

I'd like to deal with the definitions of "mastering". The basic meaning of this word is 'to prepare the master copy for reproduction'. Cutting the lacquer disc is the fundamental part of the vinyl mastering process, with audio adjustments such as EQ and compression being peripheral tasks done in order to optimise the cut.

From "Handbook For Sound Engineers - The New Audio Cyclopedia", Howard W. Sams & Company Audio Libary, ISBN 0-672-21983-2, page 843, section 23.3 'Disc Cutting And Record Manufacturing':

The first step in producing the disc record is to cut the master. This process is called mastering of the record. The mastering process involves cutting the modulated groove in the lacquer according to developed standards dealing with dimensions of the record and the processing of the signals being recorded.

Over time, the processing (EQing and compressing) became more and more important, until the advent of the CD where the processing of the audio and creation of the master disc for reproduction became two distinct processes. Due to digital techniques and the availability of cheap software and hardware to almost everyone, the term mastering is now perceived primarily or exclusively as the EQing and other processing of the audio, and not as the creation of the master disc (either digital or analog). Nevertheless, the term "mastering" should, I believe, cover both sub-tasks:

* Final processing of the audio for technical or artistic reasons
* Preparing, creating, and checking the master disc / tape / file for subsequent duplication, copying etc.

I think the current data extraction methods and credit roles used on the site are satisfactory. Unless we come across a real problem regarding the transcription of cutting engineers etchings on vinyl, I think we should continue the way we have been doing things.

sorry for being sarcastic now
why then don't use the term "strings" for all integrations based on string-type instruments?

When two different kind of involvements have to be credited using the same word, one does not know about the actual involvement at all.

BTW. only because the word "Mastering/Master" does cover two different king of actions, it's not the same in other languages. In german, we've got separate expressions either preparing recorded audio for production (production master) or for Mastering audio for better audio quality (eq, compression, frequency ...)

for me it's quite inconsistent not to be able to differciate the contribution of an artist, because we're using the same role...