Guidance on the inclusion of B-sides in the main title

My understanding of submission guidelines 3.2.2 and 3.3.1 is that the main title should only include the A-side of a release unless it is double A-sided.

I removed the B-side from a release I am selling, but a previous submitter (with a lot more experience than me!) has put it back.

Rather than constantly undoing each others work I have decided to put this up for discussion and go with the majority vote.

You can read the history here Afrikan Simba / Zoro (2) - Poverty / Praise His Name.

Thanks for any help and comments.

devonites
My understanding of submission guidelines 3.2.2 and 3.3.1 is that the main title should only include the A-side of a release unless it is double A-sided.

I think it's fine to have both titles in when it's a split artist single like that.

What's with the image, though? It's quite clearly not from the actual record.

Just checked my copy and it certainly is. I'll more images.

devonites
You can read the history here Afrikan Simba / Zoro (2) - Poverty / Praise His Name.

This is a "split" release. Definitely OK to keep both titles.

devonites
Just checked my copy and it certainly is.

What I mean is that's not a scan or a photo from any actual record,.

StaticGuru
What I mean is that's not a scan or a photo from any actual record,.

It is / was, see the updated images http://discogs.cinepelis.org/viewimages?release=2411812 one of which is exactly the same.

devonites

It is / was, see the updated images http://discogs.cinepelis.org/viewimages?release=2411812 one of which is exactly the same

It was clearly a computer generated image, much too sharp and clean to be a photo/scan. But it doesn't matter now that you've replaced it.

loukash
This is a "split" release. Definitely OK to keep both titles.

Is there a guideline for this that I have missed?

StaticGuru
It was clearly a computer generated image

Ah, I see what you mean now.

devonites
Is there a guideline for this that I have missed?

Frankly, I don't think so. But it's a long time accepted practice nonetheless. :)
I guess the practice comes from the general (and in my opinion totally logical) presumption that a "split" release is by its nature a "double A-sided release", i.e. not actually favoring the artist on the one side over the other one on the "other" side.

devonites
I think it's fine to have both titles in when it's a split artist single like that.

Agree, IMO this does not relate to all split artist singles, sometimes it is clearly one artist/title that is the A side, the B-side is not mentioned on the front sleeve then.
But this release should have both artist/titles in IMO.

But something else:
Why are track A2/A3 credited to Slimmah Sound and track B2/B3 to Shiloh Ites ?
I can't find that on the images. Also my guess is that the titles mentioned there are the titles of the 'version/remix' and thus should be in brackets behind the songtitle of that side.

loukash
I guess the practice comes from the general (and in my opinion totally logical) presumption that a "split" release is by its nature a "double A-sided release", i.e. not actually favoring the artist on the one side over the other one on the "other" side.

Totally disagree, see my comment above.
A split release is not by definition a double-A-side.
See for an example http://discogs.cinepelis.org/Freddie-Mercury-Love-Kills-/release/1891731
Track B is not even mentioned on the sleeve, neither front nor back, and can never be billed as a double-A-side. It was changed some time ago by a , and after a discussion changed back.

JeroenG8
Track B is not even mentioned on the sleeve, neither front nor back, and can never be billed as a double-A-side.

If there's a printed sleeve, then of course the sleeve defines the main artist/title. No dispute here.

On http://discogs.cinepelis.org/viewimages?release=2411812 both artists and titles are treated equally, however.

So perhaps a clarification in the guidelines would be helpful in that regard.

@ loukash Agree, when no sleeve your theory is correct IMO

JeroenG8
Why are track A2/A3 credited to Slimmah Sound and track B2/B3 to Shiloh Ites ?
I can't find that on the images. Also my guess is that the titles mentioned there are the titles of the 'version/remix' and thus should be in brackets behind the songtitle of that side.

i think you may be right.

loukash
I guess the practice comes from the general (and in my opinion totally logical) presumption that a "split" release is by its nature a "double A-sided release", i.e. not actually favoring the artist on the one side over the other one on the "other" side.

Not just that, but if you have:

Afrikan Simba / Zoro (2) - Poverty

Then it looks like it's a collaboration where both artists worked on the same track(s) - which is untrue and disingenuous.

If you have:

Afrikan Simba / Zoro (2) - Poverty / Praise His Name.

Then it becomes less likely that it's a collaboration and the tracks are relevant to the artists on the same side of the slash.

So the double title makes it more correct in of both properly displaying the split and in of reflecting what the release is.

JeroenG8
See for an example http://discogs.cinepelis.org/Freddie-Mercury-Love-Kills-/release/1891731
Track B is not even mentioned on the sleeve, neither front nor back, and can never be billed as a double-A-side. It was changed some time ago by a , and after a discussion changed back.

loukash
If there's a printed sleeve, then of course the sleeve defines the main artist/title. No dispute here.

Agreed - but in the Freddie Mercury example, the b-side artist is not billed either, so is not a Main Artist.

What loukash said is 100% correct for multiple billed main artists - not where there happens to be other track artists on a release but they are not billed on either side of the sleeve.

JeroenG8
Why are track A2/A3 credited to Slimmah Sound and track B2/B3 to Shiloh Ites ?

This wasn't my doing, but if I were to have submitted this I would have done exactly the same. If you look at the last image, in the portion corresponding to side A it says "all instruments Slimmah Sound" and since A2/A3 are dubs I think it's correct. It even credits the writer as just T. Baumgarten who is Slimmah Sound.

It's the same scenario for B2/B3.

devonites
This wasn't my doing, but if I were to have submitted this I would have done exactly the same. If you look at the last image, in the portion corresponding to side A it says "all instruments Slimmah Sound" and since A2/A3 are dubs I think it's correct. It even credits the writer as just T. Baumgarten who is Slimmah Sound.It's the same scenario for B2/B3.

Sorry, but disagree.
If 2 & 3 are dubs of track 1, the title should be 'title track 1 (dub 1)' and 'title track 1 (dub 2)', and not 'dub 1' and 'dub 2'.
Also I don't agree that Slimmah Sound should be billed the artist for track 2 & 3.
Afrikan Simba is billed as main artist for track 1, and since track 2 & 3 are a special version of track 1 and these are not credited on the sleeve/label to someone else Afrikan Simba should be the main artist for track 2 & 3 too.
"all instruments Slimmah Sound" counts for all three tracks and only says that he did all instruments. The fact that track 2 & 3 are dubs (not even specifically called instrumentals) does not change the fact that it is a Afrikan Simba track.

If for example a single mentions the following.
> Frida - I know there's something going on
> 1. I know there's something going on
> 2. instrumental version
> all instruments by Phil Collins.
Track 2 isn't suddenly a Phil Collins track, it still is a track by Frida.
Also it still should be named 'I know there's something going on (instrumental version)'

JeroenG8
Also I don't agree that Slimmah Sound should be billed the artist for track 2 & 3.
Afrikan Simba is billed as main artist for track 1, and since track 2 & 3 are a special version of track 1 and these are not credited on the sleeve/label to someone else Afrikan Simba should be the main artist for track 2 & 3 too.

+1
The track artists for A2, A3, B2, B3 as currently listed are incorrect.

JeroenG8
If for example a single mentions the following.
> Frida - I know there's something going on
> 1. I know there's something going on
> 2. instrumental version
> all instruments by Phil Collins.
Track 2 isn't suddenly a Phil Collins track, it still is a track by Frida.
Also it still should be named 'I know there's something going on (instrumental version)'

but what if Frida was just singing on track 1 and Phil Collins produced track 1 and 2 and played all instruments on both tracks? (like it is with African Simba / Slimmah Sound, as well as B side)

echo30
but what if Frida was just singing on track 1 and Phil Collins produced track 1 and 2 and played all instruments on both tracks? (like it is with African Simba / Slimmah Sound, as well as B side)

Then still the song and BOTH VERSIONS are credited to Frida... and thus Frida should be billed as the main artist. (like it is with African Simba / Slimmah Sound, as well as B side)

And Phil Collins wrote the music.

Lyrics By, Vocals - African Simba
Music By, Producer - Slimmah Sound

...and African Simba is only credited for A1 on the label, as well as Zorro (2) only for track B1

Why can't you see that it doesn't matter who did what...? if the song and version is credited to a certain artist, then THAT is the main artist that has to be credited for that track.
Only exception is if there's a clearly falsely labeled main artist.
Like for example when the song 'Let it be' is credited to The Rolling Stones.
But still, then there should go a note in the notes "track 'Let It Be' falsely credited to The Rolling Stones"

echo30
...and African Simba is only credited for A1 on the label, as well as Zorro (2) only for track B1

No, you just don't get it.
African Simba is credited for the song 'Poverty' on side A. And since track A2 and A3 are remixed versions of that track they should have the same main artist (African Simba), unless they are credited to a different main artist (which is NOT the case here)
Same goes for side B

please show me where tracks A2 & A3 are credited to African Simba!?
...unfortunately the sticker isn't visible very good, but here in a "similar record" from the same label, with a better sticker-scan, for a better understanding of devon_ites' and my point: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/viewimages?release=2037406

echo30
please show me where tracks A2 & A3 are credited to African Simba!?...unfortunately the sticker isn't visible very good, but here in a "similar record" from the same label, with a better sticker-scan, for a better understanding of devon_ites' and my point: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/viewimages?release=2037406

Can you show me where Slimmah Sound is credited to track A2 & A3 ?
No, because he isn't.
The sticker is clear enough for me.
The other sticker from your last message states 'Christine Miller' as main artists for both tracks... which is the way it is entered, so correct.
Slimmah Sound is not credited as main artist for any track here, so I don't get what you try to point out with this example.

loukash
The track artists for A2, A3, B2, B3 as currently listed are incorrect.

Okay, I've slept on it and I now agree with you and JeroenG8.

JeroenG8
The other sticker from your last message states 'Christine Miller' as main artists for both tracks... which is the way it is entered, so correct.
Slimmah Sound is not credited as main artist for any track here, so I don't get what you try to point out with this example.

Check again, this is the same as the Afrikan Simba record so surely this should also be corrected? Only this is not a split release so surely all artists should be removed from the tracklist?

JeroenG8
If 2 & 3 are dubs of track 1, the title should be 'title track 1 (dub 1)' and 'title track 1 (dub 2)', and not 'dub 1' and 'dub 2'.

Completely disagree, these are the track titles, to change what is written on the sleeve would be absurd. This is not just a generic "instrumental version" as you quote, these tracks have been given names.

Anyway, this thread started as a question about the main title and everyone seems to agree that "split" releases should both be listed, so thanks for everyone's input and comments, my question has been answered.

I am disappointed there isn't a guideline to reflect this, we need clearly defined guidelines / rules so that everyone knows what the protocol is. So, I'm going to write a message to nik asking him if it can be included and pointing him towards this thread.

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/submission-guidelines-release-title.html#Double_A_Sided_Releases
3.3.1. For double A-sided releases that do not have a given title, use both track titles separated by a slash. A double A-sided single is one on which the titles of all tracks are featured on the packaging with equal prominence, or a single that was otherwise marketed as having more than one featured track, such as a reissue single containing a pair of previous hits. The labels on such releases often designate their sides as 'A' and 'AA', rather than 'A' and 'B', or have no side designations at all. When a B-side title appears on the front of a singles packaging in diminished type, especially when preceded by b/w (which means 'backed with'), it generally indicates the release is not double A-sided.

Note that even if the sides are labelled A/B, it can still be considered a double A-side.

StaticGuru
Note that even if the sides are labelled A/B, it can still be considered a double A-side.

And you think that's clear in that guideline? I don't, there's no mention of "split" release at all. 3.3.1 does not state what you have just written. The whole point of "rules" is that everyone knows what the protocol is and I think this is ambiguous. I'm in the middle of writing a message to nik and I'm going to finish it.

devonites
And you think that's clear in that guideline?

Yes I do.

devonites
The whole point of "rules" is that everyone knows what the protocol is and I think this is ambiguous. I'm in the middle of writing a message to nik and I'm going to finish it.

Discogs does not have rules, only guidelines.
If we had a guideline for every single specific scenario, the list would be endless.

Why are you getting so upset over this anyway?

Stop being petty.

I'm well aware they are guidelines, which is why I put rules in quotation marks.

StaticGuru

 devon_ites
And you think that's clear in that guideline?

Yes I do.

Well I don't. That doesn't mean I'm "upset", I think that's a very patronising remark.

I think I'll just sit out the rest of this conversation.

devonites
And you think that's clear in that guideline?

It's pretty clear:

"The labels on such releases often designate their sides as 'A' and 'AA', rather than 'A' and 'B'"

The above quote from that guideline specifies that while releases OFTEN designate sides as A and AA, this is not always the case and a side labeled B can still be legitimately considered a double-A side if it is displayed prominently in that way.

***

With regard to the whole track artist issue:

The track artist should be the one who is actively promoted as such. If a track is credited to an artist, then they are the track artists for all versions of that track - REGARDLESS of who is actively performing or remixing that track - unless the release explicitly gets credited as the track artist for that track.

Instrumental tracks are always credited to the main track artist, even if it is a singer and s/he does not sing on that track.

Remixes are still credited to the main track artist (with a remix credit for the remixer), even though in many cases it essentially becomes a different tune.

It doesn't matter who produces the track, remixes it, performs the instruments, writes it, whatever - unless they are explicitly credited as a track artist on the release, they are NOT track artists. We go by what is on the release, not our subjective interpretation based on other credits.

(And by explicitly, I mean:
A-Side
Artistname - SongTitle
SongTitle (Howling Remix)
Artist2 - Dub1
Artist2 - Dub2

B-Side
Artistname - Song2
Song2 (Beatz Mix)
Artist3 - SoNgDuBwOw
Artist3 - Instru Mental

(in the above scenario, the main artist would be credited for A1, A2, B1, B2 - with A2 and B2 getting remix creds, and the second and third artists would get track credits for A3, A4 and B3, B4 respectively.)

The above-mentioned Freddy Mercury single (Giorgio Moroder is clearly billed as the track artist for the b-side.

devonites
And you think that's clear in that guideline? I don't, there's no mention of "split" release at all.

I agree that an example regarding "split" releases should be added to the guidelines as well, since it quite obviously causes some misunderstanding, as experienced right here, right now… :)

Kergillian
It's pretty clear:

"The labels on such releases often designate their sides as 'A' and 'AA', rather than 'A' and 'B'"

The above quote from that guideline specifies that while releases OFTEN designate sides as A and AA, this is not always the case and a side labeled B can still be legitimately considered a double-A side if it is displayed prominently in that way.

The fact you have to explain it shows it's not clear.

devonites
The fact you have to explain it shows it's not clear.

I don't *have* to explain it. I did as a matter of course.

People on this site *often* ignore words/ like 'often', 'unless', 'for example', and therefore take everything after those words as strict regulation.

These types of words and explicitly tell you that there are alternatives and that you should NOT take them as set in stone.

That seems simple and clear enough to me...

Kergillian
I don't *have* to explain it. I did as a matter of course.

Of course you don't "have" to explain it, perhaps I should have said "offer".

People on this site use the guidelines as a directive for their actions, so they need to be clear and concise. All I was trying to say is that, rather than offer your translation of what the guideline means, your explanation should be in the guideline.

Is it too much to ask that the guideline be revised?

Following this:

StaticGuru
A double A-sided single is one on which the titles of all tracks are featured on the packaging with equal prominence, or a single that was otherwise marketed as having more than one featured track, such as a reissue single containing a pair of previous hits

with (for example) "or a split release with two artists" could save all my confusion.

devonites
with (for example) "or a split release with two artists" could save all my confusion.

Totally unneccesary IMO and maybe even only cousing more confusion, since there are loads of split releases with two artists that are not a double-A-side (see Freddie Mercury/Giorgio Moroder example above)

as the release appears now (track-artists) makes me sad. since i'm not a native english speaker, i'm not able/willing to discussions here in full. ...but no problem! - instead i'll lean back, smoke some sensi and watch how this database loses accuracy and credibility once more. 8)

echo30
and watch how this database loses accuracy and credibility once more. 8)

100% accurate and credible. Your beef should be with the way that the label presents the release and its artists. We are here to transcribe information, not put our own subjective spin on it. And the release as it is, is how it is presented.

-_-

echo30
smoke some sensi

Oooh-weee, take care! It's been confirmed that it may cause you hearing "sounds inside [your] head" and "notice […] flow[s]" by Ganjah K on random releases.
;)

never noticed any problems like described above. nevertheless, thanks for caring!

Guideline has been updated - please see http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/356624

nik
Guideline has been updated - please see http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/356624

I have an awkward release in hand. A split 7", side A has two tracks, side B has one track. The two tracks on side A are not listed on the rear cover or labels, but feature with equal prominence on the inside cover. I currently had it listed as "Untitled". Should this remain the case? The label referred to it as "artist a/artist b split" which is quite common but not a title, just a description.

Black Eye Riot / Charger (3) - Black Eye Riot / The Amputee

nik
Guideline has been updated - please see http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/356624

Great, thanks nik!

Kergillian
Great, thanks nik!

+1