[David]

Originally Posted by wetcamelfood

The coding at this point is if it’s a version of a song that has a FM member on it, it’s bold & italics, if someone covers a FM member’s song but the FM members aren’t on it then it’s bold but no italics. If it’s a song that has no FM involvement then the song title is neither bolded or italicized.

Be sure to have a legend or a key somewhere for viewing.

So, I guess this is where some politics come in to play, I mean, most people would associate SDMHA w/SN, even though it was really a Tom Petty throwaway, whereas Otis Redding will always be associated with SOTDOTB & honestly, not many would even know (or care) that Billy recorded a version of SOTDOTB. However, as I’m sure you know with a database, something either “is or isn’t” & we'd like to set some fair rules on this so we don’t come across as having double standards.

I agree that an ostensibly comprehensive database should not play favorites or categorize according to more popular vs. less popular members of Fleetwood Mac. Otherwise, what's the point of a database?

Regardless of whether “people generally care more about Stevie than Billy (etc.)”, there’s lots of examples that affect what are deemed to be the most popular FM members, say, “At Last” which Stevie covered on the “Stormy weather” CD, Etta James’ version will always be considered the classic rendition, but if the vote turns out that we don’t add in albums with other people’s versions because a FM didn’t write the song then we won’t make an exception because Stevie covered it as opposed to a less popular member, and so on.

So, for this example, should we put items in to the discog that have “anybody’s” version of SOTDOTB in or not?

In short, yes. There isn't anything in principle that separates Billy's recording of "Dock" from Stevie's recording of "Draggin.' "

However, one distinguishing principle that should definitely be implemented in some fashion is whether the recording was a legitimate, official release (in any part of the world) as opposed to something that, in official terms, doesn't exist. For example, on the old Songs Covered page you can find "Tied Up in Promises," something that may or may not have been released officially by Olivia Newton-John (I don't know & don't care). However, that song's only link to Fleetwood Mac is that Stevie recorded it. But it was never released on anything legitimate or official produced by anyone in Fleetwood Mac. In official terms, it simply doesn't exist. So if something like "Tied Up in Promises" is going to be included in such a database, it needs to be categorized differently from legitimate material. It isn't equivalent to "Dock of the Bay" or "Some Become Strangers" or "September Song" because those are all legitimate releases. In other words, they "exist" in official terms.

I mean, as of now, I’d put Redding’s version is going to be in there anyways since the “Atlantic…” album has an SN song on it anyways but for consistent coding, we’d make OR’s SOTDOTB title bold & put a similar note in that we did to the Loud Lucy version of SDMHA on the Petty tribute, but we’d like to get your view on this rather than just decide for you. Naturally, everyone won’t agree but we’ll go with the option that gets the most votes.

I think you're on the right track. You're opening up a can of worms if you start applying random judgments as to which covers are more "worthy" of inclusion in such a database.