For Penguin Discography: Regarding songs recorded by FM members they didn’t write

[wetcamelfood]

This is the first in a series of polls on helping to determine the most appropriate ways or sorting some oddball items in the new Penguin discography.

Even though some of the examples used here & in future polls might not directly relate to those in the “Rumours” line up of FM, we’ve just decided to post these hear since this is the most viewed band related forum on The Ledge.

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.

OK, as you know, we've added some albums to the discog via the old "Songs covered" page:

http://fleetwoodmac.net/penguin/fmcovers.htm

…because they included some covers of "Stop Draggin' My Heart Around", like this one:

http://discog.fleetwoodmac.net/discog.php?pid=1132

…which, though a solo SN song, she didn't write it etc.

Now, this is where it gets sticky - Just as an example: In checking through the "Atlantic Records 50 Years: Gold Anniversary Collection" V/A comp:

http://discog.fleetwoodmac.net/discog.php?pid=58

…you’ll see that Otis Redding's "Sittin' On The Dock Of The Bay" is on there, then I remembered that Billy has a version of this song too on his “Between Friends” solo album:

http://discog.fleetwoodmac.net/discog.php?pid=148

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.

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?

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.

If not, then I guess we should remove those items that “just have another version of SDMHA on them as well. If this is what the majority vote comes out with, we’d rather know now than have to remove hundreds of albums etc. later & I know the easy vote is just to say “oh yeah, just go & add everything” but if you guys don’t honestly think you’ll ever go to look at the pages of “(albums) that have (so & so’s) version of (whatever)” then please don’t choose that option, as it’d save us a lot of time that we could better use on discography features that will matter more to you.

We realize that there are many items to add to the new discog but we’d prefer to get all of the existing items sorting properly etc. before we delve in to adding new things so please do not submit new items to add in at this point, we WILL get to that, but NOT at this time.

We’ve tried to make these vote choices as specific as possible so that things don’t get lost in what is said underneath in the thread so please just choose which option you feel and only post in this thread if you have a genuine, legitimate “gray area” to point out for revising the vote choices if needed.

I would like to hear some ideas below though as to what we should label such an “appearance” if it is decided to add in “all versions” of such songs (or if we don’t & it’s decided to make notations on other versions that happen to be in the discog for other reasons) rather than what we have in currently (which is under the “Production roles” drop downs of the artist’s discogs & for the moment it’s called “Cover Of Related Solo Song”).

Remember that in many cases the FM member’s version was much later (like Billy covering Otis), especially regarding the blues recordings, so “Cover Of Related (FM/other band/solo) Song” doesn’t really work in those instances & it would be clearest if we have this under a category with a name that made sense & didn’t sound silly (whether it was a song done soon after being written or years later).

If necessary, we’ll do 2 separate categories but of course the whole point of a database is to link up as much as possible so things are easy to find & if we had a “FM member covering another artists song” category, I could see surfers wondering why we had such a category if FM & it’s members are the focus of this site’s discography, you know what I mean?

Naturally, we just put “Songwriter” in as the reason for another artist actually covering a song that a FM member writes, like the Smashing Pumpkins album “Pisces Iscariot” for it’s “Landslide” cover:

http://discog.fleetwoodmac.net/discog.php?pid=1144

…for example…but for those they didn’t write…?)

We can determine closer the time what to do if there’s a tie & we do a revote with the same results etc.

Thanks for the ops in advance.

John

EDIT: Had to shorten vote names. Here's the full options:

Option 1: All versions of those songs should still be added to the discography including bolding titles of other artist’s versions (if you choose this vote, please suggest below what the category name should be for such an instance)

Option 2: Only the versions they recorded/appeared on should be included. If another artist’s version happens to be in the discog because of another FM related issue then the title of the other artist’s version should be bold with the notation stating that the FM member isn’t on that recording (if you choose this vote, please suggest below what the category name should be for such an instance).

Option 3: Only the versions they recorded/appeared on should be included. If another artist’s version happens to be in the discog because of another FM related issue then the title of the other artists version should not be bold, no notation should be made & it should not sort in to the FM member’s discog.

[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.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by David

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.

But an even bigger can of worms if you don't. Will the database include every known recording of all the Robert Johnson songs Peter and the band have recorded and released over the years? That just seems a little silly (not too mention a whole lot of work for those doing it).

[wetcamelfood]

Glad we seem to agree David.

I'll ask Marty about the key, I think that's something he'll need to add in on his end, good idea though.

As for the likes of "Tied up", you're right, we'll only put in songs that have been released like you say. That's one of the reasons we just add pre 1995 bootlegs to the discography since it'd be impossible to catalog CD-R's people made/downloaded etc. from the net & so on.

Since Stevie's version apparently only floated around the net then it won't go in. I had actually asked about that song on the SN board a while back but everyone seemed to think her version never got released so we just left it alone.

In case there's any ONJ fans here, ONJ's version is on her 1982 "Greatest hits Vol. 2" album.

You'll probably come across a few items on that old "Songs covered" page that fall in to the same category so we left those out too. As it is, some of the albums listed on that page I coulnd't find any info on so I just used albums I could find info on that had "(their version) of (such & such)" like a greatest hits album or whatever for now until things gets settled later.

John

[wetcamelfood]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

But an even bigger can of worms if you don't. Will the database include every known recording of all the Robert Johnson songs Peter and the band have recorded and released over the years? That just seems a little silly (not too mention a whole lot of work for those doing it).

Good point & this is why we do the vote. Naturally if it is decided to "add everything" we can only add the versions that we know of that exist & that appeared on released media of some kind.

By the way, it doesn't look like either of you picked one yet (& it sounds like your votes differ).

John

[David]

Originally Posted by wetcamelfood

Good point & this is why we do the vote. Naturally if it is decided to "add everything" we can only add the versions that we know of that exist & that appeared on released media of some kind.

By the way, it doesn't look like either of you picked one yet (& it sounds like your votes differ).

John

No, I misunderstood. I agree with Jyqm. Such a discography should not list every known recording of a song NOT written but only covered by a Fleetwood Macster. If someone is interested in finding out about every known recording of "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay," there are places to look for such information. A Fleetwood Mac discography should not be one of them. That would be ridiculous.

The situation is different if a member of the band wrote the song.

[wetcamelfood]

Originally Posted by David

No, I misunderstood. I agree with Jyqm. Such a discography should not list every known recording of a song NOT written but only covered by a Fleetwood Macster. If someone is interested in finding out about every known recording of "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay," there are places to look for such information. A Fleetwood Mac discography should not be one of them. That would be ridiculous.

The situation is different if a member of the band wrote the song.

I personally agree & I have a feeling most everyone here will feel this way but we didn't just want to decide for everyone on these things so we'll just go through the motions of this poll in case the majority bring up valid points about why it should be different.

The main point here is how we should handle such oddities that are in the discography already. For example, this album:

http://discog.fleetwoodmac.net/discog.php?pid=249

It's not really a "tribute" (since it's the other way around as you guys were saying on SOTDOTB).

Should we have the relevant song titles bold with the notes or not? Even more confusing is that some of the songs they chose for this album FM never recorded versions of! (so naturally we won't worry about bolding those song titles etc.).

John

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by wetcamelfood

I personally agree & I have a feeling most everyone here will feel this way but we didn't just want to decide for everyone on these things so we'll just go through the motions of this poll in case the majority bring up valid points about why it should be different.

The main point here is how we should handle such oddities that are in the discography already. For example, this album:

http://discog.fleetwoodmac.net/discog.php?pid=249

I think that looks fine the way it is!

[wetcamelfood]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

I think that looks fine the way it is!

OK, so should I change your vote to option 2 (WITH titles bold/notes etc.)?

This album is borderline, I think it was only added in before because of the FM memntion in the album title.

Anyways, sorry if I gave too much info & it confused everyone (just afraid of leaving stones unturned).

Basically, if you vote for either option 2 or 3 then the likes of that Tom Petty tribute album will be deleted from the discography.

John

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by wetcamelfood

OK, so should I change your vote to option 2 (WITH titles bold/notes etc.)?

Yes. I didn't understand the difference between 2 and 3 when I voted.

This album is borderline, I think it was only added in before because of the FM memntion in the album title.

Which I think is totally legitimate.

Basically, if you vote for either option 2 or 3 then the likes of that Tom Petty tribute album will be deleted from the discography.

But this I agree should be gone.

[wetcamelfood]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Yes. I didn't understand the difference between 2 and 3 when I voted..

OK noted.

Originally Posted by Jyqm

But this I agree should be gone.

I realize before I said we'd "put a similar note in that we did to the Loud Lucy version of SDMHA" but that was only based on it's current inclusion in the discog now. So if either option 2 or 3 win, this will be N/A since this album would be deleted (in case anyone was cofused as to why I said this, I can see where it might seem contradictory).

John

[BklynBlue]

While I do not believe it is realistic or even necessary to list every cover of a given song, if the song was not written by a member of Fleetwood Mac, why not a separate section entitled:

Originals / Additional Interpretations

The original recordings could be highlighted somehow, or simply listed by date of release -

Rather than list every version of a given song, (especially in the case of a blues classic or standard)just give a basic cross section of others who may have recorded it, leaning towards those whom users of this site may find interesting - this is an admittedly scatter-shot approach, but for anyone seeking to dig further into any given number, they can use the information here to get them started on their own inquiries or use the forums to seek additional information and / or suggestions.

The example that you chose, (The Roots Of Fleetwood Mac) is indeed, truly a nightmare for a database such as this - many of the songs would need individual write-ups to explain their significance or relation to Fleetwood Mac - i.e. the first title, "Every Night and Every Day" by Robert Nighthawk: the lyrics and melody line are basically "My Heart Beat Like A Hammer".
The song was covered by Buster Brown (whose "Doctor Brown" Spencer also covered) under the name, "Don't Dog Your Woman" complete with the "Dust My Broom" riff on electric guitar - and this is the version that Spencer "covered" and released under his own name with yet a third title.
The song "Death Bells" by Lightnin' Hopkins is something of a stretch on the record company's part as aside from the title, and the generic Hopkins riff that Green uses, the song released on "The Vaudeville Years" really has nothing in common save a line or two with Hopkins' original.
I apologize for straying so far from the original question presented by the poll - I'll be quite now

[wetcamelfood]

Originally Posted by BklynBlue

While I do not believe it is realistic or even necessary to list every cover of a given song, if the song was not written by a member of Fleetwood Mac, why not a separate section entitled:

Originals / Additional Interpretations

The original recordings could be highlighted somehow, or simply listed by date of release -

Rather than list every version of a given song, (especially in the case of a blues classic or standard)just give a basic cross section of others who may have recorded it, leaning towards those whom users of this site may find interesting - this is an admittedly scatter-shot approach, but for anyone seeking to dig further into any given number, they can use the information here to get them started on their own inquiries or use the forums to seek additional information and / or suggestions.

The example that you chose, (The Roots Of Fleetwood Mac) is indeed, truly a nightmare for a database such as this - many of the songs would need individual write-ups to explain their significance or relation to Fleetwood Mac - i.e. the first title, "Every Night and Every Day" by Robert Nighthawk: the lyrics and melody line are basically "My Heart Beat Like A Hammer".
The song was covered by Buster Brown (whose "Doctor Brown" Spencer also covered) under the name, "Don't Dog Your Woman" complete with the "Dust My Broom" riff on electric guitar - and this is the version that Spencer "covered" and released under his own name with yet a third title.
The song "Death Bells" by Lightnin' Hopkins is something of a stretch on the record company's part as aside from the title, and the generic Hopkins riff that Green uses, the song released on "The Vaudeville Years" really has nothing in common save a line or two with Hopkins' original.
I apologize for straying so far from the original question presented by the poll - I'll be quite now

This is great information which I'll work in to those performances song comments field but I'll start a separate poll soon (no point until this poll has been tabulated) about these so this vote doesn't get clouded with this "FM member version after" issue.

John

[wetcamelfood]

This poll is now closed. Based on my conversation with Jyqm (i.e. - 1 from Op 3 & + 1 for Op 2), Option 2 is what we'll go with:

"Only the versions they recorded/appeared on should be included. If another artist’s version happens to be in the discog because of another FM related issue then the title of the other artist’s version should be bold with the notation stating that the FM member isn’t on that recording"

Tomorrow after the other polls are closed I'm going to start a thread here to tie up some current loose ends on these issues. Becuase we need suggestions on some things it can't be in poll form but hopefully with the ideas we get in that thread that will then give us some solid things to poll (we'll just have the thread be "open for thoughts" for 10 days just as the polls were/are).

I'll then ask Marty some of those questions we discussed in these threads & we'll post more polls with any other oddball areas that'll undoubtedly come up in the future!

John