New roles added 25th January

I have added the following to the [url=]Credit List[/url]:

Jew’s Harp
Chapman Stick
Voice Actor
Bass Drum

Return to Discogs Blog
  • Feb 21,2006 at 05:02

    Mezzo-soprano Vocals

  • Feb 21,2006 at 04:55

    Ok, no problem. But my submission with E-Bow as a tag was approved last night :)

  • nik
    Feb 21,2006 at 03:23

    E-Bow is an electronic device that excites metal guitar strings to vibrate. It is the same as a finger or a pick or a violin bow or drumsticks. It is not an instrument, and therefore won’t be added to the instrument list. However, as stated above, you can use Guitar [E-Bow] for the credit no problem.

  • Feb 20,2006 at 17:10

    Yes, I know what it is.

    Still I’d like to see it as a separate credit. I have actually already seen it in some releases here on ‘Ogs.

  • Feb 20,2006 at 16:50

    E-Bow is a guitar/other metal stringed instrument manipulator. so basically it should be able to be covered by ‘Guitar [E-Bow]’, ‘Bass [E-Bow]’ and so forth.

  • Feb 20,2006 at 16:36

    I’d like to request E-Bow and Loops as roles. In addition to Gong, which I mentioned above. Objections anyone?


  • Feb 11,2006 at 10:38

    Along the lines of what [u=vargind] just mentioned, I’d like to see both Rap/Rap [Featuring] and Vocals (and Vocals [Featuring] if that ends up being created) ‘officially’ be indexed and linked.

    I remember when we started changing credits for vocalists who were listed as part of the main artist… first they were part of the main artist (i.e. “Masters & Nickson featuring Justine Suissa”) and then were split out but kept with equal billing so we didn’t have an infinite amount of duplicative artist pages (i.e. “Masters & Nickson” [featuring joiner] “Justine Suissa”)…

    Then “Featuring” artists were moved to an Extra Artist role (i.e. main artist “Masters & Nickson” with “Justine Suissa” given Extra Artist role of “Featuring”, later “Vocals”) but no longer had equal status with the main artist even if billed as such. I understand the logic behind doing that, especially with artists with billings like “The ABC Project featuring DJ ABC.”

    However, IMHO, “Vocals” and “Rap” are not secondary or tertiary roles and shouldn’t be relegated to an “Appears On” credit. Thankfully “Vocals” are at least indexed and do get listed on the artist’s page (although the credits list doesn’t indicate that to be the case best I can tell that is current operating procedure?)… I’m hoping that since we’ve got a chance to set a precedent that Rap will be given the same status as Vocals as far as indexing and linking goes and that both would ultimately be given the same ‘status’ with regards to having a section on the artist page, being linked, and being searchable as “Producer,” “Remix,” “Co-producer,” etc. have.

  • Feb 11,2006 at 02:48

    [i]the old role of “Featuring” for rappers is now Rap and Rap [Featuring] – the [Featuring] bit is added if they are listed as a “featured” artist (AKA guest artist)[/i]

    this is great news, I’m just wondering, does it follow from that, that we can now write: Vocals [Featuring] if that is indeed the case? because that is as it should be…

  • Feb 11,2006 at 02:46

    well, is it possible donnacha, that you would support a manual system where-by knowledgable discogs users could manually create a link ??

  • Feb 10,2006 at 14:43

    I don’t see the point with Rap being a credit.
    then again, “rap” isn’t my thing, after all.

  • Feb 9,2006 at 13:52

    I think I’m almost as excited about Rap finally being a credit as I was about Freestyle getting added as a style. But not quite as much as Funk/Soul and Latin finally getting their own genres. :)

    But hey I was happy all three times – what more can you ask for? :)

  • Feb 7,2006 at 15:46

    Stop right there, that’s a bad idea. The photographer on [r=338367] isn’t [a=Casey Orr] and quite a few artists have been entered without the redundant (2), (3), whatever as it’s not linked.

  • Feb 7,2006 at 14:21

    is there a possibility that the database would be able to recognise people who are already in the database and if they appear on a non-linked role it will change to make them linked ??

    for example I know [a=777?] has done artwork for several other people’s releases

  • Feb 5,2006 at 18:38

    @ nik

    Would it be good to incorporate “Remastered By” too? For best hits and reissues I’ve often seen this and I had to put Mastered By [Remastering]. Just a thought I had…

  • cul
    Feb 4,2006 at 03:16

    ‘Theremin’ please.

  • Feb 4,2006 at 02:33

    if your boss is gay, suck his cock. then make him a blinding cup of tea afterwards.

  • Feb 3,2006 at 15:30

    if tea boy is credited on a release, i’ll be the first to submit it! ;P

    how does one get a job as tea boy?

  • Feb 3,2006 at 09:51


    no i do not collect mp3s, despite you sending me some!!! (thanks btw)

    i kind of see the point now, however i still think its a large step taken too lightly. imo all the genres should have been switched on before starting to add non-recording based roles but…

  • Feb 2,2006 at 15:32

    [u=Igelkott94]: yup, discogs has shifted a LOT in the past few years. Launched November 2000, it took until early 2004 until Hip Hop was properly added in (it was a style under the original Electronic Discogs for a while). In the next two years, things have changed a lot – the system now accepts a lot of information, which is very keen with the world of music people try to archive here, information-wise at least.

    Now, if you see a coverdesign you like, perhaps an image you associate with the music itself ([url=]BRUTE![/url] artwork on [a=KMFDM] albums, for example), you might be able to find out more. People have been writing it in the release notes for a while, so what’s the diff? None, except it’s a handy place now, and can be reformatted more easeily.

  • Jan 31,2006 at 10:07


    there’s two choices, either we have images of record covers in discogs, and we credit the artist that have created the artwork in those covers, OR we remove all images from the database.

    take your pick.

    oh, by the way, as the music in records is often in a relation to the cover, ie. the cover represents some aspects of the music (how abstract may they be), the covers and the artists that have created those covers do have to be entered in discogs. You pondered with the inclusion of pressing plants etc. but I’m sure you understand, that the pressing plants do nothing unique to the albums. They just press them. Disc after a disc, there is no artistic input to the actual release. Therefore, info on pressing plants does not belong in discogs.

  • Jan 31,2006 at 08:11

    It’s funny to see how the world changes…
    1 year ago, similar threads were closed more ore less this way:

    – You want the artwork? buy the release!
    – You want credits? buy the release!
    – You want Other [Whatever]? buy the release!

    I’m not complaining, just a fact.

  • Jan 30,2006 at 17:09

    [i]just a waste of (time and) space.[/i]

    -> the info needs the same space (notes vs. credits). OK, it needs more time at the moment…

    BTW a release is more as just the music and non-music credits like artwork are not pointless. Or do you collect mp3s?

  • Jan 30,2006 at 17:04

    Could “Gong” be added? Thanks!

  • Jan 30,2006 at 16:51

    i think it’s neat :)

  • Jan 28,2006 at 09:42

    just a waste of time and space, imo, but thanks for the reply…

  • nik
    Jan 28,2006 at 09:39

    We credit [b]everyone[/b] that was credited on the sleeve. All credits go into the credit section. Some credits such as “Artwork By” (which has been an accepted credit for months now BTW) and “Photographer” are not indexed because we don’t want to start having artist pages for these people.

    We are all too happy to use the artwork / photographs here, displayed predominantly at the top of the release page, and yet you think they shouldn’t be credited? Not good IMHO.

    A user requested this change, not myself or teo.

    There are no plans to go into books or film.

  • Jan 28,2006 at 04:54

    yes but this is a music database, not a merchandise one.

    do we start crediting graphic designers? pressing plants? text editors? operating systems/programs used in sleeve artwork? barcode contacts? shops where you could buy the record from? cd case manufacturers? sleeve cover models? printing plants? guys who work at such plants putting the records in sleeves? paint artists? tea boys?

    this situation is farcical. if discogs intended to expand into accepting dvds/videos/books/merchandise/films (and with dvd/videos i mean cinema ones, not just music ones that are allowed at the moment) in the near-to-moderate future, then i could understand the addition of this somewhat worrying ‘[b]photographer[/b]’ credit. I just wish you and teo would be honest with us.

    i really think this credit should be removed and the users consulted before adding such pointless credits.

  • nik
    Jan 28,2006 at 04:45

    Photography is relevent because photographers take the pictures that is used in the artwork that we take great pleasure in looking at and even submitting to the database for others to see…

  • Jan 28,2006 at 04:25

    “It’s not relevant, and that’s why it’s not linked. ”

    then why have it?

    what [i]next[/i]?

    Tea boy- [url=g]Little Jimmy[/url]
    Receptionist at studio- [url=g]Sandra[/url]
    Lead singers drug mule [waiting in vacant rehearsal room while ‘Screamer Henderson’ finishes his take]- [url=g]Dodgy Dave[/url]
    Bloke walking down the street in LP sleeve cover photo- [url=g]Unknown Artist[/url]

    I mean come [i]on…[/i]

  • Jan 28,2006 at 03:48

    @Iron Fist – further to that, when v2 of discogs was introduced, featuring was used for virtually every instrumental role.

  • Jan 28,2006 at 03:39

    It’s not relevant, and that’s why it’s not linked.

    I’m curious why ‘Written By’ isn’t linked either though. Isn’t that important to the music process?

  • Jan 28,2006 at 01:41

    nik could you please explain to me how photography credit is relevant to a music database?

  • nik
    Jan 27,2006 at 13:18

    Photography is non linked, yes.

  • Jan 26,2006 at 19:19

    Ok thanks!

  • Jan 26,2006 at 17:44

    [u=Iron_Fist]: yes, the old role of “Featuring” for rappers is now Rap and Rap [Featuring] – the [Featuring] bit is added if they are listed as a “featured” artist (AKA guest artist).

    As taken from Jooles in a mod. thread: [i]It’s not just Hip Hop that has rapping. Some Eurodance, some Acid Jazz, some Funk Metal, some Rock; in fact any genre of music could theoretically have Rap in it.[/i]

    And I’ll say this now, hopefully keeping the rankhunter masses from updating every Featuring they see with Rap [Featuring]: sometimes extra producers or guest scratchers are listed as Featured. I’ve even seen some horn players of renown listed as “Featuring” – make sure you know what you’re doing before you list someone as a rapper.

  • Jan 26,2006 at 17:09

    Photography is non linked right?

  • Jan 26,2006 at 15:20

    So until now we have to use Rap instead of Featuring for rappers? If yes, do I edit Featuring for Rap on already submitted albums (hip-hop)?

  • Jan 26,2006 at 14:56

    Thanks for Didgeridoo.

  • Jan 26,2006 at 14:47


  • nik
    Jan 26,2006 at 11:45

    Just added:

    Executive Producer (non linked credit)
    Compilation Producer (instead of Other [Compilation Producer] or Producer [Compilation]0
    Directed By – For non-music
    Music By – For non-music
    Script By – For non-music
    Goblet Drum – Also called Dombak and Zarb has many other names as well
    Tambura (sometimes spelled Tamboura)
    Overtone Voice
    Blaster Beam – also called just Beam
    Didgeridoo (sometimes spelled dijeriduu)
    Temple Bells – Also called: Singing Bowls, Japanese Temple Bells, Tibetian Bells

  • Jan 25,2006 at 17:41

    Just went and updated all my pending submissions to incorporate the rap role… it was fun! and clearly i need to get out more but ah well!

  • Jan 25,2006 at 17:20

    Yeah, it’s gonna look awesome when all the roles are listed on the artist pages!

  • Jan 25,2006 at 12:40

    yes, rap was needed badly!
    I also hope that I won’t take [i]too[/i] long until roles will be listed on the artist pages as such.

  • Jan 25,2006 at 12:20

    Rap will definitely come in handy.

Leave A Reply