Category talk:Engineer Relationship Class
Archived Discussion
Note: the discussion below refers to the former Engineer Relationship Type, which combined every engineering relationship into one super Relationship Type. This has since been cleaned up, to form the current Engineer Relationship Class, and its various Relationship Types.
This is a good example of where the difference between "additional" and "minor" isn't very clear. The Americana example uses "assistant", which could mean either of the attributes we have available.
I propose changing 'Recording Engineer' to 'Recorded By' - this is the most common phrasing of this role, and is a far better descriptive term, as it is not neccesarily an 'engineering' role - see Steve Albini, who is always credited as 'Recorded By' despite having an influence similar to that of a 'Producer'.
I also propose changing 'Mix Engineer' to 'Mixed By' - this is by FAR (99% of the time) the most commonly used phrase, and again is more descriptive. Mixing (in this sense) is as much about musical skills as technical skills, if not more so. Although I have on occasion seen it referred to as 'Mix Engineer', that is almost certainly describing the same thing. Personally my initial reaction to when I saw 'Mix Engineer' was "Where's 'Mixed By'? Is this the same thing?" and I expect that is the same for most people. It should be changed. --Gecks
Both these changes are now live!
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that someone doing the recording is not necessarily in an engineering role. How are you distinguishing between the two? A count of a random stack of roughly 20 CDs showed 14 credits for engineers and only 3 with recorded by; the others were uncredited. Also, recorded is used more in a sentence where the studio is mentioned "Recorded at AA Studios by John Doe" or "Recorded by John Doe at AA Studios". --WolfSong
- Therein lies the problem with all credits - they are only meaningful within context, so it's best to just stick with whatever is written in the liner. For example, "Recorded By" is very often essentially the same thing as "Producer", but that has certain connotations that some "Producers" and indeed bands don't like to put forward. Eg, Producers can have an influence on the sound to the extent that is as much their release as the bands (see The Beatles, Albini, etc). Saying "Recorded By" is like saying "This guy recorded the release but on our terms". Also, producer doesn't neccesarily infer any technical involvement in the recording - it could be just saying "this sounds good"/"this sounds bad", and letting engineers do the technical stuff. "Recorded By" implies a certain amount of technical involvement. Engineer...well again that can mean anything from Producer to a techie. I don't think it's correct to lump 'Recorded By' and 'Engineer' together, as Engineers are generally supporting primary Recorders/Producers, or perhaps the band themself (who could be doing the production/recording). "Recorded By" is very common in indie rock type circles. Perhaps not so much elsewhere, but I think it is definitely worth indexing. --Gecks
- You're mixing production arguements with engineering here and they are not the same. A producer and an engineer are two separate roles in the recording process. In some cases, the producer and engineer is the same person but they are still separate roles that should be defined separately. The titles themselves are not interchangeable.
- Producer
- A person who oversees and is responsible for the delivery of a release.
- Engineer
- A person who operates the soundboard and sets up the recording equipment.
- Right, but the problem is that they are credited haphazardly, meaning different things to different people. We need "recorded by" as there is no way of knowing whether or not this means 'engineer' or 'producer' when it appears on liner notes. Interesting URL which explains why some "producers" would prefer "recorded by" - http://citypaper.net/articles/101101/cs.mctear.shtml - I think we should respect this. Gecks
- I don't think they are credited hapazardly nor do I think it means different things to different people. Your statement that we need "recorded by" negates that a large number if not a clear majority of releases credit both a producer and an engineer. Pointing to a single article about one person who prefers not to be referred to as a producer is not a strong arguement IMHO. As a compromise I would suggest sticking with "recording engineered by".
- I think they are and I think it does :P To summarise:
- Producer
- Responsible for delievering release. May be responsible for record companies requirements as well as/more than the bands.
- Recorded By
- Responsible for committing music to tape. More likely to be on bands terms than record companies. Likely to offer advice rather than demands. Concequently - may have more of an influence on sound than a producer would! May work with a producer or solo.
- Engineer
- Has technical ability to place mics, operate mixing desks, etc. Implies no influence on sound.
- I agree. I have never seen these written (that's not to say they aren't - maybe more likely in pop releases). --Gecks
- I think they are and I think it does :P To summarise:
- I don't think they are credited hapazardly nor do I think it means different things to different people. Your statement that we need "recorded by" negates that a large number if not a clear majority of releases credit both a producer and an engineer. Pointing to a single article about one person who prefers not to be referred to as a producer is not a strong arguement IMHO. As a compromise I would suggest sticking with "recording engineered by".
- You're mixing production arguements with engineering here and they are not the same. A producer and an engineer are two separate roles in the recording process. In some cases, the producer and engineer is the same person but they are still separate roles that should be defined separately. The titles themselves are not interchangeable.
Another problem with recorded by is that their assistant engineers on many releases. Using additional recorded by doesn't make sense grammatically. --WolfSong
