Regardless of the specific content of the album or track credits, I would like the display format to be standardized as follows:
Inconsistent display layout for composer information in album credits (ref#ORUUDW) - #2 by connor
1. Performers: Artists who actually performed, including conductors.
2. Composers: Individuals involved in creating the music, such as composers, lyricists, and arrangers.
3. Production: Individuals involved in album production other than the above, such as producers, engineers, mastering engineers, cover designers, and photographers.
I would have to disagree a little bit with this framing. I don’t want to see the main credit section further cluttered with such a comprehensive list of production credits including engineers, mastering engineers, cover designers and photographers. I find that section very useful for quickly drilling down to the tracks for individual creatives such as performers, composers, librettists, lyricists and mix-dj’s. But it is already cluttered in certain genres like Classical and EDM Re-Mix albums.
I don’t know what criteria roon uses to establish “notable” production contributions but I would like to see a clearer definition first. From what I can see the production credits that roon is dealing with from its meta-data suppliers are even more inaccurate and sloppy compared to the creative roles. The end result is it can all be a bit hit and miss and I would be concerned about making it worse. So for example, except that his role isn’t credited, Cord Garben appears to have been the lead producer on the Jessye Norman / Daniel Barenboim Brahms Lieder. That’s an example where clearer attribution would be a benefit:
But I wouldn’t like that expanded to include so many other production roles:
There are additional risks that should be taken into account. It’s not just a matter of consistency with the display and organization of the credit screen. Particularly with production roles I find there is a lot more metadata mistakes in attribution coming from roon’s metadata sources. I don’t know how that could be addressed. But for example, with one of your examples, the producer Alain Lanceron on this disc gets a “Conductor” credit that seems extremely unlikely and is probably a mistake:
On that disk John Fraser is another example of a “notable” producer with no role credited. So I went down that link and he gets a creative “Cadenza” credit on another disk in my library that also seems extremely unlikely and is probably a mistake:
So what you describe is extremely common. I would also like to see it addressed but I would like a clearer definition of what a “notable” producer is first.
Hi @tripleCrotchet, thank you for your valuable input.
In my case, the order of information I want to see is: first, the performers; second, the people involved in creating the music; and finally, the production staff—which is why I posted the idea mentioned above.
If we are to stick to the current categorization of “1. Credited on,” “2. Composers on,” and “3. Production,” I would prefer to keep the list under “1” as concise as possible.
There seems to be a lack of consistency regarding the definition of “notable”; while producers appear frequently, there are cases where lyricists or liner note writers are displayed instead.
