Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I agree with you, unicus. bur some users around here feign intelligence while at their core, like hal they are simply distasteful people who bring very little to the discussion. There was no call for Hal's attacks on john, I am not defending John, I think sometimes he comes across a bit heavy-handed but neoither do you see me taking advantage of that to body slam him. Hal should have simply ignored, John's comments. I get tired of watching this back and forth, I also get very tired of participating. I have also repeatedly stated that i am ready when they are, but I see absolutely no evidence that some users are even willing to consider changing their attitude and behavior. I will make no further comments as they are while not meaningless certainly unwilling to be listened to or heard by some around here.

I am not the user around here makes inflammatory comment after infammatory comment and then refuses to to acknowledge that maybe despite what he may have felt he was trying to say, the words and style he chose actually communicated something which was a good bit more offensive and the makes matters worse with further SLANDEROUS and malicious comments.

I hope some users will pay attention, I'll wait and see and keep my fingers crossed. And my toes as well.

Skip

Talk about blah, blah blah..........

Thankfully, my hat is fully functional once again! 

Let's end the debate whether an instrumental piece of music can be considered a "song" for DVD Profiler purposes right now. Why? Because IT SAYS SO RIGHT THERE IN THE RULES. Huh? I'll show you. Let's have a look at the "incorrect" column of the "composer" credit in the contribution rules:



That says we we cannot give "composer" credits to "Songs by Song/Music writers". Have you ever considered what that means? Let split that up, shall we?

"Songs by Song writers"
"Songs by Music writers"

Surely we're all clear on what "songs by song writers" means, right? If we do, then what does "songs by music writers" mean? There's only one thing that it CAN mean - there's nothing else left - instrumental pieces of music (like themes). So it's right there: the rules call an instrumental piece of music a "song". The term "songs by music writers" says it all: those instrumental pieces of music are "songs" for DVD Profiler purposes, whether you like it or not. In this particular 'Columbo' example, Mike Post's credit surely falls under "songs by music writers", and as such, his theme is considered a "song". While the rules explicitly say "songs my music writers" do not qualify for a "composer" credit, in that same fell swoop the rules DO declare such instrumental themes as "song". So we CAN credit them as "song writers".

If anyone still wants to argue with this, I'd love to hear it. Not based on any outside definitions or references, but just based on what's right there in the rules. I really think it's all right there, and that this cannot be interpreted in any other way. Everything I proposed here in the past couple of days, all comes directly from, and is supported 100% by the rules. Any other point of view is based by narrow, outside definitions which do not have any bearing to how we treat certain things for DVD Profiler purposes.

[Edited to fix broken image link.]

Double entry

I think it's also worth noting that if the original writers of the rule intended the songwriter credit to only go for pieces with lyrics that aren't part of the score, why did they not also include a credit for writers of instrumental pieces that are not part of the score?  I think it's most likely because they considered them to be the same thing at the time.  Everybody is looking up "song" in the dictionary now, but apparently no one did back when the rule was being written.

Quoting Tracer:

Quote:
Exactly our rules do not always fit other definations, including that from a dictionary.  This is DVD Profiler not Webster's DVD Profiler.

Amen.