Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Whereas I don't include re-recordist's at all.

Sound Rerecordist is in the rules. Why wouldn't you include it? Because it doesn't have the word "sound" in front? I'm just curious if that's your objection or if you prefer to stick with just Rerecording Mixers.

I just don't want that locally.

To be honest I usually go by the examples in the actual program rather than keep looking at the rules. However, it's obviously correct to enter it. I just don't personally want to document those people.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
There's nothing in the rules about giving preference to one listed role over another.

Yet, they really shouldn't be included. Have a look at this post. Any sound technician will confirm this for you: these are definitely not "re-recording mixers". Of course we can always just lump together entirely different jobs under the same header, rendering the data useless - I'm afraid it wouldn't be the first time - but they really, really don't belong there. You'll have noted that Mr. Maslow and Mr. Kohut are listed all over the internet as re-recording mixers - they even get those nice profiles at sonypicturespost.com I linked to earlier. Yet, the "re-recordist" hasn't got such a profile, and is never ever listed as "re-recording mixer" anywhere. And for good reason: he isn't one. His job is entirely different. Again, in modern film credits, where there are actual re-recording mixers credited, such "re-recordists" definitely should be left out.

Exactly.

Quoting schaumi:

Quote:
It's a mistake in the Profiler rules, that the sound recordist is allowed to be entered as sound re-recording mixer. In UK this term means production sound mixer, in the USA it's just a technician. Never he is a re-recording mixer!

While it may be a mistake, in your opinion, you can't argue with the crew chart.  If the credit is there, that is what we enter.

Quote:
I know this sound stuff is a pain in the a.. sometimes, but the above explanation would be the only correct submission.

I know I will get hammered, because this is a double standard, but there is a difference between a role with no credits and a role with credits.  If the role has no credits, obviously, some user interpretation will be required.  However, if the role has associated credits, we have to abide by those associated credits.  A submission that does that, would be the only correct submission.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I know I will get hammered [...]

I'll try not to hammer - I'd just like to point out that you do have a choice here. You can either choose to track the correct data, or you can choose to enter the wrong data, by awarding the "re-recording mixer" credit to the wrong person(s). Sure, you can hide behind the faulty credits table in the rule, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

IMHO, this is the difference between tracking data just for the sake of tracking data, or actually tracking something accurate and useful. If we're tracking the re-recording mixers, we should enter the re-recording mixers - instead of mixing apples and oranges on purpose while we actually do know better. If you don't care about sound crew at all, and those names and labels don't mean anything to you, I can see how you can easily dismiss this. But anyone with a serious interest in the sound section will cringe when seeing these minor studio technicians being awarded a completely inappropriate credit. It's just not right.

The rules have been wrong before. This is, for instance, not at all unlike the (long) time when the rules prohibited us from entering "art directors" (only "supervising" ones were allowed). Each and every one of us knew how to deal with this: we all ignored it, and tracked the correct data despite the silly rule. After years of all of us doing so, the rule was finally changed.

Similarly, I hope that the rules will correctly address this issue some day, but in the meantime, lots of us have started tracking the correct data already, including myself, and I would urge everyone to do the same.

Oh, and Martin has a valid point, too. The on-screen credits don't match those in the credits table EXACTLY, and we certainly know that they're not "direct translations".

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I'll try not to hammer - I'd just like to point out that you do have a choice here. You can either choose to track the correct data, or you can choose to enter the wrong data, by awarding the "re-recording mixer" credit to the wrong person(s). Sure, you can hide behind the faulty credits table in the rule, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

If I want to contribute, I do not have a choice.  I have to follow the crew chart.  As I said before, there are a few areas where this isn't possible, but the sound section isn't one of them.

Quote:
IMHO, this is the difference between tracking data just for the sake of tracking data, or actually tracking something accurate and useful. If we're tracking the re-recording mixers, we should enter the re-recording mixers - instead of mixing apples and oranges on purpose while we actually do know better. If you don't care about sound crew at all, and those names and labels don't mean anything to you, I can see how you can easily dismiss this. But anyone with a serious interest in the sound section will cringe when seeing these minor studio technicians being awarded a completely inappropriate credit. It's just not right.

Thanks, at least, for admitting that it is only your opinion.  My opinion is different and, by your own admission, is backed up by the rules.  That being the case, what Tom did was correct, per the rules.

Quote:
The rules have been wrong before. This is, for instance, not at all unlike the (long) time when the rules prohibited us from entering "art directors" (only "supervising" ones were allowed). Each and every one of us knew how to deal with this: we all ignored it, and tracked the correct data despite the silly rule. After years of all of us doing so, the rule was finally changed.

Each and every one of us did not.  You may have, but I didn't.  If role in the crew chart has associated credits in the 'Credited As' column, those are the ones I enter...nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Similarly, I hope that the rules will correctly address this issue some day, but in the meantime, lots of us have started tracking the correct data already, including myself, and I would urge everyone to do the same.

If that is what you want to do, I can't stop you...unless it is a title I own, in which case I will vote 'no'.

Quote:
Oh, and Martin has a valid point, too. The on-screen credits don't match those in the credits table EXACTLY, and we certainly know that they're not "direct translations".

Actually, as I explained above, he doesn't.  Anyway, I have no desire to go around and around on this issue...yet again.  You do what you feel is 'correct' and I will do the same.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
You do what you feel is 'correct' and I will do the same.

Ah, the wonderful world of a user-built database. 

Let us hope that Ken talks this over with someone with a bit of knowledge of the sound industry, and updates the rules. There's really no good excuse for entering the wrong data.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
You do what you feel is 'correct' and I will do the same.

Ah, the wonderful world of a user-built database. 

Let us hope that Ken talks this over with someone with a bit of knowledge of the sound industry, and updates the rules. There's really no good excuse for entering the wrong data.

If/when Ken does that, I will be happy to follow that crew chart as well.  Until then, I will enter the credits that the crew chart tells me to enter.  There is no question, in this case, so I see no reason to create one.

Quoting schaumi:

Quote:
Quoting TomGaines:

Quote:
The contribution in question is mine.
The reason for leaving them out:
At 1:35:50 the actual "post production" part begins and there is a "Re-recordist" listed, who is not included in the current profile. In my opinion, this credit qualifies more than "Supervising Sound Mixers" according to rules, so I have replace the existing Sound Re-recording Mixers with that one.

Sorry Tom, but T!M's first idea was correct: Maslow and Kohut have definitely been the sound re-recording mixers on this film (ROCKY BALBOA). It's one of these new US-credits, I already mentioned in earlier postings, where the re-recording mixer is now called sound mixer (which of course could be mixed up with the production sound mixer). You may discover the importance of these two guys, when You see their position in the credits: Much earlier than the post-production crew block and together with Additional Editor and Supervising Sound Editor, which are both post-production members and also in a very important position.

The Re-Recordist you mentioned is not a re-recording mixer but a technician in the mixing location and not as important as the re-recording mixers. That's the reason why he's in the "normal" post-production credits block.

It's a mistake in the Profiler rules, that the sound recordist is allowed to be entered as sound re-recording mixer. In UK this term means production sound mixer, in the USA it's just a technician. Never he is a re-recording mixer!

I know this sound stuff is a pain in the a.. sometimes, but the above explanation would be the only correct submission.

Before I forget: thank you for your input, schaumi - it's much appreciated.    Let's hope many users - maybe Ken, too - will use it to their, and our collective, advantage.