| Registered: July 8, 2010 |  Posts: 52 |
| | Posted: | | | | There is a current contribution which say this in the Notes: Quote:
Ronald G. Roumas is credited as re-recordist, not as sound re-recording mixer.
Re-recordist is, like recordist, a valid credit only "when there's no production sound mixing credit". There is, so this minor studio technician we're not after for DVD Profiler purposes has to go.
But i can not see anywhere in the rules that says this. |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,667 |
| | Posted: | | | | It is absolutely correct, though. Luckily, the rules do help us out, since "Re-recordist" is not listed in the rules as a valid job. "Sound Re-recordist" is, but just "Re-recordist" is not. Maybe that seems like an insignificant difference, but it's not. As a quick comparison, you'll see that the list of valid jobs for "Sound" includes both "Sound Recordist" and "Recordist". If the rules considered those terms interchangable, they wouldn't have needed to list them both. And here, the rules in fact don't list them both - and for good reason. So "Sound Re-recordist" is allowed, "Re-recordist" is not. That covers it.
Apart from the simple fact that "Re-recordists" are not allowed per the rules, there's indeed a more practical (but unwritten) rule of thumb: no "rerecordists" when there's already a sound re-recording mixer credit, just like no "recordists" when there's already a production sound mixing credit. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | Edit: Seen the answer. | | | | Last edited: by VirusPil |
|
| Registered: July 8, 2010 | | Posts: 52 |
| | Posted: | | | | I had a feeling he should not have been included but the reason stated in the contribution notes made no sense. Thanks for the help. |
|