Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

mr_maxis
Dear all,

I'm really concerned about the following kind of edit ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17920887 & http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18497710 ), especially when done and/or voted by Auto-Editors, I have recently seen it twice and I remember seing it before.

By doing so, it basically deletes the artist named "Artist and His Orchestra" making impossible to add
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Orchestra_Relationship_Type
and probably others...

"Percy Faith" is an artist of type "Person" =1 human being
and
"Percy Faith and His Orchestra" was an artist of type "Group" >1 human being
This is the very basic of MusicBrainz and merging one with the other has as much sense as merging all the artists into Various Artists.

So either it's legit to do such merge and I would like to see the guidelines where it's mentioned and why,
or please vote No to those edits when seing them, don't Abstain we're losing information with those edits.
Thanks in advance.

Is it possible to unmerge ?

Best regards,
-MXS-

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Brian Schweitzer
I agree that this type of artist is a problem; I've seen some people doing it this way, but that's not felt right to me.  I've also seen people suggesting a "His Orchestra" artist, but that I also don't like. 

Done this way, it makes it impossible to AR things like the members of the orchestra; you'd have to set those ARs to "Artist", and that just seems wrong.  The second idea also doesn't work for me - you end up with hundreds, or thousands, of identically named "His Choir", "His Orchestra", etc. artists.  Plus, those are all bogus; there is no artist named "His Orchestra" in that case; we'd just be using it as a convenience.

I do think these need some sort of handling; I just don't think that any of the current solutions address it properly.  I have a collection of these that I've found, plus other 'looks like a collab, but isn't', artists tagged at http://musicbrainz.org/tag/do%20not%20split/artist

Brian



On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Mister Maxis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear all,

I'm really concerned about the following kind of edit ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17920887 & http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18497710 ), especially when done and/or voted by Auto-Editors, I have recently seen it twice and I remember seing it before.

By doing so, it basically deletes the artist named "Artist and His Orchestra" making impossible to add
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Orchestra_Relationship_Type
and probably others...

"Percy Faith" is an artist of type "Person" =1 human being
and
"Percy Faith and His Orchestra" was an artist of type "Group" >1 human being
This is the very basic of MusicBrainz and merging one with the other has as much sense as merging all the artists into Various Artists.

So either it's legit to do such merge and I would like to see the guidelines where it's mentioned and why,
or please vote No to those edits when seing them, don't Abstain we're losing information with those edits.
Thanks in advance.

Is it possible to unmerge ?

Best regards,
-MXS-

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Brian Schweitzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree that this type of artist is a problem; I've seen some people doing it this way, but that's not felt right to me.  I've also seen people suggesting a "His Orchestra" artist, but that I also don't like. 

Done this way, it makes it impossible to AR things like the members of the orchestra; you'd have to set those ARs to "Artist", and that just seems wrong.  The second idea also doesn't work for me - you end up with hundreds, or thousands, of identically named "His Choir", "His Orchestra", etc. artists.  Plus, those are all bogus; there is no artist named "His Orchestra" in that case; we'd just be using it as a convenience.

I'm not going to comment on the actual matter because I really don't have an opinion here, but I assume the proposed artist names would be more like "X's Orchestra" credited as "His Orchestra".

I do think these need some sort of handling; I just don't think that any of the current solutions address it properly.  I have a collection of these that I've found, plus other 'looks like a collab, but isn't', artists tagged at http://musicbrainz.org/tag/do%20not%20split/artist

Brian



On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Mister Maxis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear all,

I'm really concerned about the following kind of edit ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17920887 & http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18497710 ), especially when done and/or voted by Auto-Editors, I have recently seen it twice and I remember seing it before.

By doing so, it basically deletes the artist named "Artist and His Orchestra" making impossible to add
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Orchestra_Relationship_Type
and probably others...

"Percy Faith" is an artist of type "Person" =1 human being
and
"Percy Faith and His Orchestra" was an artist of type "Group" >1 human being
This is the very basic of MusicBrainz and merging one with the other has as much sense as merging all the artists into Various Artists.

So either it's legit to do such merge and I would like to see the guidelines where it's mentioned and why,
or please vote No to those edits when seing them, don't Abstain we're losing information with those edits.
Thanks in advance.

Is it possible to unmerge ?

Best regards,
-MXS-

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users



--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra, "formations" vs "groups"

CallerNo6
In reply to this post by mr_maxis
It probably won't change anybody's mind, but I think this wiki section[1]  might help explain how some editors have (historically) approached the question.

I'm not advocating this approach, but it might explain why we have (for example) several Miles Davis "groups" and only one main entry for the various Charles Mingus "formations".

The long-term solution may be related to RFC 149[2]. That is, the problem is partly semantic (a person isn't a group) and partly presentational (I want to see HW's entire body of work in one place).

Oh, and if anybody wants to see what this looked like pre-merge, Hugo Winterhalter & His Various Sub-Artists haven't been merged on the test server.[3]

Alex / caller#6


[1] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Jazz#Why_the_concept_of_group_is_essentially_inadequate_to_represent_formations
[2]http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-149-tp4640252.html
[3] http://test.musicbrainz.org/artist/2c8e33c0-70b6-4296-be65-cabeddfe339b
http://test.musicbrainz.org/artist/94bb5af0-8835-44fd-afa9-07bd97d3a5d9
http://test.musicbrainz.org/artist/205a3598-187f-461b-98eb-2e1816d2c555

On 08/22/2012 07:06 AM, Mister Maxis wrote:
Dear all,

I'm really concerned about the following kind of edit ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17920887 & http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18497710 ), especially when done and/or voted by Auto-Editors, I have recently seen it twice and I remember seing it before.

By doing so, it basically deletes the artist named "Artist and His Orchestra" making impossible to add
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Orchestra_Relationship_Type
and probably others...

"Percy Faith" is an artist of type "Person" =1 human being
and
"Percy Faith and His Orchestra" was an artist of type "Group" >1 human being
This is the very basic of MusicBrainz and merging one with the other has as much sense as merging all the artists into Various Artists.

So either it's legit to do such merge and I would like to see the guidelines where it's mentioned and why,
or please vote No to those edits when seing them, don't Abstain we're losing information with those edits.
Thanks in advance.

Is it possible to unmerge ?

Best regards,
-MXS-
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Jazzy Jarilith
In reply to this post by mr_maxis
This is a very interesting topic. While I understand your concerns, it does not make sense either to not be able to find a release by "Percy Faith and His Orchestra" in the "Percy Faith" entry. Imagine a compilation by Percy Faith. Now, a few tracks on this release, are credited as they should be, by Percy Faith and His Orchestra. Those associated recording won't even appear on the Percy Faith's recording tab. That's so wrong, IMO. 

Actually, I don't know Percy Faith but I had this happening with other artists such as Catherine Ribeiro or John McLaughlin. :P

We need to find a way for such releases by "Joe Bob and His Terrific Orchestra" to also appear in the "Joe Bob" entry. Not being a scripter I wouldn't know how to do this though. :(

2012/8/22 Mister Maxis <[hidden email]>
Dear all,

I'm really concerned about the following kind of edit ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17920887 & http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18497710 ), especially when done and/or voted by Auto-Editors, I have recently seen it twice and I remember seing it before.

By doing so, it basically deletes the artist named "Artist and His Orchestra" making impossible to add
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Orchestra_Relationship_Type
and probably others...

"Percy Faith" is an artist of type "Person" =1 human being
and
"Percy Faith and His Orchestra" was an artist of type "Group" >1 human being
This is the very basic of MusicBrainz and merging one with the other has as much sense as merging all the artists into Various Artists.

So either it's legit to do such merge and I would like to see the guidelines where it's mentioned and why,
or please vote No to those edits when seing them, don't Abstain we're losing information with those edits.
Thanks in advance.

Is it possible to unmerge ?

Best regards,
-MXS-

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

lorenz pressler
Am 23.08.2012, 12:30 Uhr, schrieb Jazzy Jarilith <[hidden email]>:

> This is a very interesting topic. While I understand your concerns, it  
> does
> not make sense either to not be able to find a release by "Percy Faith  
> and
> His Orchestra" in the "Percy Faith" entry. Imagine a compilation by Percy
> Faith. Now, a few tracks on this release, are credited as they should be,
> by Percy Faith and His Orchestra. Those associated recording won't even
> appear on the Percy Faith's recording tab. That's so wrong, IMO.

that's my thought too.

also "artistX + orchester performed orchester" is as wrong as "artistX  
performed orchester"
i don't see how one of these should be more correct.

imho merging is the most feasible solution without getting too complicated.



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Brian Schweitzer
> This is a very interesting topic. While I understand your concerns, it
> does
> not make sense either to not be able to find a release by "Percy Faith
> and
> His Orchestra" in the "Percy Faith" entry. Imagine a compilation by Percy
> Faith. Now, a few tracks on this release, are credited as they should be,
> by Percy Faith and His Orchestra. Those associated recording won't even
> appear on the Percy Faith's recording tab. That's so wrong, IMO.

that's my thought too.

also "artistX + orchester performed orchester" is as wrong as "artistX
performed orchester"
i don't see how one of these should be more correct.

imho merging is the most feasible solution without getting too complicated.


Merging wouldn't solve the problem you're describing, however, and it would create such problems as I mentioned, such as "(person) Artist is a member of (person) Artist", rather than the current "(person) Artist is a member of (group) Artist".  A musician in Percy Faith's orchestra is a member of the orchestra, not a member of Percy Faith.  This is not the only AR with such problems, either, nor are all such problems limited to artist-artist ARs.  You'd also lose the ability to set non-AR data, such as when the group formed/ended, to set an AC for the group (vs the person), etc.  So merging would solve perhaps some problems, while creating a whole host of other, messier imho, problems.

Re "not make sense either to not be able to find a release by "Percy Faith and His Orchestra" in the "Percy Faith" entry", while yes, it'd be nice to see *everything* Percy did in his discography, that wouldn't be true even if the two were merged.  See, for example, performance names, or the member of AR for members of orchestras/groups.  For example, you won't see any Nirvana stuff under Kurt Cobain, even though he was in that group.  Given many of the examples visible at the tag I linked before, there's cases where "Foo Bar & the GroupType" is the actual name of the band; merging those into "Foo Bar" would commingle the group with the person.  In many other cases, esp in a jazz context, merging like this would make distinguishing different 'semi-ad-hoc, but stable for a decent amount of time' groups pretty much impossible, esp. once you consider the resulting lack of membership AR data.  Consider the 16 or so entries for Miles Davis.  They're hard enough to distinguish as they are now; merge them all into Miles Davis' listing - result: they, and his listing as a person, would just become a giant mess.

Brian

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Lemire, Sebastien-2

This is an interesting subject...

I would also like to see the complete discography of an artist regardless of the various groups he has been part of. Or to be able to see the solo releases as well as the group releases. How about if an artist has "is a member of"  ARs, adding those releases underneath the solo releases?

For example, if you go to Paul McCartney 's release page, you would first see His solo releases and then followed by the Beatles releases.

We could also have the relationship more prominently shown on the artist overview page.

Sébastien

On Aug 30, 2012 12:55 PM, "Brian Schweitzer" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is a very interesting topic. While I understand your concerns, it
> does
> not make sense either to not be able to find a release by "Percy Faith
> and
> His Orchestra" in the "Percy Faith" entry. Imagine a compilation by Percy
> Faith. Now, a few tracks on this release, are credited as they should be,
> by Percy Faith and His Orchestra. Those associated recording won't even
> appear on the Percy Faith's recording tab. That's so wrong, IMO.

that's my thought too.

also "artistX + orchester performed orchester" is as wrong as "artistX
performed orchester"
i don't see how one of these should be more correct.

imho merging is the most feasible solution without getting too complicated.


Merging wouldn't solve the problem you're describing, however, and it would create such problems as I mentioned, such as "(person) Artist is a member of (person) Artist", rather than the current "(person) Artist is a member of (group) Artist".  A musician in Percy Faith's orchestra is a member of the orchestra, not a member of Percy Faith.  This is not the only AR with such problems, either, nor are all such problems limited to artist-artist ARs.  You'd also lose the ability to set non-AR data, such as when the group formed/ended, to set an AC for the group (vs the person), etc.  So merging would solve perhaps some problems, while creating a whole host of other, messier imho, problems.

Re "not make sense either to not be able to find a release by "Percy Faith and His Orchestra" in the "Percy Faith" entry", while yes, it'd be nice to see *everything* Percy did in his discography, that wouldn't be true even if the two were merged.  See, for example, performance names, or the member of AR for members of orchestras/groups.  For example, you won't see any Nirvana stuff under Kurt Cobain, even though he was in that group.  Given many of the examples visible at the tag I linked before, there's cases where "Foo Bar & the GroupType" is the actual name of the band; merging those into "Foo Bar" would commingle the group with the person.  In many other cases, esp in a jazz context, merging like this would make distinguishing different 'semi-ad-hoc, but stable for a decent amount of time' groups pretty much impossible, esp. once you consider the resulting lack of membership AR data.  Consider the 16 or so entries for Miles Davis.  They're hard enough to distinguish as they are now; merge them all into Miles Davis' listing - result: they, and his listing as a person, would just become a giant mess.

Brian

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

symphonick
2012/8/30 Lemire, Sebastien <[hidden email]>

This is an interesting subject...

I would also like to see the complete discography of an artist regardless of the various groups he has been part of. Or to be able to see the solo releases as well as the group releases. How about if an artist has "is a member of"  ARs, adding those releases underneath the solo releases?

For example, if you go to Paul McCartney 's release page, you would first see His solo releases and then followed by the Beatles releases.



I like the general idea, but I'd only want to see releases where the artist actually performed. I mean putting all releases by The Beatles on Paul McCarney's page would be fine, but not displaying the entire LSO discography on every member's page.

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra, member vs. supporting

CallerNo6
In reply to this post by Brian Schweitzer
On 08/29/2012 08:54 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>
> Merging wouldn't solve the problem you're describing, however, and it
> would create such problems as I mentioned, such as "(person) Artist is
> a member of (person) Artist", rather than the current "(person)
> Artist is a member of (group) Artist".  A musician in Percy Faith's
> orchestra is a member of the orchestra, not a member of Percy Faith.

I don't understand this point. Doesn't the Supporting Musician
relationship address this?

Alex / caller#6


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Brian Schweitzer
In reply to this post by symphonick
This is an interesting subject...

I would also like to see the complete discography of an artist regardless of the various groups he has been part of. Or to be able to see the solo releases as well as the group releases. How about if an artist has "is a member of"  ARs, adding those releases underneath the solo releases?

For example, if you go to Paul McCartney 's release page, you would first see His solo releases and then followed by the Beatles releases.



I like the general idea, but I'd only want to see releases where the artist actually performed. I mean putting all releases by The Beatles on Paul McCarney's page would be fine, but not displaying the entire LSO discography on every member's page.


I agree.  I've thought about this possibility before, when we were working on NGS.  Using the member of AR would break pretty easily, I think.  If Tom Foo is in the band Bar from 1990 to 1994, and they release an album Zip in 1992, you might assume pretty safely that Tom Foo performed on Zip.  99% of the time, you're likely correct, though there are exceptions [1].  However, if that album then is re-released in 2000, just using member of, then the 2000 re-release wouldn't show on Tom Foo's page, because 2000 wouldn't be between 1990 and 1994.

What I think could work, though, is using the performance ARs, as I think you're suggesting symphonick.  You could also extend it to any of the performance and engineering ARs: remixed by, engineered, etc.  That would certainly make the releases/release groups tabs more useful for all the engineers, remixers, DJs, etc. who currently have blank pages, with all the relevant stuff for them instead buried on the ARs tab.

Brian

[1] Example: Nirvana's Bleach; first released on 1989-06-01, used versions performed by Dale Crover (member only in 1988-01), rather than versions performed by Chad Channing (1988-05 – 1990-06).  Using member of would display Bleach on Channing's page, not Crover's.  Using performance ARs would instead correctly show it on Crover's page.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Alex Mauer
On 08/30/2012 06:49 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> What I think could work, though, is using the performance ARs, as I
> think you're suggesting symphonick.  You could also extend it to any of
> the performance and engineering ARs: remixed by, engineered, etc.  That
> would certainly make the releases/release groups tabs more useful for
> all the engineers, remixers, DJs, etc. who currently have blank pages,
> with all the relevant stuff for them instead buried on the ARs tab.

+1, this would be great regardless of the subject issue.

What does this mean for “Artist vs. Artist & His Orchestra”, though?

If this were implemented, would we want to merge them, or not?


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

signature.asc (566 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Brian Schweitzer
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 08/30/2012 06:49 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> What I think could work, though, is using the performance ARs, as I
> think you're suggesting symphonick.  You could also extend it to any of
> the performance and engineering ARs: remixed by, engineered, etc.  That
> would certainly make the releases/release groups tabs more useful for
> all the engineers, remixers, DJs, etc. who currently have blank pages,
> with all the relevant stuff for them instead buried on the ARs tab.

+1, this would be great regardless of the subject issue.

What does this mean for “Artist vs. Artist & His Orchestra”, though?

If this were implemented, would we want to merge them, or not?

I think it's a side issue to that question.  It addresses how to get "Artist & His Orchestra" releases to list on "Artist"'s page (as well as the pages for the members of that orchestra).

With specific regard to merging, I'd repeat my objection to doing that.  "Artist & His Orchestra" is not the same thing as "Artist".  This I would think a similar situation to the (very obscure/unknown guideline here) Band With Main Performer Name guideline [1] - think of Marilyn Manson the person, vs Marilyn Manson the group.  We keep those separate for good reasons; I think we should keep these separate for the same reasons.

We have two apparently different types of artists here.  The first is artists whose name looks like a collab, but where that actually is the group's name.
Examples:
a) "Bob Marley & the Wailers" - there was no "the Wailers" at that time; the band was "Bob Marley & the Wailers", and included Bob as a member.
b) "Davy Jones & The Lower Third" - again, there was no "The Lower Third"; David Robert Jones (aka David Bowie, aka Davy Jones) was 'merely' a member, not a collaborator with some separate group.
There's other examples in the mentioned http://musicbrainz.org/tag/do%20not%20split/artist

Second, there's the "Tom Foo & His GroupType" artists.  I'd suggest that these really are the same as those mentioned above, except that it's easier to see that "His Orchestra" isn't a standalone group, compared with something like "The Lower Third".

Personally, I think the best solution at the moment is to keep these separate, and as "group" type, with some notation such as that specific tag to indicate that this is not an artist which would be proper to split.  The only difficulty would be the mentioned "not showing those releases on the person artist's page issue, and there I think we'd have to ask for server support.  But even without that server support happening immediately, I think that's the more correct and more flexible solution, vs just merging and creating all those accompanying problems/limitations/erronious data.

Brian


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

Ryan Torchia
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Brian Schweitzer <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think it's a side issue to that question.  It addresses how to get "Artist & His Orchestra" releases to list on "Artist"'s page (as well as the pages for the members of that orchestra).

With specific regard to merging, I'd repeat my objection to doing that.  "Artist & His Orchestra" is not the same thing as "Artist".  This I would think a similar situation to the (very obscure/unknown guideline here) Band With Main Performer Name guideline [1] - think of Marilyn Manson the person, vs Marilyn Manson the group.  We keep those separate for good reasons; I think we should keep these separate for the same reasons.

We have two apparently different types of artists here.  The first is artists whose name looks like a collab, but where that actually is the group's name.
Examples:
a) "Bob Marley & the Wailers" - there was no "the Wailers" at that time; the band was "Bob Marley & the Wailers", and included Bob as a member.
b) "Davy Jones & The Lower Third" - again, there was no "The Lower Third"; David Robert Jones (aka David Bowie, aka Davy Jones) was 'merely' a member, not a collaborator with some separate group.
There's other examples in the mentioned http://musicbrainz.org/tag/do%20not%20split/artist

Second, there's the "Tom Foo & His GroupType" artists.  I'd suggest that these really are the same as those mentioned above, except that it's easier to see that "His Orchestra" isn't a standalone group, compared with something like "The Lower Third".

Personally, I think the best solution at the moment is to keep these separate, and as "group" type, with some notation such as that specific tag to indicate that this is not an artist which would be proper to split.  The only difficulty would be the mentioned "not showing those releases on the person artist's page issue, and there I think we'd have to ask for server support.  But even without that server support happening immediately, I think that's the more correct and more flexible solution, vs just merging and creating all those accompanying problems/limitations/erronious data.

"Artist & His Orchestra" as it pertains to the example that started all this (Percy Faith) is essentially the same thing as "Artist".  Any orchestra that played with him became "His Orchestra" -- a shorter and more poetic way to say "Artist... but it's orchestral music, not just some schmuck banging out love songs on a piano or something." It's not possible to keep them separated because they're used so completely interchangeably, even within the same release: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1557192 -- and on reissues: http://www.amazon.com/Percy-Faith-Subways-Sleeping-Waltz/dp/B000066JEB .  And from a cursory glance, Faith wasn't the only one for whom the distinction was treated haphazardly: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2025132
http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1377545
http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=3786353

It seems like between the 50s and 70s, this was somewhat common practice: "and His Orchestra" or "and His Orchestra and Chorus" were appended to the artist name primarily as a method of describing the kind of music the release contained, rather than a way of giving credit to the ensemble.  That's not to say this is *always* the case; there were definitely ensembles (mostly Jazz) that had distinct and somewhat fixed members, but those were usually of the "Artist's Quintet" variety, with the players credited by name on the album, rather than "Artist and His Orchestra", where the orchestra musicians remain anonymous.  In this case, artist credits seem to me like the most appropriate way to handle these releases, with AR credits on releases for the rare instances where the orchestra's musicians are actually credited and known.  We shouldn't try to apply the same one-size-fits-all guideline to "Artist and His Orchestra" that we would to "Artist and the Band" or "Artist and Artist".

--Torc.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Artist vs. Artist and His Orchestra

CallerNo6
On 09/01/2012 02:53 AM, Ryan Torchia wrote:

>
> "Artist & His Orchestra" as it pertains to the example that started
> all this (Percy Faith) is essentially the same thing as "Artist".  Any
> orchestra that played with him became "His Orchestra" -- a shorter and
> more poetic way to say "Artist... but it's orchestral music, not just
> some schmuck banging out love songs on a piano or something." [snip]
> We shouldn't try to apply the same one-size-fits-all guideline to
> "Artist and His Orchestra" that we would to "Artist and the Band" or
> "Artist and Artist".
>

+1

I'd point to an example like Alexis Korner & Friends[1]. There was no
band called that. It's just an indication of what to expect, which in
this case is a revolving lineup "supporting" Alexis Korner.

Alex / caller#6

[1] http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d6a56832-d11a-4fe6-9455-fca779d494a4

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users