STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Hi!

When we recently released MBS-7489 ("Artist Credits for Relationships"), I took the gist of the guidelines in the old Artist/With Multiple Names page (https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Style/Artist/With_multiple_names&oldid=67846) and turned them into https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Artist#Performance_names_and_legal_names

That current guideline basically continues our old "leave separate only if they're different projects" guideline, but admittedly that wasn't a very followed one because a lot of people wanted to keep legal name (usually writing) credits separate not to lose that detail. MBS-7489 allows that, but some people have requested a discussion whether it *allowing* it means we *should* do it, or whether the limits should be more strict than "all except different projects".

On the comments for STYLE-534, KRSCuan said:
"My suggestion is to only merge artist entries that can be considered a relatively small variation of each other. Which encompasses pretty much all the examples on the current version of https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Aliases, but not much more. The rationale is that even a user unfamiliar with an artist (which e.g. appears on a VA compilation) should be able to pick the correct one just going by liner notes."

My own opinion on that is that it should be solved by showing which alias (best) matched the search term for each entity when searching, so that if people search for (for example) a legal name and get a performance name back, it will show "Performance name (Alias: Legal name)" in some way. I feel it's a display issue that shouldn't affect what we choose to merge. But I'm happy to hear opinions on it!

Another thing that could be discussed is whether an artist consistently using their legal name for songwriting credits (on releases - work databases basically default to legal name anyway so they shouldn't really count) should be seen as a different "project" and kept unmerged, or should be merged unless there's explicit artist intent.

But basically, I'm curious about people's opinions on the whole thing and where each of you would set the limit for merges, so opinions away! :)

Cheers,
Nicolás

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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

Daniel Sobey
Hello List,

I have added a lot of legal names artists for writing credits as this makes the task a lot easier to have 2 things in the dataabse.
Using the databases listed in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Work#External_databases that deal with legal names it makes it easier to find someone in the database that already exists.
Having these extra entries allows me to search for artists and see if the ipi matches the works database.
As long as the policy allows for these to exist in some form it makes my job easier.

Now the works databases can be quite inconsistent with some artists and the way they are credited can change a lot over the years.
Some artists will use an alias at the start of thair career and later it is changed to thair first and last name and sometimes this is then changed to first middle last name with 3 or more ipi numbers for the artist.
One example of this is groove armada where we have  Andy Cato /  Andrew Derek Cocup and some being credited with one or the other variation of name.


I have a preference to not merge artists as i usually assume that someone created it for a reason.
Not to say that I don't do it but I try and see if there is a lot of overlap between the two.


One thing that I would like is someone to create a plugin for picard that for writing credits looks to see if there is a legal name alias and uses that instead of the name. This will make things more consistent and if someone has created an alias it will have the same effect than creating a new artist in the database and changing who wrote the work.

Regards,

Daniel

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi!

When we recently released MBS-7489 ("Artist Credits for Relationships"), I took the gist of the guidelines in the old Artist/With Multiple Names page (https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Style/Artist/With_multiple_names&oldid=67846) and turned them into https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Artist#Performance_names_and_legal_names

That current guideline basically continues our old "leave separate only if they're different projects" guideline, but admittedly that wasn't a very followed one because a lot of people wanted to keep legal name (usually writing) credits separate not to lose that detail. MBS-7489 allows that, but some people have requested a discussion whether it *allowing* it means we *should* do it, or whether the limits should be more strict than "all except different projects".

On the comments for STYLE-534, KRSCuan said:
"My suggestion is to only merge artist entries that can be considered a relatively small variation of each other. Which encompasses pretty much all the examples on the current version of https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Aliases, but not much more. The rationale is that even a user unfamiliar with an artist (which e.g. appears on a VA compilation) should be able to pick the correct one just going by liner notes."

My own opinion on that is that it should be solved by showing which alias (best) matched the search term for each entity when searching, so that if people search for (for example) a legal name and get a performance name back, it will show "Performance name (Alias: Legal name)" in some way. I feel it's a display issue that shouldn't affect what we choose to merge. But I'm happy to hear opinions on it!

Another thing that could be discussed is whether an artist consistently using their legal name for songwriting credits (on releases - work databases basically default to legal name anyway so they shouldn't really count) should be seen as a different "project" and kept unmerged, or should be merged unless there's explicit artist intent.

But basically, I'm curious about people's opinions on the whole thing and where each of you would set the limit for merges, so opinions away! :)

Cheers,
Nicolás

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


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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

Hi!

Aren't most of those issues solved by us being now able to use the legal name as a credit for the writing relationship though? I mean, it definitely feels like a better choice than adding a Picard hack for it.

In any case, in theory we follow covers, rather than legal name only rights databases.

On 1 Jul 2015 1:43 pm, "Daniel Sobey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

I have added a lot of legal names artists for writing credits as this makes the task a lot easier to have 2 things in the dataabse.
Using the databases listed in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Work#External_databases that deal with legal names it makes it easier to find someone in the database that already exists.
Having these extra entries allows me to search for artists and see if the ipi matches the works database.
As long as the policy allows for these to exist in some form it makes my job easier.

Now the works databases can be quite inconsistent with some artists and the way they are credited can change a lot over the years.
Some artists will use an alias at the start of thair career and later it is changed to thair first and last name and sometimes this is then changed to first middle last name with 3 or more ipi numbers for the artist.
One example of this is groove armada where we have  Andy Cato /  Andrew Derek Cocup and some being credited with one or the other variation of name.


I have a preference to not merge artists as i usually assume that someone created it for a reason.
Not to say that I don't do it but I try and see if there is a lot of overlap between the two.


One thing that I would like is someone to create a plugin for picard that for writing credits looks to see if there is a legal name alias and uses that instead of the name. This will make things more consistent and if someone has created an alias it will have the same effect than creating a new artist in the database and changing who wrote the work.

Regards,

Daniel

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi!

When we recently released MBS-7489 ("Artist Credits for Relationships"), I took the gist of the guidelines in the old Artist/With Multiple Names page (https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Style/Artist/With_multiple_names&oldid=67846) and turned them into https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Artist#Performance_names_and_legal_names

That current guideline basically continues our old "leave separate only if they're different projects" guideline, but admittedly that wasn't a very followed one because a lot of people wanted to keep legal name (usually writing) credits separate not to lose that detail. MBS-7489 allows that, but some people have requested a discussion whether it *allowing* it means we *should* do it, or whether the limits should be more strict than "all except different projects".

On the comments for STYLE-534, KRSCuan said:
"My suggestion is to only merge artist entries that can be considered a relatively small variation of each other. Which encompasses pretty much all the examples on the current version of https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Aliases, but not much more. The rationale is that even a user unfamiliar with an artist (which e.g. appears on a VA compilation) should be able to pick the correct one just going by liner notes."

My own opinion on that is that it should be solved by showing which alias (best) matched the search term for each entity when searching, so that if people search for (for example) a legal name and get a performance name back, it will show "Performance name (Alias: Legal name)" in some way. I feel it's a display issue that shouldn't affect what we choose to merge. But I'm happy to hear opinions on it!

Another thing that could be discussed is whether an artist consistently using their legal name for songwriting credits (on releases - work databases basically default to legal name anyway so they shouldn't really count) should be seen as a different "project" and kept unmerged, or should be merged unless there's explicit artist intent.

But basically, I'm curious about people's opinions on the whole thing and where each of you would set the limit for merges, so opinions away! :)

Cheers,
Nicolás

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


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

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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

swisschris
The advantage of merging is of course to find all appearances/credits of a given artist at one place. If (if!) the new crediting system at relationship level works out as it should, there is IMO no good reason left to keep legal name and performance names (or different performance names like for the infamous Cat Stevens /Yusuf Islam) separate. But I would certainly want to know how the new (writing) credit works first and be sure that the (writing) credits attributed e.g. to Renaud Séchan https://musicbrainz.org/artist/40eb4b8a-7f15-4545-bbd1-b0e08a16fefc/relationships will be properly maintained when we merge this artist with his performance name Renaud https://musicbrainz.org/artist/de1edf40-2b3d-4ddd-873c-e4f59585ba92 In any case I'd plead to give the editors some time to get used to the new relationship credit feature before making a (maybe too) hasty decision either way

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi!

Aren't most of those issues solved by us being now able to use the legal name as a credit for the writing relationship though? I mean, it definitely feels like a better choice than adding a Picard hack for it.

In any case, in theory we follow covers, rather than legal name only rights databases.

On 1 Jul 2015 1:43 pm, "Daniel Sobey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

I have added a lot of legal names artists for writing credits as this makes the task a lot easier to have 2 things in the dataabse.
Using the databases listed in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Work#External_databases that deal with legal names it makes it easier to find someone in the database that already exists.
Having these extra entries allows me to search for artists and see if the ipi matches the works database.
As long as the policy allows for these to exist in some form it makes my job easier.

Now the works databases can be quite inconsistent with some artists and the way they are credited can change a lot over the years.
Some artists will use an alias at the start of thair career and later it is changed to thair first and last name and sometimes this is then changed to first middle last name with 3 or more ipi numbers for the artist.
One example of this is groove armada where we have  Andy Cato /  Andrew Derek Cocup and some being credited with one or the other variation of name.


I have a preference to not merge artists as i usually assume that someone created it for a reason.
Not to say that I don't do it but I try and see if there is a lot of overlap between the two.


One thing that I would like is someone to create a plugin for picard that for writing credits looks to see if there is a legal name alias and uses that instead of the name. This will make things more consistent and if someone has created an alias it will have the same effect than creating a new artist in the database and changing who wrote the work.

Regards,

Daniel

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi!

When we recently released MBS-7489 ("Artist Credits for Relationships"), I took the gist of the guidelines in the old Artist/With Multiple Names page (https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Style/Artist/With_multiple_names&oldid=67846) and turned them into https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Artist#Performance_names_and_legal_names

That current guideline basically continues our old "leave separate only if they're different projects" guideline, but admittedly that wasn't a very followed one because a lot of people wanted to keep legal name (usually writing) credits separate not to lose that detail. MBS-7489 allows that, but some people have requested a discussion whether it *allowing* it means we *should* do it, or whether the limits should be more strict than "all except different projects".

On the comments for STYLE-534, KRSCuan said:
"My suggestion is to only merge artist entries that can be considered a relatively small variation of each other. Which encompasses pretty much all the examples on the current version of https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Aliases, but not much more. The rationale is that even a user unfamiliar with an artist (which e.g. appears on a VA compilation) should be able to pick the correct one just going by liner notes."

My own opinion on that is that it should be solved by showing which alias (best) matched the search term for each entity when searching, so that if people search for (for example) a legal name and get a performance name back, it will show "Performance name (Alias: Legal name)" in some way. I feel it's a display issue that shouldn't affect what we choose to merge. But I'm happy to hear opinions on it!

Another thing that could be discussed is whether an artist consistently using their legal name for songwriting credits (on releases - work databases basically default to legal name anyway so they shouldn't really count) should be seen as a different "project" and kept unmerged, or should be merged unless there's explicit artist intent.

But basically, I'm curious about people's opinions on the whole thing and where each of you would set the limit for merges, so opinions away! :)

Cheers,
Nicolás

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


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

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


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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren


On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:24 PM, SwissChris <[hidden email]> wrote:
The advantage of merging is of course to find all appearances/credits of a given artist at one place. If (if!) the new crediting system at relationship level works out as it should, there is IMO no good reason left to keep legal name and performance names (or different performance names like for the infamous Cat Stevens /Yusuf Islam) separate. But I would certainly want to know how the new (writing) credit works first and be sure that the (writing) credits attributed e.g. to Renaud Séchan https://musicbrainz.org/artist/40eb4b8a-7f15-4545-bbd1-b0e08a16fefc/relationships will be properly maintained when we merge this artist with his performance name Renaud https://musicbrainz.org/artist/de1edf40-2b3d-4ddd-873c-e4f59585ba92 In any case I'd plead to give the editors some time to get used to the new relationship credit feature before making a (maybe too) hasty decision either way



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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

tommycrock
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

For me it makes most sense for legal and performance name data to be under one artist unless there's performance names that represent distinct projects.
The main UI issue with this is the one KRSCuan said. This is important and I could understand waiting for this before getting on with merging. It would also be nice to be able to change the credit for similar relationships only on a release, rather than all or one as it is now.
Of course the other way of looking at it is that they should stay separate and the UI issue is that legal and performance name artist pages should show both credits together.
Either way wouldn't seem to work brilliantly when a person has several performance names but uses their legal for writing.


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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:

The main UI issue with this is the one KRSCuan said. This is important and I could understand waiting for this before getting on with merging.

Yeah, while I don't personally feel a need to wait for that, I wouldn't be against us waiting if that's what most people want (might also make it happen sooner).

It would also be nice to be able to change the credit for similar relationships only on a release, rather than all or one as it is now.

I *think* there's a checkbox for that in the relationship editor. I haven't used it but I remember seeing it. 

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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

KRSCuan
On 01.07.2015 22:33, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     It would also be nice to be able to change the credit for similar
>     relationships only on a release, rather than all or one as it is now.
>
> I *think* there's a checkbox for that in the relationship editor. I
> haven't used it but I remember seeing it.
It can change all credits for the same artist entry on the page, so
merging legal and performance names currently breaks this functionality
if e.g. the legal name is used for writing and the performance name for
instrument credits.

Though refining it to similar relationships as Tom suggested would iron
this out.

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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

Oooh, OK, got it now. A ticket for that would be useful then!

On 2 Jul 2015 12:16, "KRSCuan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 01.07.2015 22:33, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     It would also be nice to be able to change the credit for similar
>     relationships only on a release, rather than all or one as it is now.
>
> I *think* there's a checkbox for that in the relationship editor. I
> haven't used it but I remember seeing it.
It can change all credits for the same artist entry on the page, so
merging legal and performance names currently breaks this functionality
if e.g. the legal name is used for writing and the performance name for
instrument credits.

Though refining it to similar relationships as Tom suggested would iron
this out.

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

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

Re: STYLE-534: When to merge artists?

tommycrock


On 2 July 2015 at 11:26, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]> wrote:

Oooh, OK, got it now. A ticket for that would be useful then!



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