derGraph wrote:
Simon Reinhardt wrote:I must admit it was a bit hot when I wrote that and after it I thought: hmmm.. that's all bullshit. I think you're right, one general type probably won't work. I have a real life example for you:I just thought about other real-life examples when I had another idea: we might have a "renamed" AR with a "split" option like[artist] {split:split and thereafter} renamed to [artist] Yet, I wouldn't know a reverse phrase right now,
Maybe something like
[artist] renamed {split:after a split} to [artist]?
Sorry, grammar, but what else could I do? ;-)
What do you think?It's definitly not a renaming. Could one say Shaaman is a successor of Angra?Since there is only one band member in both bands, I wouldn't say so.
I would suggest to use this AR only if larger parts of the older band were also band members after the name change and vice versa. If only one or two band members founded or joined a new band, i.e. there were larger lineup changes, MemberOfBandRelationshipType should be enough to (indirectly) link the bands.
-- derGraph _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
