> 1. I think the release should be placed under whatever name is on the cover
> as we usually do, so no big changes.
sorry i don't think this reflects current practice. some artists
change names all the time, yet we have chosen one artist name to use
as it's the most useful thing to have when tagging.
for example, a silver mt. zion (
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/54a55229-e611-439f-928e-d89919ff9d29.html
) have had at least 4 other names in the past (see aliases @
http://www.discogs.com/artist/A+Silver+Mt.+Zion ), and they all
reflect actual changes in the lineup/style of the band, yet it would
make finding their albums on, say, my ipod a complete nightmare if we
used all those names.
I sorta understand this, I thought this way as well when I first
started using MB. But then I learned that I had to stop thinking of MB
primarily as a tagging tool and start thinking of it as a music data
archiving tool. Too many times I got hung up on edits because of the
way it would "mess up" my tagging ;) - I still fall into that trap
occasionally but hey, that's what manually taggers are for - those
rare instances that MB is slightly different than the way you desire
your items to be tagged. I agree with having the artist releases
entered in MB with the name as it is listed on the cover providing
that the release is an official release by the band/artist, and that
was the band/artist's official name at the time of release.
As an aside, another artist with varying names over the years -
Prince. Prince, Prince and the Revolution, Prince and the New Power
Generation and then of course the ungodly symbol/The Artist Formerly
Known As Prince years ;).
~jb/haeretik
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
