On 06/08/2011 09:16 AM, monxton wrote: > "This (collaboration) relationship type is only intended for short-term > projects consisting of independent artists, who move on after the > collaboration is finished. If the target artist was not this type of > project, then Member Of Band Relationship Type should be used. "
I’ve mostly said my piece on edit #14583494. However: > While duos which are preserved by virtue of having only one > surname or omitting their first names would include Spiers & Boden, > Richard & Linda Thompson, Simon & Garfunkel, Norma & Lal Waterson, and > many more. They don’t have to be, it was just a function of the collaboration→artist credit script to not try to do more than it perhaps should have. I don’t think this is about duos, but more about any group where the collective name is simply a list of the individual names. And I think we can/should at least somewhat disregard the collaboration relationship guide for this, because it’s not intended to cover this situation. After all, the example given[1] is for Headgirl which does not come close to fitting this pattern. > Did I miss the memo, or > do we need some clearer guidance on this topic? It seems we do, or this would never have come up. Maybe we need some more guidelines for how to handle multi-artist credits. I’ve come up with a set of criteria which may be relevant in deciding whether an artist needs a separate page: * The group is known by a different name when performing together. (how different? is “First & First” sufficiently different? How about “First & First Last”? What about nicknames?) * The necessity of an AR to the group. * Some kind of notability requirement? (Wikipedia? Official home page under the group name? both are really AR requirements, but maybe some other notability requirement like google search suggestions??) Following this, I created a spreadsheet[2] which looks at the artists you listed, the artists I listed, and several others which seemed relevant. I highlighted in green the artists that I would make standalone artists, all the rest I would handle as artist credits. From that, I find that the following are what I consider important: * Does/should the artist have any ARs (ignoring BBC music ones since they pull their data from MB)? * Does their collective name prevent use of artist credits (e.g. Waterson:Carthy has three members, so there’s no way to assign part of the name to each member—obviously it has ARs too, but just for illustration purposes.) 1. http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Collaboration_Relationship_Type#Examples 2. https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Asu0ZbRsetVMdERPaGw5N3BzR3E0dEFjNjdZR0ZmWVE&hl=en_US&authkey=CI61hfYN _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
