>Their history definitely warrants that they that they be included as a single entity in MB. definitely agree with this. their solo releases (such as they are) came some while after their collaboration began. Hall & Oates releases form the vast bulk of both men's recorded output. they're essentially a band with an unimaginative name. what would you do with simon & garfunkel? i would say they're a similar case (actually possibly less strong than Hall & Oates in that both have had successful solo careers) it's always going to be fuzzy, this one. and i'm not sure exactly what to do with CSNY etc. p ________________________________
From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Paul C. Bryan Sent: 24 August 2011 16:13 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] Deprecating collaborations I wrote: Here's a performance collaboration worthy of review: Daryl Hall & John Oates, at least judging by their album covers: On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 21:44 -0700, Ryan Torchia responded: How does that put them in the "same boat"? That sometimes they were credited using their full names rather than just last names is really kind of trivial, IMO. Their history definitely warrants that they that they be included as a single entity in MB. The line can be fuzzy for collaborations like Lennon/Ono, but really not for Hall & Oates. How does their history definitely warrant they be included as a single entity in MB? How is it fuzzy for other collaborations and not so for Hall & Oates? Length of time in collaboration? Number of releases? As the majority of their albums appear to credit them individually on the cover, it seems on its face like a collaboration, not a "group". As such, this collaboration seems like a logical migration from collaboration artist to joint artist credit-especially absent any guidelines to direct us otherwise. Related to this, I'd like to see people work out what we should do with Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. (And Crosby, Stills & Nash), Crosby & Nash, Stills & Nash, the Stills-Young Band, David Crosby, Stephen Stills, Graham Nash, Neil Young, and of course... Buffalo Springfield.) I get the part about the Crosby* cases. I don't get the Buffalo Springfield case (isn't it a rock band, i.e. group-or was this made in jest?) Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
