Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
Lauri Watts wrote: I do understand that a lot(?) of people might be reluctant with such a big change all of a sudden. Because of that I think I have to agree with Kerensky97. We could still change the the current 'performs as' AR to at least be able to create a link to other band/artist names. At the moment there are already releases divided over different artist names because, unlike others like e.g. Prince, in those cases it was decided to keep them separated. Especially in case of joined names an artist annotation can be added explaining the situation, optionally with a link to a wiki page with a discussion or more reasoning if needed. That's what I think is best, just user performs as. The link text doesn't necessarily even need changing. And there's nothing technical stopping people already doing this, other than voters (I bet there's some already in the DB done this way, in fact, that got through.) Sorry for the delay. The link text does not need to be changed but the relation phrases do to make it fit for 'performance name <-> performance name' relations in case of artist and band names. I think we should still be able to make a distinction between an 'performance name <-> performance name' relation and a 'performance name <-> legal name' relation if we change the current 'performs as' relation. First of all because that's the current explicit purpose of the available 'performs as' relation and secondly because there's a significant difference between the two. Because of this the current proposal still stands if it comes to the introduction of a 'legal name' attribute and and the following link phrases: 1. '*artist* is/was a performance name used by *artist*' 2. '*artist* is/was a performance name used by the legal person's name *artist*' 3. '*artist* is/was performing under the name *artist*' Where phrase 2 replaces the first if the 'legal name' attribute is checked. Unless someone can think of something better of course ;-) Yours, Age ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
On 10/11/06, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kerensky97 wrote: > > DonRedman wrote: >> Heh, what about that simple suggestion: We could make a wiki page and >> collect all these artist there and the decisions that led to the state >> they are in. This would not be a guideline yet, but maybe a step towards >> one. >> > > I still think we need something more tangible than a wiki page listing the > consensus on every artist name change, or even an annotation on the page > mentioning the former or new name. Maybe I wasn't clear before, the AR > doesn't have to actaully do anything now, it would have the same power as > "Performs as" but would signify a different change where an artist changed > name to something else at some point (and as a bounus it provides a > convienient link to that artist). And we can still vote on certain merges > that we don't think should be done, or certain merges we think should be > done. > > Then maybe someday in the future we can utilize that AR to provide more cool > functionality when we have the programmers and testers to deal with it. > Personally I'm of the opinion that the prospect of generating a lot of work by separating artists and releases as in the proposal shouldn't stand in the way of creating a more semantically correct database. When changing the behaviour it doesn't mean everything has to be done at once. The changes to the releases can be made gradually whenever a new artist is added or whenever someone is up for the task. I do understand that a lot(?) of people might be reluctant with such a big change all of a sudden. Because of that I think I have to agree with Kerensky97. We could still change the the current 'performs as' AR to at least be able to create a link to other band/artist names. At the moment there are already releases divided over different artist names because, unlike others like e.g. Prince, in those cases it was decided to keep them separated. Especially in case of joined names an artist annotation can be added explaining the situation, optionally with a link to a wiki page with a discussion or more reasoning if needed. That's what I think is best, just user performs as. The link text doesn't necessarily even need changing. And there's nothing technical stopping people already doing this, other than voters (I bet there's some already in the DB done this way, in fact, that got through.) Regards, -- Lauri Watts ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
Kerensky97 wrote: DonRedman wrote: Heh, what about that simple suggestion: We could make a wiki page and collect all these artist there and the decisions that led to the state they are in. This would not be a guideline yet, but maybe a step towards one. I still think we need something more tangible than a wiki page listing the consensus on every artist name change, or even an annotation on the page mentioning the former or new name. Maybe I wasn't clear before, the AR doesn't have to actaully do anything now, it would have the same power as "Performs as" but would signify a different change where an artist changed name to something else at some point (and as a bounus it provides a convienient link to that artist). And we can still vote on certain merges that we don't think should be done, or certain merges we think should be done. Then maybe someday in the future we can utilize that AR to provide more cool functionality when we have the programmers and testers to deal with it. Personally I'm of the opinion that the prospect of generating a lot of work by separating artists and releases as in the proposal shouldn't stand in the way of creating a more semantically correct database. When changing the behaviour it doesn't mean everything has to be done at once. The changes to the releases can be made gradually whenever a new artist is added or whenever someone is up for the task. I do understand that a lot(?) of people might be reluctant with such a big change all of a sudden. Because of that I think I have to agree with Kerensky97. We could still change the the current 'performs as' AR to at least be able to create a link to other band/artist names. At the moment there are already releases divided over different artist names because, unlike others like e.g. Prince, in those cases it was decided to keep them separated. Especially in case of joined names an artist annotation can be added explaining the situation, optionally with a link to a wiki page with a discussion or more reasoning if needed. Yours, Age ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
DonRedman wrote: > > Heh, what about that simple suggestion: We could make a wiki page and > collect all these artist there and the decisions that led to the state > they are in. This would not be a guideline yet, but maybe a step towards > one. > Well if we don't have a way to relate them we sure a heck better get something in the wiki that describes why each artist is different because there's going to be alot of confusion. People enter stuff as they have on the CD in hand, afterall how many edits end up being a discussion over accuracy on the artist page vs accuracy on the CD case? Personally I like keeping all my music under the artist that makes most sense to me (Prince is still Prince in my opinion), but it would be nice to have an relationship link to click on to get to any other names the band may have had. But problem with a wiki as a solution is that it only gets edited when somebody remembers to put the resolution of the vote in there; if nobody contests keeping them seperate when albums are entered under the new name you could say the consensus is to keep them seperate. But as nobody made waves it's not likely that it would be entered in to the wiki and somebody may come by later to merge them saying no precident was set (according to the wiki). I still think we need something more tangible than a wiki page listing the consensus on every artist name change, or even an annotation on the page mentioning the former or new name. Maybe I wasn't clear before, the AR doesn't have to actaully do anything now, it would have the same power as "Performs as" but would signify a different change where an artist changed name to something else at some point (and as a bounus it provides a convienient link to that artist). And we can still vote on certain merges that we don't think should be done, or certain merges we think should be done. Then maybe someday in the future we can utilize that AR to provide more cool functionality when we have the programmers and testers to deal with it. -Dustin (Kerensky97) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/How-to-handle-band-artist-name-changes-tf2382488s2885.html#a6740588 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:49:23 +0200, Age Bosma wrote: Hi, Based on the responses I think we can draw the following conclusions: 1. Releases have to be filed under the artist name it was releases under. Um, no? http://musicbrainz.org/artist/6514cffa-fbe0-4965-ad88-e998ead8a82a.html Most of the Fela Kuti releases were released under either "Fela Anikulapo Kuti" or "Fela Ransome Kuti". But this is not important *in the context of* his music/his discography. So MB has settled for "Fela Kuti". DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs, the MusicBrainz documentation system. Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ (you might need to transform the term to singular) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:30:50 +0200, Kerensky97 wrote: For now i think we need to consider an AR that artist X changed name to artist Y (a complete changeover, not performas as or anything like that). And the Picard tweak would be cool too (it'll cause issues with last.fm submissions though :o ). Which shows that changing the current habits (we cant really call that guidelines) would substantially change the semantics of the database. This means that anyone who wants to push for a change in this domain must be prepared to do quite alot of work (like test cases on test.mb.org, tagging against them, etc). I personally suggest not to change anything, but to state that this is a complicated matter which has to be decided on a case by case basis. If you look at all the split/unified artists in MB you will find that the decision made for each of them makes perfectly sense *for that arstist*. Heh, what about that simple suggestion: We could make a wiki page and collect all these artist there and the decisions that led to the state they are in. This would not be a guideline yet, but maybe a step towards one. DonRedman -- Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs, the MusicBrainz documentation system. Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ (you might need to transform the term to singular) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
Hi, Based on the responses I think we can draw the following conclusions: 1. Releases have to be filed under the artist name it was releases under. 2. If, what could be considered, the same release was released under different artist names, with or without a different track listing, each release should be filed separately under the different artist names. 3. An AdvancedRelationship should be used to link the individual artist names together. We currently have the 'performs as' relationship but this one is meant to only be used to create a 'legal name - performance name' relationship link. We could introduce a new AR solely for the purpose of a name change relation but this would leave us with two separate but similar relations. Because of this I suggest we change/extend the purpose of the already available 'performs as' relationship. The current 'performs as' relationship allows us to provide a begin and end date and has the link phrases: 1. '*artist* is a performance name for the person *artist*' 2. '*artist* performs as *artist*' I would like to change this to 'is/was performing under the name' with the link phrases: 1. '*artist* is/was a performance name used by *artist*' 2. '*artist* is/was performing under the name *artist*' With a 'legal name' attribute to indicate a 'legal name - performance name' relation. When used it would result in phrase 1 becoming: '*artist* is/was a performance name used by the legal person's name *artist*' This offers us the following: 1. To indicate a 'legal name - performance name' relation, you use the AR with the 'legal name' attribute. 2. When an artist uses multiple names to release releases under, a general (performance) name has to be chosen to link all the other artist names to. 3. When an artist changed his name, the latest name is the one to link all the other artist names to. 4. The start and end dates should be used when needed. E.g.: - In case of a name change to indicate in which period a name was used - When the artist uses multiple names you can optionally provide a start date when the artist first started using it Imo this catches all possible situations. It should be recommended practise to work from a (general) performance name perspective. In the extreme case of Prince you would create 4 relations resulting in: *Prince Rogers Nelson* - 'is/was performing under the name Prince from X1 until Y1' - 'is/was performing under the name T.A.F.K.A.P. from X2 until Y2' - 'is/was performing under the name Prince from X3 until present' *Prince* - 'is/was a performance name used by the legal person's name Prince Rogers Nelson from X1 until Y1' - 'is/was performing under the name T.A.F.K.A.P. from X2 until Y2' - 'is/was a performance name used by the legal person's name Prince Rogers Nelson from X3 until present' *T.A.F.K.A.P.* - 'is/was a performance name used by the legal person's name Prince Rogers Nelson from X2 until Y2' - 'is/was a performance name used by Prince from X2 until Y2' The exact phrases to be used might need some additional attention. I'm not a language expert and I'm not too good at word juggling so any suggestions are welcome ;-) When changing the purpose of the current 'performs as' relationship, all 'performs as' relationships that are in the db now have to be changed to get the 'legal name' attribute checked. I think, or at least hope, that this is possible by a simple db script. The addressing of the tagging issue is imo a different matter which, like the displaying of all releases under a general name, unfortunately can't be handled at this stage. The question is if it should stand in the way of getting the info in at least the MB db more correct. It would require much more changes, which should be addressed by the NGS and in Picard by being able to handle ARs. The tagging under a specific name is already an issue but I don't think it will get that much worse with the proposed changes mention above. Yours, Age (Prodoc) ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
On 04/10/06, Aaron Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/4/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i think the best argument for unifying artist names *where > appropriate* (eg, not for true aliases/regional variations/other??), > is that MP3 software and players are largely ordered by artist name. > > if i used the specific artist name used on all the Silver Mt Zion > releases (http://www.discogs.com/artist/A+Silver+Mt.+Zion), their > discography would be scattered across my itunes and ipod. to listen to > all the ASMZ albums at once, i would have to create a playlist. > > it would be muchos cool if all the performance names were grouped on > the server (solving display issue), and that the grouping name (eg, "A > Silver Mt. Zion") could be used by the tagger (or at least, the user > could chose it, rather than the album specific peformance name). > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > I think you've all heard my arguments before :) So here's my new proposal: 1a. Have an AR that links the two MB Artists - "X changed their name to Y" for example. A problem might arise when X changed their name to Y, then to Z, and then back to X. We'd need to include dates or something so that we can make the tagger figure out which is the "current" performing name. or 1b. Have an AR that links the two MB Artists - "Y is the most recent performance name of X" and link all old names (X) to the newest performance name (Y). 2. Have a variable in Picard that can let you use the %currentArtistiName% instead of %artist%. This would quiet all the whining of the music taggers and me :) it's not neccesarily the most recent that is the one people would want to tag against, though :( also this doesn't solve the problem about having discographies spread over different pages (AR links are all well and good but a chronological list of all albums is really nice). i reckon the artist AR link (which remember aren't particularly readable at the mo) wouldn't be noticed by most users and we'd just be endlessly voting down release additions to the wrong (albeit more popular) performance name. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
I think something like this is definately the way to go. To me it would be ideal if we had the option for the artist page to show all the titles they did under different names based off AR links and dates, perhaps greyed out with a note as to which name it was performed under. That way looking at one artist page would show everything they've done under under other projects and names and you wouldn't have to piece together info from the relationship field. Maybe have it expandable like the "show all releases" link we have now. But that all seems like something that the magic NGS would do. For now i think we need to consider an AR that artist X changed name to artist Y (a complete changeover, not performas as or anything like that). And the Picard tweak would be cool too (it'll cause issues with last.fm submissions though :o ). -Dustin Aaron Cooper wrote: > > I think you've all heard my arguments before :) So here's my new > proposal: > > 1a. Have an AR that links the two MB Artists - "X changed their name > to Y" for example. A problem might arise when X changed their name to > Y, then to Z, and then back to X. We'd need to include dates or > something so that we can make the tagger figure out which is the > "current" performing name. > > or 1b. Have an AR that links the two MB Artists - "Y is the most > recent performance name of X" and link all old names (X) to the newest > performance name (Y). > > 2. Have a variable in Picard that can let you use the > %currentArtistiName% instead of %artist%. This would quiet all the > whining of the music taggers and me :) > > Regards, > -- > -Aaron > > ___ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/How-to-handle-band-artist-name-changes-tf2382488s2885.html#a6646598 Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
On 10/4/06, Chris Bransden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 04/10/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/4/06, Noa Groveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This matter is complicated by the fact that many artists intentionally > > release works under different performance names, usually when they are > > legally required to do so (because of a label contract) but sometimes for > > other reasons. I've always been of the opinion that the name of the MB > > There are plenty of artists who are releasing intentionally under > multiple names at the same time. Most of electronica comes under > this, but also people like Elin Ruth/Elin Sigvardsson who are the same > person, but she uses one name within Sweden and the other outside it. > Actually, a couple of us just fixed up one case where one single album > had four releases in three countries, with three different track > listings, two of which are as a solo album, (artist with backing band) > and two as belonging to the band. Likely because while the solo > artist is a superstar at home, he's not well known overseas, so there > wasn't any "goodwill" value releasing specifically under his name. > > I wonder if Noa's idea of simply being able to display all performance > names isn't the best one. Prince for instance, could be separated out > into the different names he's used, depending on what's on the cover, > and all linked with "Performed as..." AR's, covering the appropriate > dates. That takes someone very familiar with the artist in question's > discography, not just to do the initial breaking up, but to stay on > top of new additions and attempts to > > Basically it's easy enough to capture the data already, but it's > probably not being displayed in the optimal manner. i think the best argument for unifying artist names *where appropriate* (eg, not for true aliases/regional variations/other??), is that MP3 software and players are largely ordered by artist name. if i used the specific artist name used on all the Silver Mt Zion releases (http://www.discogs.com/artist/A+Silver+Mt.+Zion), their discography would be scattered across my itunes and ipod. to listen to all the ASMZ albums at once, i would have to create a playlist. it would be muchos cool if all the performance names were grouped on the server (solving display issue), and that the grouping name (eg, "A Silver Mt. Zion") could be used by the tagger (or at least, the user could chose it, rather than the album specific peformance name). ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style I think you've all heard my arguments before :) So here's my new proposal: 1a. Have an AR that links the two MB Artists - "X changed their name to Y" for example. A problem might arise when X changed their name to Y, then to Z, and then back to X. We'd need to include dates or something so that we can make the tagger figure out which is the "current" performing name. or 1b. Have an AR that links the two MB Artists - "Y is the most recent performance name of X" and link all old names (X) to the newest performance name (Y). 2. Have a variable in Picard that can let you use the %currentArtistiName% instead of %artist%. This would quiet all the whining of the music taggers and me :) Regards, -- -Aaron ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
On 04/10/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/4/06, Noa Groveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This matter is complicated by the fact that many artists intentionally > release works under different performance names, usually when they are > legally required to do so (because of a label contract) but sometimes for > other reasons. I've always been of the opinion that the name of the MB There are plenty of artists who are releasing intentionally under multiple names at the same time. Most of electronica comes under this, but also people like Elin Ruth/Elin Sigvardsson who are the same person, but she uses one name within Sweden and the other outside it. Actually, a couple of us just fixed up one case where one single album had four releases in three countries, with three different track listings, two of which are as a solo album, (artist with backing band) and two as belonging to the band. Likely because while the solo artist is a superstar at home, he's not well known overseas, so there wasn't any "goodwill" value releasing specifically under his name. I wonder if Noa's idea of simply being able to display all performance names isn't the best one. Prince for instance, could be separated out into the different names he's used, depending on what's on the cover, and all linked with "Performed as..." AR's, covering the appropriate dates. That takes someone very familiar with the artist in question's discography, not just to do the initial breaking up, but to stay on top of new additions and attempts to Basically it's easy enough to capture the data already, but it's probably not being displayed in the optimal manner. i think the best argument for unifying artist names *where appropriate* (eg, not for true aliases/regional variations/other??), is that MP3 software and players are largely ordered by artist name. if i used the specific artist name used on all the Silver Mt Zion releases (http://www.discogs.com/artist/A+Silver+Mt.+Zion), their discography would be scattered across my itunes and ipod. to listen to all the ASMZ albums at once, i would have to create a playlist. it would be muchos cool if all the performance names were grouped on the server (solving display issue), and that the grouping name (eg, "A Silver Mt. Zion") could be used by the tagger (or at least, the user could chose it, rather than the album specific peformance name). ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
On 10/4/06, Noa Groveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This matter is complicated by the fact that many artists intentionally release works under different performance names, usually when they are legally required to do so (because of a label contract) but sometimes for other reasons. I've always been of the opinion that the name of the MB There are plenty of artists who are releasing intentionally under multiple names at the same time. Most of electronica comes under this, but also people like Elin Ruth/Elin Sigvardsson who are the same person, but she uses one name within Sweden and the other outside it. Actually, a couple of us just fixed up one case where one single album had four releases in three countries, with three different track listings, two of which are as a solo album, (artist with backing band) and two as belonging to the band. Likely because while the solo artist is a superstar at home, he's not well known overseas, so there wasn't any "goodwill" value releasing specifically under his name. I wonder if Noa's idea of simply being able to display all performance names isn't the best one. Prince for instance, could be separated out into the different names he's used, depending on what's on the cover, and all linked with "Performed as..." AR's, covering the appropriate dates. That takes someone very familiar with the artist in question's discography, not just to do the initial breaking up, but to stay on top of new additions and attempts to Basically it's easy enough to capture the data already, but it's probably not being displayed in the optimal manner. Regards, -- Lauri Watts. ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
This matter is complicated by the fact that many artists intentionally release works under different performance names, usually when they are legally required to do so (because of a label contract) but sometimes for other reasons. I've always been of the opinion that the name of the MB artist should correspond to the name that is printed on the cover of the CD or the vinyl insert.. in many cases artists are explicit about which name they wish their album to be released under. ABBA, for example, released their first single under the performance name "Björn & Benny, Agnetha & Anni-Frid", before they changed their name to ABBA - the artists intent was for that single to be released by "Björn & Benny, Agnetha & Anni-Frid", and Musicbrainz should reflect that wish. (btw the musicbrainz entry for ABBA is a complete mess and needs serious work by an ABBA expert) In Musicbrainz, performance names are listed alongside other relationships, but perhaps it would be more astute to provide an option to display all releases associated with a particular artist (including all of his/her/their performance names and associated bands), so, in a glance, a browsing user could see all the releases that a particular artist or person had a hand in, without having to navigate through many different artists. -Noa Groveman On 10/4/06, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi,I know this discussion has been raised before but there wasn't muchresponse on the matter at that time. There aren't clear guidelines about how to store releases when bands orartists have changed their name.A classic example would be Prince [1] with the following names:- Prince- T.A.F.K.A.P.- Symbol Currently all releases are stored under one and the same name: Prince.In a way this makes sense since there's clearly talk about one and thesame artist. On the other hand, don't we want to know which release was released under which name?Yesterday I made an edit [2] to merge two bands because they are exactlythe same. The band DragonForce [3] used to be called DragonHeart [4].They released one demo under their old name and changed the name afterwards to prevent confusion with a different band calledDragonHeart. In this case there's nothing more to it, it's one and thesame band. They even mention their first demo on the DragonForce websitewith a note that it was released under their old name DragonHeart. If the Prince situation is an excepted approach then the DragonForce ->DragonHeart situation should apply here as well, no?This approach, however, isn't an ideal solution:- As Aaron Cooper stated before: "When a band changes their name, in the MB system now we lose all connection with their previous releases underan old name because we are only viewing one artist's page."- Simply adding previous names as an alias is wrong since the aliasesaren't meant for this purpose. - Adding one and the same release to both artists is a waste of time andresources. Not to mention that this would result in having to maintainboth releases separately.Keeping both artist names with an AR between the two of them, specifying the begin and end period, will offer us the most flexibility.Having both artists in the db allows us to do one of the following:1. File all releases under the most recent name. This will result in a'dummy' artist in case of the previous names. 2. File each release under the name it was released under. This gives usthe distinction we want but the most recent name will not list allreleases people might expect under that name.Both problems can be addressed by implementing different handling views: Option 1:- Display releases which fall in a specific name period under that nameautomatically.Option 2:- Display all releases under the most recent name.Views for both options:- List previous name(s) when viewing the most recent name. - Mention most recent name when viewing a previous name.- Mention the previous name under which it was released when viewing arelease.There will probably be more complex name change issues at some stage where e.g. an artist changes his name and later changes back to aprevious name again. To overcome this:Option 1:- Offer multiple start and end dates for a specific name.- Or create duplicate artist names but this will become a mess to maintain. Option 2:- Multiple start and end dates can be offered but it isn't really required.Moving from the situation we have now to a perfect solution will requirea lot of code changes and thus it will take a long time before it's done. Nevertheless I think it's important to at least establish someform of agreement/guideline on how we should handle things at this stageand/or how on a later stage.1. We could start creating multiple artist, file all releases under the most recent name and creating AR's between the most recent name and theprevious ones. As a result we will have what appears to be dummy artistsfor the time being. It will probably also require much more code changes and take more resources.2. We
[mb-style] How to handle band/artist name changes
Hi, I know this discussion has been raised before but there wasn't much response on the matter at that time. There aren't clear guidelines about how to store releases when bands or artists have changed their name. A classic example would be Prince [1] with the following names: - Prince - T.A.F.K.A.P. - Symbol Currently all releases are stored under one and the same name: Prince. In a way this makes sense since there's clearly talk about one and the same artist. On the other hand, don't we want to know which release was released under which name? Yesterday I made an edit [2] to merge two bands because they are exactly the same. The band DragonForce [3] used to be called DragonHeart [4]. They released one demo under their old name and changed the name afterwards to prevent confusion with a different band called DragonHeart. In this case there's nothing more to it, it's one and the same band. They even mention their first demo on the DragonForce website with a note that it was released under their old name DragonHeart. If the Prince situation is an excepted approach then the DragonForce -> DragonHeart situation should apply here as well, no? This approach, however, isn't an ideal solution: - As Aaron Cooper stated before: "When a band changes their name, in the MB system now we lose all connection with their previous releases under an old name because we are only viewing one artist's page." - Simply adding previous names as an alias is wrong since the aliases aren't meant for this purpose. - Adding one and the same release to both artists is a waste of time and resources. Not to mention that this would result in having to maintain both releases separately. Keeping both artist names with an AR between the two of them, specifying the begin and end period, will offer us the most flexibility. Having both artists in the db allows us to do one of the following: 1. File all releases under the most recent name. This will result in a 'dummy' artist in case of the previous names. 2. File each release under the name it was released under. This gives us the distinction we want but the most recent name will not list all releases people might expect under that name. Both problems can be addressed by implementing different handling views: Option 1: - Display releases which fall in a specific name period under that name automatically. Option 2: - Display all releases under the most recent name. Views for both options: - List previous name(s) when viewing the most recent name. - Mention most recent name when viewing a previous name. - Mention the previous name under which it was released when viewing a release. There will probably be more complex name change issues at some stage where e.g. an artist changes his name and later changes back to a previous name again. To overcome this: Option 1: - Offer multiple start and end dates for a specific name. - Or create duplicate artist names but this will become a mess to maintain. Option 2: - Multiple start and end dates can be offered but it isn't really required. Moving from the situation we have now to a perfect solution will require a lot of code changes and thus it will take a long time before it's done. Nevertheless I think it's important to at least establish some form of agreement/guideline on how we should handle things at this stage and/or how on a later stage. 1. We could start creating multiple artist, file all releases under the most recent name and creating AR's between the most recent name and the previous ones. As a result we will have what appears to be dummy artists for the time being. It will probably also require much more code changes and take more resources. 2. We could keep duplicate artists, file each release under each separate artist name and create an AR to the most recent name. On a later stage this could result in less (resource taking) code changes. Instead of checking for each possible release under the most recent name when viewing a previous name you now only have to check for all releases under all previous names when viewing the most recent one. This method seems to me to be the most db semantically correct as well. Yours, Age (Prodoc) [1] http://musicbrainz.org/show/artist/aliases.html?artistid=153 [2] http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5706428 [3] http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ef58d4c9-0d40-42ba-bfab-9186c1483edd.html [4] http://musicbrainz.org/artist/757b9d20-1504-4d1b-ba52-575fdd2ac56f.html ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
