[mb-style] Band name changes (was [mb-devel] Panic! at the Disco)

[Chris B]

On 19/03/2008, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
>   > Hello Nick,
>   >
>   >  Probably the users list is more appropriate for such a question.
>   >
>   >
>   >  As for the question itself :-]
>   >  No, there are no such AR.
>   >
>   >  IMHO, both these artist entries should be merged into one (but the
>   >  last word on this usually is for subscribers...), and an alias added
>   >  for the alternative spelling.
>   >
>   >  Relevant documentation here:
>   >  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameArtistWithDifferentNames
>   >
>   >  there is some (admittedly sparse) information about *groups* changing
>   >  their name down the page.
>   >
>   I honestly think we need to actually discuss this properly.
>
>   I disagree that bands that _just_ change their name can be identified
>   by their common lineups, but there are a lot of people who will want
>   to keep the discographies under each name separate.
>
>   I understand some people don't like the idea, but fact is we're
>   already using the 'performs as' AR with dates for some of these, and
>   it is apparently both working and making sense to people.
>
>   Obviously there are a lot of bands that do change lineup and music
>   style along with a name change (and indeed, that is often the reason
>   for the name change itself).  But there are a lot of bands that do it
>   for marketing purposes alone, especially bands that change their name
>   once they start to achieve some success internationally.  So long as
>   the guideline is clear (oh come on, we can manage one guideline that's
>   actually clear, surely :)
>
>   So, I _really_ think we need to have an AR for these situations.
>
>   The options as I see them:
>   1) Formalise the fact that the DB is already seeing use of the
>   'performs as' AR, and emphasise the use of dates if possible.
>   2) A new 'is also known as' AR just for bands (or 'changed their name
>   to, it's worked fine for labels)
>
>   And a guideline that says something like:
>
>   "To be used in cases where a band changed their name only, between
>   releases, with no accompanying lineup or musical style change.  This
>   AR should only be used for completely consistent name changes, where
>   all releases for a given period used one name, and the change to the
>   new name was entire."

i'd feel more comfortable with this if we had a system around that
collates discographies of these artists onto the same page. eg, there
is no reason to split the discography of 'Martha and the Vandellas'
and 'Martha Reeves and the Vandellas' into two separate pages -
they're the same act titled differently.

from a 'discography' point of view:
- doesn't allow you to see the entire sequence of releases in one place
- involves silly discussions over VA comp releases - whether one name
has a particular 'time span' or whether whatever name was used on the
release goes, despite it possibly being from a different name 'era'
- what about the new worklists? do they get separate ones if both
'names' have the same recording under their records? happened a lot
with {diana ross &} the supremes (another IMO
not-worth-splitting-artist)

from a tag point of view:
- stops having a single point of access (the artist name) for that
acts work (really big issue IMO).

if we had something like discogs ANV system -
http://www.discogs.com/artist/Supremes%2C+The - where name changes can
be stored without splitting discographies - then i'd feel differently,
but at the mo IMO it's not worth the downsides, and would sooner just
keep it as an annotation.