[mb-users] Various Artists....or not?

[Chris B]

2008/4/30 david scotson <david.scotson at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
>  > 2008/4/30 Fred Marchee <fred at intercookie.com>:
>  >
>  > > http://musicbrainz.org/release/996a67eb-42d6-4d4a-9eaa-7d15952e9d3d.html
>
> >  >  http://musicbrainz.org/release/b6626dd6-310a-4995-8523-c11c32130e9b.html
>
> >  >  http://musicbrainz.org/release/91b0b3e2-f7c8-4d8f-b9ac-3044396ef8c2.html
>
>  I would file all of those with an album artist of Diana Ross & The
>  Supremes. The songs are from the periods when a) Diana Ross was a
>  member of the Supremes, and b) when her name was called out
>  especially, not from the later Diana-Ross-less Supremes. If I had to
>  choose one name to sum up those periods it would be Diana Ross and the
>  Supremes (even though about half the songs weren't released under that
>  name).
>
>  Chris B, what was your logic in choosing a release artist in these cases?,

because it's on the cover? they are the release artist who made the
release. i don't think we should start trying to change history if
we're going to keep 2 separate entries for the group. "Diana Ross &
The Supremes" was just a marketing name used during a period of their
career. if they don't use it on a given cover then it's not relevant
to that release.

(as an aside i think we should only have one entry for "The Supremes"
as "Diana Ross & ..." was just a marketing thing. it's the same
group...the memberships have changed over the years (like most of the
major motown groups) but i see little benefit in fragmenting their
discography when we have membership ARs that could be set up, but i'm
sure we're all tired of this topic!).