2.6.2. Collaborative artists should be split into their individual names except when the combined name was intended and can be verified as the group name (for example Simon & Garfunkel), legal songwriting entity (for example Lennon-McCartney), or production partnership (for example, Stock, Aitken & Waterman). Verification can be found, for example, in official external websites, biographies, and discographies.
They are not actual project names (just the combined names of the two artists), the artists' own websites & discographies don't separate them, they constitute only a small portion of the artists' discographies, the artists all have a history of choosing a new project name for certain collaborations where they have seen fit, etc.
These should be pretty non-controversial. If everyone seems OK with this, I'll go ahead and split these.
That's not an argument at all.
These artists have made a lot of releases together (the last one was Steve Roach & Dirk Serries - Low Volume Music, released in 2012) but they never were a group.
jmoortga
These artists have made a lot of releases together (the last one was Steve Roach & Dirk Serries - Low Volume Music, released in 2012) but they never were a group.
I completely disagree. They are an ongoing collaboration, a duo, which is a type of group. This splitting nonsense is insane and is inconsistent with other websites. This has been an agenda for some 'oggers for years and it is tragic that management is letting this happen. Then again, accuracy isn't a strong point of this database, is it?
Fauni-Gena
They are an ongoing collaboration, a duo, which is a type of group.
sure, yet they haven't created a group name, so imo it is only logical to have the releases show up on their individual discography pages. We are not losing anything because they are still seen as a duo everywhere you view the release and imo we are gaining by having them show up with other releases under the artists name, alongside other duos. the chronological view of all releases I feel often helps give context to other releases.
I will add that 12 hours between this post and starting splits was not long enough to get comments and for people to gather evidence if they disagreed with a specific example. This isn't consensus building. It's railroading through an idea by a small group. Don't you think slowing down would be a good, adult thing to do?
I've started a separate thread at http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/52ccedb8ea62112786d5280c to compile a list of groups that may look like ed artists but for which we can the group name in accordance with the new version of 2.6.2. Please feel free to add to that list and please do consult that list before splitting artists.
Ken Vandermark / Paal Nilssen-Love => This is a group, as seen on both artist's websites, by Vandermark's definition (who is very accurate in giving a definition for all of his work, bands, collaborations, ...), by advertising themselves as a group, by performing ... in other words: they consider themselves being a group in the real meaning of the word (not just by the Discogs definition) and they also act as such.
Dirk & Steve just happen to have released many albums together (just like Dirk & Asmus), but they don't consider themselves being a group at all.
All makes perfect sense to me. I always thought this artificial grouping of names was an unnecessary complication and should be done away with altogether.
But, having said that, I can see the use of such artificial groupings in that they collate collaborations into logical discographies.
A simple solution to this on Discogs would be to create an equivalent to the label "series", i.e. "Project" selectable from the LCCN.
This would address taklit-sarut's line of thought.
jmoortga
Ken Vandermark / Paal Nilssen-Love => This is a group,
Like all free-jazz collaborations, these two work in many other projects/collaborations. So I don't see the argument. I guess taklit-sarut's concern is that this additional information given on such Discogs pages at present will be lost with these changes.
[quote=jmoortga @xdef: you might want to put on your Siberian Bear Hunting Armor to split 'em ... that will keep you safe :-)[/quote]
LOL! I guess you put that on, lie in the snow, and hope a bear tries to eat you? Haha.
Just to clarify: If im updating a release where there were incorrect artists (in fact the remixers were listed as artists in the tracklisting but no credits) do I use the group name (e.g. Olivier Desmet & Oriental Funk Stew etc.) or do I credit them separately based on the assumption that their t releases will be separated at some point?
inexpressible
Oh, I see Caitlin is back. Well, that didn't take long. :)
I NEVER left. I never had any intention of leaving. I closed the other on the advice of friends in law enforcement after receiving threats and harassment.
My point, particularly with Steve Roach and Vidna Obmana (the only split I have challenged here) is that many other websites treat them as a group because of the volume of their output and the fact that they tour together. These sites range from Last FM to Rate Your Music and more. No, these are not official and don't count as verification under the new Guideline and I concede that much. However, if the world sees them as a group or team or whatever then I feel we should as well.
This prob should be more a "development" thread but is relevent here:
What if all entites (Lennon-McCartney, SAW etc.) were split into their individual (not bands) and there was an option to see the individuals' discography when collaborating in this fashion with other individuals in the same credit field.
E.g. Mike Stock collaborating with Pete Waterman, click on the collaborator and it then shows full discography with all options as main artist page) in the fashion of ANV variations now. In this case if there is a common 3rd (or more collaborator, in this case Matt Aitken), from the Pete Waterman collab page, click Matt Aitken collab page to see all releases and tracks where all 3 are credited to the same field.
I think this would remove the historic linking confusion, create simplicity for future subbers who are not (yet) aware of the linked credit. It would be a massive un-linking task though...
Any thoughts?
Fauni-Gena
These sites range from Last FM to Rate Your Music and more. No, these are not official and don't count as verification under the new Guideline and I concede that much. However, if the world sees them as a group or team or whatever then I feel we should as well.
"The world" doesn't see them as a group or team or whatever, and that's the whole point here.
Also, the databases & interfaces of last.fm & RYM don't splitting artists as we can here; using that as any sort of rationale we'd need to keep all collaborations ed.
djcarbines - yes, that is similar to some previous proposals, such as a "collaborated with" section on an artist page, where you could see a list of the collaborators & filter to those specific releases. Could be very useful!
Which would have an "artists 1" "collaborated with" "artist2" link.
Off course, in this specific case, you would need something to visualise the "collaboration discography".
djcarbines
This prob should be more a "development" thread but is relevent here:
What if all entites (Lennon-McCartney, SAW etc.) were split into their individual (not bands) and there was an option to see the individuals' discography when collaborating in this fashion with other individuals in the same credit field.
E.g. Mike Stock collaborating with Pete Waterman, click on the collaborator and it then shows full discography with all options as main artist page) in the fashion of ANV variations now. In this case if there is a common 3rd (or more collaborator, in this case Matt Aitken), from the Pete Waterman collab page, click Matt Aitken collab page to see all releases and tracks where all 3 are credited to the same field.
I think this would remove the historic linking confusion, create simplicity for future subbers who are not (yet) aware of the linked credit. It would be a massive un-linking task though...
Any thoughts?
Yep - the split of Lennon-McCartney is both contrary to several extended threads and completely inaccurate - unless you think Paul McCartney wrote Give Peace a Chance or John Lennon wrote Yesterday. Same with Jagger-Richards and others. Simply because a name includes two people's names, that's no reason to split it.
The same with SAW - the name does not imply that each person was involved - it was an entity. We split - we are destroying that entity and simply making things up.
Accuracy should trump any overwhelming need to split for the sake of splitting - which this thread seems to have devolved into.
Opdiner
Accuracy should trump any overwhelming need to split for the sake of splitting - which this thread seems to have devolved into.
Agreed. Each split should have it's own thread and discussion over a period of days, the same way we do PAN changes and mass edits of other sorts. Maybe, ultimately, all these splits should happen under the new Guideline. I can live with that, even if I'm part of a minority who thinks it's wrong, just as I live with other Guidelines that I don't like. Rushing to make mass changes without allowing adequate time for discussion is just plain wrong.
ultimathulerecords
Problem there is that on Discogs you can put up a forum thread and get no reaction whatsoever.
True. I have several threads which have gone unanswered and it can be quite frustrating when that happens. I responded to someone recently who had bumped their thread 4 times without reply. The query was so simple anyone could have answered it but nobody else did.
ultimathulerecords
Problem there is that on Discogs you can put up a forum thread and get no reaction whatsoever.
I find that if I bump them a few times I usually do get an answer. I'm usually only on in the evening or late these days so a lot can come and go on the forum in a 12 hour period that I never see.
What about the artists in groups who were not credited prominently at first but half way the career of their groups they became a collaborative artist? A good example: Miami Sound Machine. Actually her name appears only on the last album and singles with MSM (1987 to 1988 period, then she went solo). A lot of Gloria's compilations include MSM tracks that are not even credited to her group.
cdremixcollector
What about the artists in groups who were not credited prominently at first but half way the career of their groups they became a collaborative artist?
If the group's name was changed for marketing reasons it's not a collaborative artist, it's a variation. Discussed at length elsewhere. And example is Smokey Robinson and The Miracles or Paul McCartney and Wings (the latter changed then changed in back), the former was changed then they reverted when Smokey left.
Last time I talked to Andy (after a live gig w/ Yannis) he stated that they see themselves as a "group".
It's a thin line I suppose, but I would keep them grouped.
loukash
Another candidate for splitting:
Ben Watt & Tracey Thorn
They already have a group name which is … "Everything But The Girl"
A parallel collaborative artist is thus redundant.
If they had releases under this name then it should be kept and aliased to the other group name rather than split. In this case they don't. This "group" is only used for credits, so I'm OK with the split.
Those are invalid anyway (2.6.4) so can be split without discussion. It looks like they were created by someone trying to be helpful by adding writing credits, but not familiar with the correct way to do it.
this has created a "duo" but IMHO names should remains separated. Currently in database there is only one EP signed together and few tracks on various artists releases.
What do you think?
this ones a bit diffrent but an ANV that should be split, ever since ANV's came in 'Genesis P. Orridge & Psychic TV' has been ANV'd to Psychic TV. I never felt this was good but didnt argue it. Now I am cleaning up my Psychic TV releases and I would like to split the ANV. I am a fan and know he is always part of Psychic TV but it seems he wanted his own name separate on these releases so I feel it should be a split artist.
jmoortga
Ken Vandermark / Paal Nilssen-Love => This is a group, as seen on both artist's websites, by Vandermark's definition (who is very accurate in giving a definition for all of his work, bands, collaborations, ...), by advertising themselves as a group, by performing ... in other words: they consider themselves being a group in the real meaning of the word (not just by the Discogs definition) and they also act as such.
yep i agree this should stay as a group, they have a lot of releases, and they usually perform as Vandermark/Nilssen-Love duo.
This is a subset of Spontaneous Music Ensemble. I don't see any web references to them as a duo or a group per se. I'm always a bit concerned about rushing to split where an artist has been dead for a number of years and secondary sources are needed to determine if they ever were a group. In this case, though, yes, a split seems to fit the new RSG 2.6.2. No objection here.
This is a subset of Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet. OTOH, I am finding reviews all over the place referring to them with language like "quartet" and "improvising group". I'd really like to do more research than I have time for right now. This one is questionable to me.
EDIT: Look at it this way: you have two to start on if nobody objects. I'm not sure if I'm objecting to the other two or not. I need to see if I can provide the sort of official verification required by RSG 2.6.2 and as you undoubtedly know there is a wealth of information about these artists online. They are very well known in free jazz circles and there's a lot to parse through to determine if a label or the artists themselves ever decided they were a group.
Generally referred to as a collaboration by two groups rather than a combined group. The two group websites seem to treating them as separate artists. This one looks OK to split to me.
Sorry, folks, I'm a bit under the weather. n-f-r, I haven't forgotten about the issues you raised and I will get to the research as soon as I can. Thanks for being patient.
loukash
Unless there's a proof they are a "legal entity" (and there's none yet), I'm for splitting them altoge
Legal entity is NOT the requirement in the Guidelines. If there is an official source (artists or labels) that considers them a group that's good enough.
According to Willie Nix who played drums on this track.
And while the original release was credited to a "Jimmy & Walter", the CD liner notes in fact talk just about Walter Horton, not mentioning DeBerry or Nix even once. (OK, it's a Blues Harp compilation, so of course the harmonica players are in main focus.)
Fauni-Gena
If it's a group of three rather than a collaboration of two
I don't think so.
It looks like it's primarily Horton accompanied by a session guitarist and a session drummer.
regarding Colin Escott: "On feb 24 1953 Walter [Horton :+)] arrived at SUN with guitarist DeBerry and drummer Houston Stokes.The group cut 3 numbers. the first an instrumental [Sam]Phillips said "Not so good".the 2nd was vocal by deBerry title "BEFORE LONG". the 3rd was nother instrumental called "EASY" but in fact a thinly veiled version of Ivory Joe Hunters "I Almost Lost My Mind". Horton was paid 3$% for the session and 1$ for a harmonica.DeBerry was paid 2$, Stokes was paid $5.00 and an additional 75cents to haul his drums around in the cab..............."
\I will take a picture of later
re: loukash :[quoated]: "You mean Houston Stokes? He doesn't even belong in there. The hip was created just recently based on an questionable credit on http://www.discogs.sie.com/history?release=3891867 "
but in reply------ the CD release is questionable, I do care about the data being correct :^]
--- d-of
d-of
your using ALLMUSIC as reference is questionable, IMO very questionable
Not the artist profiles which are usually written by reputable music journalists.
But point taken.
You're absolutely right when it comes to release credits or release dates on allmusic.com…
The point is, there isn't much more info available online. If you have other sources I'm all ears.
That said, perhaps we may need to launch a separate thread for discussing that issue before we get too off topic here.
Here I am primarily asking if "Jimmy & Walter" is a valid collaborative artist/group name as per RSG §2.6.2. so please let's stick to that for the time being.
loukash
Here I am primarily asking if "Jimmy & Walter" is a valid collaborative artist/group name as per RSG §2.6.2. so please let's stick to that for the time being.
Yes, it's a valid group with three based on the links provided above and should not be split.
ok thanks loukash sorry I bcame a bit excited then ,
regarding Jimmy & Walter: - the split works with me because then both artists may actually be researched more extensively by the person checking out the song. When a large body of work is displayed, it's more interesting to see this than a obscure artist with one song and not a photo;
--and referring to RSG §2.6.2: " legal songwriting entity " ---well, there weren't royalties according to the source provided on the Sun release: 4$,2$ and 5.75, sad to say Jimmy and Walter went without any royalty, beauty song too.
Therfore, as I read it, & this is opinion only, this one session cash payment recording qualifies it for the split. :)
Fauni-Gena
it's a valid group with three based on the links provided above
Please don't sweat over semantics… ;)
We're searching for a reference whether this was a steady combo regularly performing under the name "Jimmy & Walter" and not just an ad hoc group of three musicians which can be still referred to as a "group" because it's more than one guy playing at the same time.
So, currently we have the liner notes using the word "group" as a reference to a "group of three musicians who met for a session".
Then we have other liner notes and several online articles not just omitting any "group", but even Horton's sidemen.
Not to speak of the contradicting informations who was actually the drummer on that one-off session.
But in the meantime, I'm not even as opposed to keeping Jimmy & Walter as a group.
Looking at it from another angle, slapping a "group" name on the label may have been simply Phillips's marketing gimmick to sell the record, regardless whether it was a steady group or not. As such it may go in line with the omnipresent Simon & Garfunkel example.
phallancz
seeking permission to split Borbetomagus & Voice Crack
anyone agrees ?
Yes, I agree. We discussed that earlier in the thread. They are generally referred to as a collaboration by two groups rather than as a combined group. The two group websites seem to treating them as separate artists. I posted that a month ago (http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/52cc114fad9d35527cb75016?page=1#53012482ad9d351fa9c8ec34 ) and nobody has objected. I think that's long enough. I think you can go ahead and split them.
phallancz
and Mhee/Brötzmann/Kessler/Zerang should this "group" also be split ?
Also discussed before. This one is really borderline, and I am leaning towards believing we should keep them together. They do not have a web page for the quartet, which is the main argument for a split. What I wrote before:
This is a subset of Peter Brötzmann Chicago Tentet. OTOH, I am finding reviews all over the place referring to them with language like "quartet" and "improvising group". I'd really like to do more research than I have time for right now. This one is questionable to me.
In looking at it again, those reviews include major jazz publications, not just blogs by individual fans. They are widely regarded as a distinct group. This one is a tough call but I would really prefer to see them kept together.
Fauni-Gena
referring to them with language like "quartet" and "improvising group"
Being called a quartet doesn't seem a reason enough for me for them to be a discogs group, they are called a quartet simply because they are four musician, and a improvising group because they work in the realm of free improvisation, nothing really stands out that this is a group for me, they are just four musicians that have been playing live for quite some time, either as a quartet or trio or duo or with other musicians.
So more opinions would be welcomed.
similar to the AC/DC fake writing groups, does anyone see a reason to keep the Bee Gees fake writing group Robin Gibb, Barry Gibb & Maurice Gibb?
I am not about to do the whole thing but have recently added some split writing credits, we could mark it invalid as had been done with the AC/DC ones so overtime it will be corrected.
phallancz
But this "groups" should be a no brainer > Junko & Mattin / Derek Bailey / Evan Parker
maldoror
does anyone see a reason to keep the Bee Gees fake writing group Robin Gibb, Barry Gibb & Maurice Gibb?
Hm, that one has never bothered me much. Wasn't it also a "collective collaboration deal" in sense of Lennon-McCartney so that all three got a credit even when not all participated in writing?
