• Registered: 2007-05-07

Topic: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

Per the new guidelines on separating multiple artists, what's to be done with artists like http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d211c67e- … e882ece90d or http://musicbrainz.org/artist/2c5485d8- … da7b073813 ?

There are about 42k hits just for an "and his orchestra" search, and they're all basically "wrong" I guess, but there's certainly no point in creating a bunch of "his orchestra" artists as credits, and it isn't accurate to call it just an alias either.

  • From: Czech Republic
  • Registered: 2008-03-17

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

Another (non-english) example: Astor Piazzolla y su Nuevo Octeto

At the moment I do not see a clear way to go but I am inclined to splitting.

pros:
- The main artist is credited with his name thus the recording / release should be listed under his name.

cons:
- Artist names like "His Orchestra" or "Su Nuevo Octeto" look weird and they were not intended to appear independently.
    Could be resolved by crediting like this:
    Astor Piazzolla y su Nuevo Octeto
        Astor Piazzolla    -> Ástor Piazzolla
        y            -- join phrase
        su Nuevo Octeto    -> Astor Piazzolla y su Nuevo Octeto (i.e. the artist as it is in MB currently)
- There would be many artists named "His Orchestra" etc.
    Could be resolved by the solution above or by adding a disambiguation note.

pabouk's Website

  • Registered: 2009-11-14

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

It's just my opinion, but I probably wouldn't bother unless the particular orchestra actually operated independently at some point.

"I say we invite opportunity inside for a nice cup of tea, then hit her on the head and steal her purse." - Kevyn Andreyasn
- Schlock Mercenary by Howard Tayler
  • From: Czech Republic
  • Registered: 2008-03-17

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

Billy Yank wrote:

It's just my opinion, but I probably wouldn't bother unless the particular orchestra actually operated independently at some point.

That is just the orchestra supporting the main artist. The orchestra's own entity is not justified but IMHO the main artist should be credited under his/her own artist entity.

Maybe the MB schema should be changed somehow to resolve this problem in a more acceptable way?

pabouk's Website

  • Registered: 2008-01-25

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

crappy wrote:

new guidelines on separating multiple artists

Where can I find them? How 'new' is 'new'?

  • Registered: 2010-12-17

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

The current thinking is that “XXX and his orchestra” is considered the name of the group. So for each of those there should be an “XXX” person artist as well as an “XXX and his orchestra” group artist. No need to split them, unless the separate band is actually named and has its own work without XXX. (e.g. buddy holly and the crickets) — and even then, there’s nothing saying they *must* be split.

  • Registered: 2012-07-26

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

I think it would be useful, especially for artists that at least one of the parts has recorded independently of the other parts (e.g. Tom Petty / Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers, where they have recorded a bunch together, but Tom's done a lot without the Heartbreakers as well.)

As far as the "his orchestra" thing goes, using Spade Cooley & His Orchestra as an example, we could split the credit into 2c08026e-c7dc-4bca-b9f3-74bb3621b586 (Spade Cooley) & 2c5485d8-2f98-4033-a693-05da7b073813 (Spade Cooley & His Orchestra as His Orchestra), and once the splits are completed rename the latter artist to "Spade Cooley's Orchestra".

I added the newest Richard Cheese & Lounge Against the Machine record this way, and I think it would be nice to update as much of the database as possible this way. As it stands, I think the combined credits are unnecessarily obtuse. Basically, since we have the capability to make the database more powerful by splitting, why not?

I would like some feedback though before I split any of the existing releases on here.

8 Reply by pabouk (edited by pabouk 2012-07-27 16:13:58)

  • From: Czech Republic
  • Registered: 2008-03-17

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

Shnizzedy, thank you for supporting arguments.

The split is useful not only if both parts acted independently but also if only one part (e.g. Tom Petty) acted independently because otherwise music of "Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers" will not be listed under "Tom Petty" where it should be listed.

Edit:
Good idea with naming the supporting orchestras like "Spade Cooley's Orchestra" though there are some problems:
1. When actually creating the final artist credit you will have to manually rewrite the orchestra's name: "Spade Cooley's Orchestra" -> "His Orchestra"
2. There could be problem to create or check the name if the name is in a language I do not understand. Example in Czech language - you probably cannot say if this split is correct: "Tomáš Kočko & orchestr" -> "Tomáš Kočko" + "Orchestr Tomáše Kočka".

pabouk's Website

  • Registered: 2012-07-26

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

I'm glad we're on the same page :)

I agree that those problems exist in supporting orchestras or other unnamed backing groups (e.g., "his band"), but I'm not sure there is a sensible way to automatically make it work... I guess we could have a bunch of "His Orchestra"s with disambiguations that say "Spade Cooley's" or whatever...

  • Registered: 2012-07-26

Re: Splitting (mostly older) orchestras and bands from their leaders

Would you guys like to weigh in on a ticket about this ( http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3703 ) and/or on Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18718052 )?