2.6.2. Main Artists who commonly collaborate together should be listed as one artist. Examples: "Ed Rush & Optical", "Dom & Roland" (it's really one person), "Giovanni & Mosler" and "Olga Jozef". 'Common collaboration' is defined as the artists collaborating on around three or more different releases, excluding remix EPs and any credit apart from a main artist credit. Individual cases can be considered on their own merits, via discussion and agreement in the forums.
To me, the examples given are all very straightforward, but in practice this can get a bit tricky - particularly for artists who have a number of collaborations, but whose collaborations aren't really projects on its own.
The one that comes to mind right away is: Steve Roach & Vidna Obmana. Sure, there's 10 releases (8 proper releases), but consider the following:
(1) they span 15 years
(2) the name is merely a combination of the full project names, not abbreviations, first names, etc.
(3) these releases constitute only 8% of Steve Roach's discography (and 30% of his discography are collaborations with a variety of artists).
(4) these releases constitute only 13% of Vidna Obmana's discography (and 34% of Dirk's VO releases are collaborations with a variety of artists).
(5) neither artist separates these releases from their other releases in their official discographies.
(6) both artists have a history of choosing a new project name for certain collaborations where they have seen fit.
(7) there has never been a website or other resource specifically for this collaboration.
(Furthermore, in this case there won't be any additional releases since Dirk has stopped using the Vidna Obmana name entirely.)
There's also a number of Merzbow collaborative releases - someone has made a mess of quite a few of them, but they fit pretty much all the same criteria I've mentioned above (although one constitutes a whopping .87% of Merzbow's discography).
I am curious to hear what people think about this, both in the general case, and in these particular cases.
It has always seemed strange to me having some releases split off of the artist's main page in a fashion that would make no sense to either the artist or fans. I'm glad that the guideline is more relaxed than it once was (years ago), and open to consideration on a more case-by-case basis.
Steve Roach & Vidna Obmana is definitely a group on Discogs. All the the points you raise are correct but none impact the fact that with eight releases or more they are a group.
I pointed out when you separated Asmus Tietchens & Vidna Obmana and undid that group that it had been previously discussed and it was nik who said it was OK. It's actually in the comments section of one of the releases you changed. I've been thinking about that one and I said I wouldn't vote against the split. I've changed my mind -- it meets the criteria for a group and it has the blessings of the Database Manager. Please revert that split until you get a consensus. Failing that I will vote them all Entirely Incorrect.
timetogo
Steve Roach & Vidna Obmana is definitely a group on Discogs. All the the points you raise are correct but none impact the fact that with eight releases or more they are a group.
Upon what do you base this? Read 6.2.6 again: it is not cut & dry.
timetogo
I pointed out when you separated Asmus Tietchens & Vidna Obmana and undid that group that it had been previously discussed and it was nik who said it was OK. It's actually in the comments section of one of the releases you changed. I've been thinking about that one and I said I wouldn't vote against the split. I've changed my mind -- it meets the criteria for a group and it has the blessings of the Database Manager.
Even if you read the discogs guidelines as cut & dry, the Asmus Tietchens & Vidna Obmana entry does not even meet the basic requirement for a 'common collaboration', with only 2 collaborations. At one point in discogs history the rule was a strict "2 or more", but it is no longer the case. Also, I cannot find a comment by nik - or link to the forums - from the history of any of those releases.
They have three releases together, not two. The release I raised the question on was The Shifts Recyclings, which nik did count even though it's really a split release. I'll gladly file a Request if need be, however, you've done a mass edit without discussion which definitely violates the Guidelines. Please revert those edits and get a consensus or a ruling from the Database Manager. I won't ask again.
timetogo - Please stop taking your high & mighty attitude with me. It is neither appreciated nor warranted.
Unless nik and/or an overwhelming consensus is opposed to it, I am not going to revert those edits, because they are 100% in concordance with the discogs guidelines. There are only two collaborative releases between Vidna Obmana & Asmus Tietchens, unless you're considering the split.
If I was trying to by guidelines on this matter, I certainly wouldn't have started this thread. And, I more than welcome the input of nik & others.
Ok, thanks for providing this - I see, though, that nik doesn't make any definitive statement on this particular artist. In fact, it seems that he was struggling with how to properly definite - quantitatively - a "common collaboration". (A tall order, indeed.) Perhaps now is the time to revisit this.
this particular guideline regarding "common collaborations" IMHO needs some rewording or even may need to be completely reworked:
e.g. under those guidelines Calibre & Zero Tolerance are regarded as group, simply because they worked together on a certain number of songs ("around three or more releases").
Now look at the profile, then look me in the (virtual) eye and tell me, that you seriously believe they are a group.
Not one single person outside of discogs would ever call those two guys a "group", but yet they are treated as a group on here.
IMHO discogs shouldn't work against "reality" but work with/towards it…
Well.. right now the Guidelines are what we have. xdefenestratorx, have you filed a Request or should I? As things stand now I'd feel perfectly justified in voting Entirely Incorrect on your split.
timetogo - a request for what, exactly? You threaten me with EI votes without justification because (1) I have shown how the artist in question (Asmus Tietchens & Vidna Obmana) does NOT meet the basic criteria for a 'common collaboration', and (2) you have not shown a single piece of evidence that nik (or anyone else) has said those artists need to be combined - if anything you put words into nik's mouth.
The guidelines indicate that this forum should be used to discuss and seek clarification on specific instances that cannot be resolved with the current guidelines (e.g. Steve Roach & Vidna Obmana). Towards that end, this thread was started to get clarification on, and/or potentially seek modification of that particular guideline. Please be patient until we have received some further input.
pano9000 - glad to other s are also concerned about the ambiguity of that guideline!
I must say i find that guideline ambiguous aswell.
If it were up to me collabs were always split. It should be possible to programmatically show objectively with which artists someone collaborated, how often and on which releases.
My point, which you ignore time and again, is that Nik previously told me this particular collaboration was fine and you went and split it without discussion. A threat? Fine, you're right, I should have just cast those votes in the first place and let you go to management and complain. I'll do that in the future.
The Request I've now filed also covers making mass edits without discussion, a piece of the Guidelines you continue to ignore.
jweijde
If it were up to me collabs were always split. It should be possible to programmatically show objectively with which artists someone collaborated, how often and on which releases.
+1
Exceptions to this rule of course would be "real groups" whose single do not exist on their own, but which look like they are collaborations.
(Funnily I can't come up with any examples right now :-D)
regardless of how the guidelines are or can be interpreted I have been having similar thoughts to xdefenestratorx regarding not ing collaborative names into groups.
If there were to be a guideline change to allow it I would it.
jweijde
If it were up to me collabs were always split. It should be possible to programmatically show objectively with which artists someone collaborated, how often and on which releases.
pano9000
Exceptions to this rule of course would be "real groups" whose single do not exist on their own, but which look like they are collaborations.
I'm not sure that exists. Let's take Tingstad & Rumbel. Counting releases not on Discogs (but excluding compilations) they have 17 albums together, perform together regularly and have since the '80s, and have a t website. They also both have solo albums and their own websites as well. I don't think anyone in their right mind wouldn't consider them a common collaboration or a group, yet they do have individual musical lives now and again.
Whenever we have these discussions the "three or more" rule is unpopular and yet it always stands because you have to draw a line somewhere. Yes, somewhere is arbitrary. You need a rule, arbitrary as it is, that people can follow. I think that's why the Guideline has stood for the entire five and a half years I've been on Discogs despite it being unpopular.
jweijde
If it were up to me collabs were always split. It should be possible to programmatically show objectively with which artists someone collaborated, how often and on which releases.
So how do you deal with Lennon-McCartney? That was not two people collaborating on a song, it was an entity created to contain the t or singular songwriting of the two partners in the entity. The same with Jagger-Richards.
Splitting those 50 years on would be creating a factual fallacy.
Opdiner
So how do you deal with Lennon-McCartney? That was not two people collaborating on a song, it was an entity created to contain the t or singular songwriting of the two partners in the entity. The same with Jagger-Richards.
Splitting those 50 years on would be creating a factual fallacy.
+1 This goes for performers as well. Does anyone really think Simon & Garfunkel shouldn't be a group?
jweijde
If it were up to me collabs were always split. It should be possible to programmatically show objectively with which artists someone collaborated, how often and on which releases.
Suffice to say I'm ing this as well.
Opdiner
So how do you deal with Lennon-McCartney? That was not two people collaborating on a song, it was an entity created to contain the t or singular songwriting of the two partners in the entity. The same with Jagger-Richards.
We've already came to agreement elsewhere, and that was years ago, that a couple of very valid exceptions will always remain, regardless the fate of the Discogs Collaborative Fiction™.
timetogo
Does anyone really think Simon & Garfunkel shouldn't be a group?
Yes, this is a standard example of a valid group name, which was also used very consistently.
Another personal favorite example of mine of a 100% valid group name, despite not even making the "hurdle" of "around three releases", is McDonald & Giles (although the PAN actually should have been "McDonald And Giles").
sorry but i'm failing to see the resemblance between Merzbow collabs & the Steve Roach & Vidna Obmana collab, which is added as a group and i fully agree with that decision, so a collaboration that "span 15 years" according to you should not be a group, well in my opinion a collab that lasts 15 years is definitely a group.
My reference to the Merzbow ones was just to point to other "artificial" collaborations that only exist on discogs; it was the first one that came out mind & I was shocked by how many had been created in the past year or so - I could probably list a dozen others unrelated to Merzbow. Thanks for fixing that one Pinhas one; I noticed that for the first time last night.
Anyhow, I would disagree that a 15-year collab that produced 8 albums (by artists who have produced an average of ~100 albums each, many of them collaborations) makes sense as a group, but that's what this thread is here to debate.
And, just to be clear, I also totally think that Simon & Garfunkel (for instance) should remain as a group.
I like the direction that I think jweijde are taking this - perhaps the opposite direction of the current guidelines, where we split unless there is a compelling reason to combine, and to add functionality which can help point out collaborations.
n-f-r
but regarding Merzbow, if you were talking ers adding his collab with pinhas as a group, like it was added on this release Richard Pinhas, Merzbow, Wolf Eyes - Victoriaville Mai 2011, that is entirely incorrect (i changed it), because it's a three way collaboration, and it does not say MRZB & Pinhas with Wolf Eyes,
...and you got an Entirely Incorrect vote for that change. Please see Nik's comment at http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/forums/topic/206069 Keeping the two together is correct. Splitting them is not. That comment was clear and unambiguous regarding cases like this.
timetogo
...and you got an Entirely Incorrect vote for that change. Please see Nik's comment at http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/forums/topic/206069 Keeping the two together is correct. Splitting them is not. That comment was clear and unambiguous regarding cases like this.
uhm, he said "for the time being". that does not mean forever. and a rethinking in that matter is very much needed
syke
is there anyone seriously denying that the discogs "common collaboration" concept isn't completely broken?
Yes. I've been defending the concept for five years or more. An arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere.
xdefenestratorx
Anyhow, I would disagree that a 15-year collab that produced 8 albums (by artists who have produced an average of ~100 albums each, many of them collaborations) makes sense as a group, but that's what this thread is here to debate.
So you are asking for a Guidelines change. This has been debated endlessly for five years. I'm not expecting a change now. That also means that changes made which ignore current Guidelines are, for now, Entirely Incorrect.
People are running off doing their own thing. Undoing that was Entirely Incorrect as well under the current Guidelines and the comment used doesn't apply to that case. Since that was done over a year ago and there have been subsequent edits I can't vote on that one and wait to see what happens with my Request.
syke
uhm, he said "for the time being". that does not mean forever. and a rethinking in that matter is very much needed
Until the Database Manager changes his mind that is the ruling and it stands. Personally, I'd like to see that one enshrined in the Guidelines and cast in stone along with the three release rule.
syke
is there anyone seriously denying that the discogs "common collaboration" concept isn't completely broken?
I don't think completely broken is correct, but the 3 releases barrier is an issue when it's applied rigidly. I'm not sure how that is resolved and I think the best result was the instruction to discuss here if anyone is unsure. It's not set in concrete:
"Individual cases can be considered on their own merits, via discussion and agreement in the forums."
loukash
We've already came to agreement elsewhere, and that was years ago, that a couple of very valid exceptions will always remain
yeah, I know that, I was responding to jweijde's "If it were up to me collabs were always split"
Opdiner
. I'm not sure how that is resolved and I think the best result was the instruction to discuss here if anyone is unsure. It's not set in concrete:
"Individual cases can be considered on their own merits, via discussion and agreement in the forums."
Which does not mean running off on your own and splitting a group without discussion as seppuku did in the case of Alio Die & Zeit.
timetogo
Good grief, now everyone will use their own opinions to judge artist intent. What a freaking disaster!
so you're saying that us using our own interpretation of guidelines is a disaster ?
But blindly following a ruling for ONE ONLY release is correct ?
that ruling was only for that release, if it was meant for all the releases, shouldn't have the management added a guideline ?
I don't see anyone "running off on [their] own and splitting a group".
My edit was for a "group" that didn't meet the base criteria for a "common collaboration" - hence I didn't feel the need for a discussion. Other voters seem to agree with me, and there is only one dissenting view in this thread.
seppuku brought up that particular collaboration (Alio Die & Zeit) in the forums, requesting discussion (presumably because there were 3 collaborative releases at the time), received no opposition, and waited more than 72 hours to make the update. (edit: nor was there any later opposition either than the forum or the releases, aside from someone asking on a release for clarification).
xdefenestratorx
My edit was for a "group" that didn't meet the base criteria for a "common collaboration" - hence I didn't feel the need for a discussion. Other voters seem to agree with me, and there is only one dissenting view in this thread.
your edit was correct, and voted as such.
timetogo
Until the Database Manager changes his mind that is the ruling and it stands. Personally, I'd like to see that one enshrined in the Guidelines and cast in stone along with the three release rule.
just did an SR, because you're blindly following a ruling that is 3 years old and that was for a specific release, and you are applying it to all releases by your on opinion.
No, it wasn't. If you read that thread all the Moebius & Plank + third artist releases were discussed as well. It was a general ruling. I had already filed a Request but adding yours is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Incorrect vote on a very questionable set of half a dozen edits made without consultation in the forums. Again, I'm glad you filed a Request, because I sure would have filed one about your voting.
timetogo
All mass edits (3 or more per nik) require discussion. All group splits require discussion. Do you want some links to make that painfully clear?
yep, i do
BUT please do not post links that are for a specific case, and that nik does not state "for the time being", that are not really old and have become obsolete, etc, etc, etc
timetogo
Incorrect vote on a very questionable set of half a dozen edits made without consultation in the forums. Again, I'm glad you filed a Request, because I sure would have filed one about your voting.
they only had 2 releases, the rest were appearances on compilations, so why was it incorrect ?
n-f-r
please do not post links that are for a specific case, and that nik does not state "for the time being", that are not really old and have become obsolete, etc, etc, etc
OK, so you are going to reject any links you don't like. Got it. Never mind. I suspect management will give us a whole new set of links in this thread come tomorrow or Tuesday.
timetogo
OK, so you are going to reject any links you don't like. Got it. Never mind. I suspect management will give us a whole new set of links in this thread come tomorrow or Tuesday.
where did i say that i didn't like
I clearly meant links that are for for all releases, general rulings applicable for all releases.
BUT if you can't find those, then just post some ones of you're choosing
xdefenestratorx
Anyhow, I would disagree that a 15-year collab that produced 8 albums (by artists who have produced an average of ~100 albums each, many of them collaborations) makes sense as a group, but that's what this thread is here to debate.
Actually, they continue to make music together, the latest being Low Volume Music ... only difference is that Dirk decided some time ago to release music under his own name, so would "Dirk Serries & Steve Roach" would be a group that itself is an alias of "Vidna Obmana & Steve Roach"? Ridiculous ...
xdefenestratorx
Thanks for this link! It is the most definitive thing I've seen yet.
Yep - crystal clear to me. If in doubt and the artists themself don't promote it as such than don't group artists.
timetogo
All mass edits (3 or more per nik) require discussion
You don't need a discussion for every individual mass-edit case - one discussion / conclusion can lead to several mass edits like fixing "Label, Country" into "Label (n)" for example.
Looks to me like a certain here is has been on a warpath for some time and does not really care what other s interpretations of the guidelines are...
Seems as if the general leanings of this thread point that a collaborative artist name is what should have to be argued, proved, and rigorously inspected, and not the splitting of them. I am generally conservative when adding new artist/label pages and certainly anything construed as a "Collaborative" artist page. I would say our default in this database should be to NOT make new collaborative artist pages, simply listing each artist independently and using the er field. It should have to be shown clearly on multiple fronts that two names should be ed together into one collaborative artist page.
Constantly I am finding problems, ugly redundancies and ignorant errors in this database, because someone has ed many different names together, coming from an ultra-liberal viewpoint on guideline interpretation or has failed to use a PAN for something well established. Such as the very common "So and So" with "Such and Such" (featured guest artist) this does not a new group make... this is one of the guidelines that I do not believe can be "Cut & Dry". it will have to have some room left open for interpretation and discussion on a case by case basis.
My general finding is that more often than not, the artist in question is already represented in this database, and the is just searching wrong...this is a bit of a tangent from the matter at hand but covers the general concept of how people interpret the guidelines differently. Gladly, still referred to as "Guidelines" and not "Rules", allowing us to have this discussion at all. The World is not a black and white place. there is no one singular way of looking at a concept, idea, practice etc...
And please, lets not use threats of voting all yer shit "entirely incorrect". That sounds like what they do in that creepy D.C. house of non-representatives...:p oh crap I just set my self up for a beating now didn't I? Oh well, I act my conscience...
jweijde
Splitting them wouldn't be an issue then.
Would also save us a lot of ANV hassle.
it would create credits that were at variance with fact. It would create an issue (an erroneous credit) that doesn't exist now.
jweijde
The system should be able detect they worked together and offer the possibility to show those works an a combined, single page.
They should always be on a combined page because that's what the entity is. Look at almost any Lennon-McCartney song and you can define who wrote it, either Lennon or McCartney. There are very few written after 1963 that are tly written, yet all their credits until 1969 were Lennon-McCartney. Crediting a song individually to John Lennon and Paul McCartney is incorrect because that was not the intent of the entity.
Take a song like Yesterday. Paul McCartney wrote it 100% but the credit is Lennon-McCartney as per the agreement. Yet you would have us invent a singular John Lennon credit for this that does not exist legally or in fact. The reason we credit this to L-Mc is because of a 1959 agreement the two made to create a entity using both names as a name. That entity is what we are crediting here.
It's really no different to crediting The Ramones as writer (as they did on their early albums) despite the fact that songs were written by individuals. In the Lennon-McCartney case, if they'd decided to use the name The Nurk Twins (which they did live) you'd not be suggesting it.
jweijde
The system should be able detect they worked together and offer the possibility to show those works an a combined, single page.
Indeed, like you can select a particular ANV, you should be able to select a particular collaborating artist. Waiting for this function or something similar a long time now...
The intention all along has been to move toward more split artists and less collaborative ones. it seems the consensus here is it is time to make another move, perhaps a leap, toward that. As such, I have drafted a guideline proposal below. I don't think any guideline is going to be watertight, so I have tried to make it as simple as I can. Please let me know what you think!
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.
2.6.3. If you intend to split or artists already existing in the database, you must make a post in the Database forum stating your intention, and wait for a reasonable consensus on the outcome. If there is a reasonable body of doubt, please do not create a collaborative artist name.
2.6.4. Never create or credit a collaborative artist in any credit field, with the exception that some collaborative artists have already been created and used solely on writing or production credits. Please continue to use them, please do not attempt to split these unless there has been extensive agreement from other s in the forums.
n-f-r
What about cases like this Richard Pinhas, Merzbow*, Wolf Eyes - Victoriaville Mai 2011 ?
nik
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
IOW, if Wolf Eyes. No rocket science here, really :)
Note: nik's proposal is still a draft, so has not become effective yet.
yuhann
IOW, if Richard Pinhas & Merzbow turns out not to be a group name chosen intentionally, then these artists should be listed as single artists: Richard Pinhas, Merzbow and Wolf Eyes. No rocket science here, really :)
yep i understood that;
What i was asking was if the Richard Pinhas & Merzbow is considered valid group/collaboration, does the group needs splitting when they record with another artist, and if the group is not evident on release, like that case ?
n-f-r
What i was asking was if the Richard Pinhas & Merzbow is considered valid group/collaboration, does the group needs splitting when they record with another artist, and if the group is not evident on release, like that case ?
nik
The intention all along has been to move toward more split artists and less collaborative ones. it seems the consensus here is it is time to make another move, perhaps a leap, toward that. As such, I have drafted a guideline proposal below. I don't think any guideline is going to be watertight, so I have tried to make it as simple as I can. Please let me know what you think!
nik, will it be backed-up by some additional filtering options on the artist pages?
yuhann
Another example:
Although Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young is an intentional group name, Neil Young With Crosby Stills & Nash* - Traces lists Neil Young as an artist who performs with Crosby, Stills & Nash, another group name chosen intentionally. As per the draft for the new guideline, we would still enter the collaboration as Neil Young with Crosby, Stills & Nash. We wouldn't split the whole group into Neil Young with Crosby*, Stills* & Nash*.
Interesting example indeed. And it makes sense in this case.
However, the submission Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young".
nik
As such, I have drafted a guideline proposal below. I don't think any guideline is going to be watertight, so I have tried to make it as simple as I can. Please let me know what you think!
I think that covers it (and is overdue). Thanks Nik.
yuhann
. If Richard Pinhas & Merzbow turns out to be an intended group name ed by another artist, i.e. Wolf Eyes, and that trio (Richard Pinhas, Merzbow & Wolf Eyes) is not to be considered another group name chosen intentionally, then we would list that collaboration as: Richard Pinhas & Merzbow + Wolf Eyes, IMO.
+1 That is consistent with the previous decisions.
nik
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.
timetogo
yuhann
. If Richard Pinhas & Merzbow turns out to be an intended group name ed by another artist, i.e. Wolf Eyes, and that trio (Richard Pinhas, Merzbow & Wolf Eyes) is not to be considered another group name chosen intentionally, then we would list that collaboration as: Richard Pinhas & Merzbow + Wolf Eyes, IMO.
+1 That is consistent with the previous decisions.
So according to you when a collaborative duo, plays with another artist, EVEN if it has nothing to do with their work as a collaborative group, it's fair game to always add them as a group, that makes no sense, you're restricting the the collaborative group, but WHEN a collab group is created, then all releases that have two (or more) artists collaborating with other artists are considered always a group ????
I don't know the additional artist/duo you mentioned, but yes, when a duo adds a third guest or artist keeping the duo together makes sense. That's why Nik ruled the way he did on Tingstad & Rumbel plus additional artists. It's your desire to split a known collaborative duo that makes no sense at all.
nik
2.6.3. If you intend to split or artists already existing in the database, you must make a post in the Database forum stating your intention, and wait for a reasonable consensus on the outcome.
This is the key for me. That was the basis of my entire complaint about running off and splitting an artist without consensus. Thank you.
timetogo
I don't know the additional artist/duo you mentioned, but yes, when a duo adds a third guest or artist keeping the duo together makes sense. That's why Nik ruled the way he did on Moebius & Plank plus additional artist and Tingstad & Rumbel plus additional artists. It's your desire to split a known collaborative duo that makes no sense at all.
What are talking about ???, you're the one that is not making any sense, you voted on the Merzbow, Richard Pinhas, Wolf Eyes collaboration, which i split because all the previous artists have collaborated between themselves, and the release it does NOT SAY Merzbow & Richard Pinhas PLUS Wolf Eyes, IT LISTS THE ARTISTS INDIVIDUALLY, so why should Merzbow & Pinhas be added as a group in that release ?
First, there is no consensus for such a split. Second, it's a known duo plus an artist so, for the eleven millionth time, you were absolutely wrong to split them. You can shout all you like. Repeating something that is totally incorrect and shouting it won't make it correct at all.
1st: Even the name of that known duo was added incorrectly, because they don't have any release as Merzbow & Richard Pinhas. Did you know That ?
2nd: A known duo that only has 3 releases. Avery well known duo wouldn't you say ?
3rd: Where in the release does it state that it is a Known Duo plus another artist ?
Why don't you answer these three simple questions, instead of trying to justify a negative vote that you gave me (THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT), when i am trying to improve the information on the database.
Based upon my reading of the newly proposed guidelines, if "A & B" is a legitimate duo, then:
"A & B & C" would be comprised of individual artists, not the duo + C. (Unless "A & B & C" should be a legitimate trio on its own.)
"A & B featuring C", however, would be comprised of the duo + C.
The Merzbow/Pinhas/Wolf Eyes would fall under the first of those, as would the Vandermark/Nilssen-Love releases mentioned by n-f-r.
xdefenestratorx
Based upon my reading of the newly proposed guidelines, if "A & B" is a legitimate duo, then:
"A & B & C" would be comprised of individual artists, not the duo + C.
Then the new Guidelines need to be adjusted so this would not be the case. I honestly don't see how you get that but, perhaps, it's best if Nik spells out that when it's duo + additional artist you DO NOT split the duo.
Also, there are cases when three releases is deliberately and intentionally a group as determined by the artists. Lunz / Roedelius & Story would be a good example.
BTW, if you are arguing that Richard Pinhas & Merzbow should be split, that's an entirely different argument that the one you have made up until now. Once Nik finalizes the new guidelines you can start a thread for that case and if you get a consensus then, and only then, can you split them up and the third artist issue will become irrelevant.
If you're going to make that split argument do a thorough Google search. They've played together and if they can be split then probably so should Fripp & Eno. In other words, yes, I think they should stay together.
xdefenestratorx
Based upon my reading of the newly proposed guidelines, if "A & B" is a legitimate duo, then:
"A & B & C" would be comprised of individual artists, not the duo + C. (Unless "A & B & C" should be a legitimate trio on its own.)
"A & B featuring C", however, would be comprised of the duo + C.
My guess is, nobody would seriously come up with the proposal to list the artists involved individually, as Neil Young + Crosby* + Stills* + Nash*. This is because Crosby, Stills & Nash is a well-known group name chosen by intention.
When talking in of AB+C vs. A+B+C, a definitive answer can't be given because we're in the domain of mathematics. It works out only within the context of specific examples, because the term "intention" can be applied only under these conditions.
yuhann
When talking in of AB+C vs. A+B+C, a definitive answer can't be given because we're in the domain of mathematics. It works out only within the context of specific examples, because the term "intention" can be applied only under these conditions.
Well put.
That's also why the earlier strict "three releases rule" was so arbitrary.
marcelrecords
please add:
or split an existing collaboration.
How about this:
2.6.3. If you intend to split or artists already existing in the database, you must make a post in the Database forum stating your intention, and wait for a reasonable consensus on the outcome. If there is a reasonable body of doubt, please do not alter the existing entries.
azzurro
nik, will it be backed-up by some additional filtering options on the artist pages?
No. But it may push us toward doing that!
yuhann
When talking in of AB+C vs. A+B+C, a definitive answer can't be given because we're in the domain of mathematics. It works out only within the context of specific examples, because the term "intention" can be applied only under these conditions.
I agree. It does seem though, that we need to address the problem of collaborative artists performing with other artists. It seems this could get messy / contentious. Does anyone have any ideas for a guideline for that?
So this is regarding "Never use collaborative artists when other artists are also credited for the same track or a group of tracks with the same credit role."?
Or reworded:
For credits for the same role on the same track, never use collaborative artists when other artists are also credited.
timetogo
BTW, if you are arguing that Richard Pinhas & Merzbow should be split, that's an entirely different argument that the one you have made up until now. Once Nik finalizes the new guidelines you can start a thread for that case and if you get a consensus then, and only then, can you split them up and the third artist issue will become irrelevant.
and you still haven't understood anything, the THIRD ARTIST ISSUE is the point, that is what were also discussing, no one is discussing a split of the Merzbow & Pinhas duos, only those two artists collab with Wolf Eyes.
and if you are going to keep referring to those artists please answer the following simple questions of that known duo:
1st: Even the name of that known duo was added incorrectly, because they don't have any release as Merzbow & Richard Pinhas. Did you know That ?
2nd: A known duo that only has 3 releases. Avery well known duo wouldn't you say ?
3rd: Where in the release does it state that it is a Known Duo plus another artist ?
Why don't you answer these three simple questions, instead of trying to justify a negative vote that you gave me (THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT), when i am trying to improve the information on the database.
thank you
if you can't even argue your on words, stop referring to those artists, or answer those question before you start mentioning them.
nik
2.6.3. If you intend to split or artists already existing in the database, you must make a post in the Database forum stating your intention, and wait for a reasonable consensus on the outcome. If there is a reasonable body of doubt, please do not alter the existing entries.
Fine, thanks!
nik
For credits for the same role on the same track, never use collaborative artists when other artists are also credited.
nik
So this is regarding "Never use collaborative artists when other artists are also credited for the same track or a group of tracks with the same credit role."?
Yes.
nik
Or reworded:
For credits for the same role on the same track, never use collaborative artists when other artists are also credited.
Dunno if that is any clearer?
Hm… I had to read it a couple of times to fully understand its meaning, so… not really. ;)
marcelrecords
What would we do with for example this here:
Die Beatles* - Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand / Sie Liebt Dich
Still Lennon-McCartney plus translators, no?
Yes, definitely. We were discussing such cases already in http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/52151d5b9469733cfcfc96e1 and they remain valid exceptions.
Because in fact – although often uncredited as such – it's not the same role in the first place.
As I said in that thread, I have tons of Beatles covers with Czech or Slovak lyrics, and the local lyricist is always credited separately.
The front artwork lists three names next to each other without any separators/ers:
Richard Pinhas
Merzbow
Wolf Eyes
Assuming this is really just an occasional collaboration, so doesn't fall under the "intentional & verifiable collaboration" rule:
Scenario #1: There is NO such collaboration between two of the artists involved either, i.e. "Richard Pinhas & Merzbow" or any other combination:
We would list all artists individually.
Scenario #2: An "intentional & verifiable collaboration" does indeed exist, i.e. "Richard Pinhas & Merzbow":
In this case I'd argue it depends on HOW the collaboration is listed. For instance, to me it would make a difference if the front artwork lists the collaboration as:
Richard Pinhas & Merzbow + Wolf Eyes
in which case I'd tend to say: This is a group with an extra artist involved.
yuhann
in which case I'd tend to say: This is a group with an extra artist involved.
+1 That's how I see it as well.
nik
For credits for the same role on the same track, never use collaborative artists when other artists are also credited.
Again, I agree with yuhann and I think a blanket rule like that is a terrible idea.
Let me give some examples which have not been contentious up until now. yuhann's suggestion of duo + collaborator makes sense.
Moebius & Plank wrote the music for the album Sky Records rejected the album so it was only released posthumously. Anyway, my point is that the duo functioned as a unit during the making and touring of the album. Splitting this to three distinct artists really doesn't make any sense.
Another example, using a trio this time, Richard Pinhas & Merzbow example that's been beaten to death in this thread all the four artists are listed individually. However, unlike Richard Pinhas & Merzbow we have a group that really can't be called into question. IMHO, it makes more sense to keep the group together than to split this into four artists.
The more I think about it the more I think codifying this idea into the Guidelines does make sense. Something like:
"If a group consisting of common collaborators works with an additional artist the group should not be split into component artists."
You might want to follow that with an example for clarity.
timetogo
As in the Richard Pinhas & Merzbow example that's been beaten to death in this thread all the four artists are listed individually. However, unlike Richard Pinhas & Merzbow we have a group that really can't be called into question. IMHO, it makes more sense to keep the group together than to split this into four artists.
You're not making any sense, what are you trying to say ?
NO ONE is trying to split the Merzbow / Richard Pinhas when they perform as a duo.
THE SPLIT BEING CONSIDERED IS FOR THE Richard Pinhas, Merzbow, Wolf Eyes - Victoriaville Mai 2011 release, BECAUSE there is no evidence that they are performing as a duo plus another artist, IT IS A THREE ARTIST COLLABORATION, so the group should not be added.
n-f-r
You're not making any sense, what are you trying to say ?
NO ONE is trying to split the Merzbow / Richard Pinhas when they perform as a duo.
THE SPLIT BEING CONSIDERED IS FOR THE Richard Pinhas, Merzbow*, Wolf Eyes - Victoriaville Mai 2011 release, BECAUSE there is no evidence that they are performing as a duo plus another artist, IT IS A THREE ARTIST COLLABORATION, so the group should not be added.
I can't help your lack of reading comprehension. If Richard Pinhas & Merzbow is a valid group then Richard Pinhas & Merzbow plus anyone else is that group plus someone else. They should NOT be split in that circumstance. Not now, not ever.
yuhann
I'm not quite sure to understand what you are referring to.
I'm referring to nik's proposal "For credits for the same role on the same track, never use collaborative artists when other artists are also credited."
timetogo
I can't help your lack of reading comprehension. If Richard Pinhas & Merzbow is a valid group then Richard Pinhas & Merzbow plus anyone else is that group plus someone else. They should NOT be split in that circumstance. Not now, not ever.
n-f-r
n-f-r
timetogo
it's a known duo plus an artist
It's a known duo ???
1st: Even the name of that known duo was added incorrectly, because they don't have any release as Merzbow & Richard Pinhas. Did you know That ?
2nd: A known duo that only has 3 releases. Avery well known duo wouldn't you say ?
3rd: Where in the release does it state that it is a Known Duo plus another artist ?
Why don't you answer these three simple questions, instead of trying to justify a negative vote that you gave me (THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT), when i am trying to improve the information on the database.
thank you
if you can't even argue your on words, stop referring to those artists, or answer those question before you start mentioning them.
n-f-r
STILL DIND'T ANSWER THOSE 3 SIMPLE QUESTIONS ?
Oooh... shouting. Reread my comments. I've answered them, more than once in fact.
Let's try again:
1. That is an entirely separate issue.
2. Up until now three releases was the gold standard. Under nik's new proposal the number of releases won't matter. If there is a web page dedicated to the group it's a group.
3. It doesn't have to state it on the release anywhere. Nobody would deny that Moebius & Plank were a unit that I know of, and yet it doesn't state that it's two plus one on either of their collaborative releases.
imo all Merzbow collaborations should be split, he has created many collaborative names in the past even for once off projects, it seems like he is wanting to be known as Merzbow on these releases I don't see any reason to keep them together as group names.
maldoror
imo all Merzbow collaborations should be split, he has created many collaborative names in the past even for once off projects, it seems like he is wanting to be known as Merzbow on these releases I don't see any reason to keep them together as group names.
As I suggested above, start a thread for that, get a consensus and you'll be good to go. That would also render the one release n-f-r is so concerned about moot. FWIW, I have serious doubts about splitting them, but that does seem to be the direction this is headed unless you can show intent as I did with my two examples.
timetogo
If Richard Pinhas & Merzbow is a valid group then Richard Pinhas & Merzbow plus anyone else is that group plus someone else.
Trade "group" for "common collab." perhaps. Richard Pinhas & Merzbow commonly collaborate but it's not a group like Hijokaidan or Moody Blues. Immediately upon seeing Richard Pinhas, Merzbow*, Wolf Eyes, I take it as a collaboration (an uncommon one), a collaboration of three artists--not a collaboration between one "group" (there is no such "group" as Richard Pinhas & Merzbow, it's just a common collaboration) and another group.
A group is a defined entity I think you could say, a singular grouping--an identity umbrella. Common collaboration does not equal this, except in special cases like Simon & Garfunkel which satisfy criteria for either.
On a side note, I knew the poster of this thread as an extremely highly active and editor before that surprising graduation day called 4. I'm really not sure if I've ever seen more work more quickly in any context, here or elsewhere--it wasn't as if we were tiny ants on an insurmountable globe of data, but like the globe actually had an overseer with 100,000 legs and immaculate vision. In all of the rapidity and innumerable fact checks, the tiniest errors were always seen. And he was always so, so very nice. He is actually the one who so very patiently raised me here and taught me how to use the database. He deserves gentility and deference--not because he would ever expect it, but because he has earned it and doesn't care. xdefenestratorx I am very happy to see you on the help forum; if I had my druthers (eigentlich ... hätte ich), this would be a regular enjoyment.
maldoror
imo all Merzbow collaborations should be split, he has created many collaborative names in the past even for once off projects, it seems like he is wanting to be known as Merzbow on these releases I don't see any reason to keep them together as group names.
That not what i'm talking about, that collab is "virtual group" on discogs, which i don't see any problem existing, But what i'm saying is that when that "virtual discogs collab" collaborates with another group, that group should be split when there is no evidence on the release artwork/notes, that the collaboration is working with another artist, so the release should be considered a three way collaboration, not a group + another artist.
consort
Richard Pinhas & Merzbow commonly collaborate but it's not a group like Hijokaidan or Moody Blues. Immediately upon seeing Richard Pinhas, Merzbow*, Wolf Eyes, I take it as a collaboration (an uncommon one), a collaboration of three artists--not a collaboration between one "group" (there is no such "group" as Richard Pinhas & Merzbow, it's just a common collaboration) and another group.
That's my my point
timetogo
That issue is addressed well in nik's proposed Guidelines, and hopefully they will have a positive effect.
That issue has been address you are correct.
But the issue of a common collaboration working with another artist hasn't.
