STYLE-635 requested to add a founder attribute for conductors, to be able to indicate they founded an orchestra or ensemble. When discussing it we realised ensembles are also founded by non-conductors sometimes, so we should have a more general way to indicate it - that’d be STYLE-644:
We have a way to indicate who were the founding (original) members of a group, but we don’t have a way to specify who was the founder of the group (the person who specifically decided to found a group and auditioned for members, etc). There are at least two cases where this is very common, and where the founder is often not a member of the group as such: boy/girl bands (where the founder is often a producer or executive), and classical ensembles and orchestras (where the founder is often a conductor or composer). We should add a relationship to allow linking such people to the groups.
Any issues with this as a concept? This info is often very clearly indicated for classical music - I’m not sure how clear and available it is for pop.
It might make sense to also extend this relationship to labels, for bands founded by a label.
Any other entities that might often found groups? I can’t think of any but I might be forgetting something.
We might also want to rename “founding member” to “original member” to avoid confusion.
I’ve always read “founding” as the equivalent of “original” here, and from the history it was the actual intention as well when adding it, but it seems like it has confused people before. If we’re adding a specific relationship for founders, should we also rename “founding” member to “original”?
Until I’d read this I hadn’t thought of founding just as original, but the one(s) that brought the band together so yes, for me, renaming founding member to original member would be useful
It would definitely be a good idea to rename “founding member” to “original member”. The Oxford Dictionary for example calls a founding member “A person belonging to a society or organization who was involved in setting it up.” And it would get very confusing if we had both a “founder” relationship (which I think we should have) and a “founding member” relationship.
An interesting discussion, especially since I was just entering founders of some groups!
I have always read “founder” as the one that was responsible for creating the group. A clearer example of that would be a graphic design company responsible for a release.
I definitely see the need to have founders, both conductors and labels are prime examples where we don’t have a good way to enter that information.
I think it would add confusion
We might also want to rename “founding member” to “original member” to avoid confusion.
If we add this relationship, I think we would need to rename this one.
My only concern is how the data migration would work. Founding members for orchestra and choir I think would naturally become original members. For the “other” type, like a graphic design company, would these be just shown as original and we would need to manually edit those?
Would this have to be an AR? Start/End area are direct properties (for better or worse), and this sounds like it’s the artist equivalent of “starting area”, so it would work as a direct property too (possibly using an AC to be able to tie in multiple artists if needed).
I’ve always understood founder to mean as you say, but “founding member” to me means one of the people who was involved at the time it was founded (even if they were not the impetus behind the creation)
I’ve been wary of not marking original members as founding members since I wasn’t sure whether they had actually helped found the band/group, so I’d be happy to see this relationship go in and renaming the current “founded” attribute to “original”.
Yes. Though I guess “original member” for a company could be original employees, which do not necessarily need to have been the people founding the company.
