if you are adding the correct member information in music brainz it gets messy (while i think it use to be cleaner)
like here it looks good
but if i add the same instruments but in a deferent time, i get this
why is the first one grouped (=good & clean) and why is newly enterd stuff all split up (=bad/confusing)?
i know this is in the editing screen only because on the relations tab it looks like this
but still it would be less confusing if they would be grouped
It depends on whether you add all instruments in a single relationship
Or each individually in a separate relationship.
no it doesnât because i had added them all at once. but the outcome was still individual instruments.
here i will try to add an example (i wonât save this)
when i press the done (gereed) button it looks like this:
so it ALWAYS makes seperated entries of this. and i think it used to be different. thats why the old orignal entry does this as expected. and editing wonât change it. its in the ADDING that it goes wrong i think
Exactly, it used to be grouped or split, depending on the cases, but it has been decided to split all relationships to remove some complexity.*
So, each time we edit relationships, they all end up split, now.
* Or something like that
but in my opnion this adds complexity and more work. because if you have to edit one member that played multiple instruments, you now have to edit it at multiple places.
while with the old way you only needed to change this on one place.
There was a database change for it⌠not too long back.
The most confusing editing is when you have a band that quits and reforms more than once. That becomes madness of editing to change each instrument one by one for each time period. I had one the other day and have to say your visuals did make that easier to check. Reading the wall of text in the edit page was hard to follow.
@Bitmap recently explained why this had to be done:
i think this should still be possible, the problem with this example is that the start & end are missing
for instance (these are fictive dates):
original member: Ian McDonald (background vocals) (1990 - 1991)
original member: Ian McDonald (background vocals, flute) (1994 - 1995)
original member: Ian McDonald (flute) (1997 - 1999)
original member: Ian McDonald (flute, saxophone, mellotron, keyboard) (2001 - 2005)
but if you split them all up it would look like this:
original member: Ian McDonald (background vocals) (1990 - 1991)
original member: Ian McDonald (background vocals) (1994 - 1995)
original member: Ian McDonald (flute) (1994 - 1995)
original member: Ian McDonald (flute) (1997 - 1999)
original member: Ian McDonald (flute) (2001 - 2005)
original member: Ian McDonald (saxophone) (2001 - 2005)
original member: Ian McDonald (mellotron) (2001 - 2005)
original member: Ian McDonald (keyboard) (2001 - 2005)
wich makes the list much longer then neccessairy.
i do understand that if the band doesnât split up and reform again but they just switch functions it could be cleaner:
original member: Ian McDonald (background vocals) (1990 - 1995)
original member: Ian McDonald (flute) (1994 - 2005)
original member: Ian McDonald (saxophone) (2001 - 2005)
original member: Ian McDonald (mellotron) (2001 - 2005)
original member: Ian McDonald (keyboard) (2001 - 2005)
but i donât think this happes very often, mostly people play a (or multiple) instrument(s) and when they quit the band and rejoin, they play the same set of instruments.
so i think it is important that the start & end date are taken into account
On a related question - why canât a band member be credited for âvocalsâ? Can only be Lead Vocals or Background, etc.
Very common for a band to have a Lead Vocalist, but other band members have songs they sing. Or they all pile in on a chorus. There is currently no way to note this. A âvocalsâ credit cannot be credited at band member level
Iâve sometimes left out the vocals, because I wasnât sure whether to pick lead or background vocals. A generalized âvocalsâ would have solved this, and could later be specified when more information is available.
This is what I have also do. Can only really set a Lead Vocalist and no way to note if someone else covers a few tracks.
i have done the opposite. if an person has the lead vocal for 1 song i will add the lead vocal to that person, if it does backing vocal for a different song, i have added backing vocal for it.
so it is possible for a person to be lead vocal & backing vocal.
Yeah, exactly. Now try work out how to do that at Artist level for the Group.
Add in in they do lead vocals on only a couple of tracks.
on the songs that Alessio sings lead vocal, Sean does backing vocals.
and on the songs where Sean sings lead vocal, you have alessio doing Backing vocals.
i think that if there would be a general category âvocalâ for if you donât know if a member sings lead or backing.
but if you know they do both then i would add both.
(i also think that on wikipedia they often just say vocals)
