I’ve found this topic: Release Group question (and a few others), but I still don’t know how to handle my current problem - Trio Humair Louiss Ponty or “Trio HLP”. It was a one-time collaboration between Daniel Humair, Eddy Louiss and Jean-Luc Ponty. In 1968 a concert was recorded and a record with 5 tracks was released:
In 1980 a 2 x 12" Vinyl was released - with 3 additional tracks from the same show:
In 1991 two CDs were released as separate releases - 2 x 5 tracks (2 more tracks):
In 1997 Vol. 1 and 2 were released as one album:
And finally, in 2003 Vol. 1 and 2 were released as a compilation of two albums:
All recorded at the same event (maybe a series of concerts, but the same recordings), the last two and the partial releases together have the same tracklist. How many release groups are needed?
I would love to put them all in the same RG (with more and more bonus tracks), but two are partial and a ‘compilation’ is a different secondary type.
And that leads to my second question: Who is the artist?
We have:
Trio HLP
Jean-Luc Ponty, Daniel Humair & Eddy Louiss
Trio Humair Louiss Ponty
Humair Louiss Ponty
I would love to make it a collaboration, but how should it be credited as “Trio HLP”?
Daniel Humair credited asTrio H, Eddy Louiss as L and Jean-Luc Ponty as P ???
I have postponed this album, but somewhere along the line it has to be done. I hope for help!
I am someone who prefers to put one off collaborations under the three names of the three people. This should be part of their histories.
But if the concert was originally promoted under the “Trio HLP” name then I see the argument for that being a new artist with three members. In those cases I add a link to the Collaboration into the top of the annotation of each artist to make sure people find them.
You also have three release groups. Vol 1, Vol 2 and a compilation Vol1+Vol2
A quick glance at what you have now seems about right. Though if everything was live, then all the release groups should also be marked as live (Back after I make a coffee…)
Trio HLP 1968: the names of all three artists are printed underneath. It is wrongly credited on Discogs. This is a collaboration album with the title Trio HLP
Trio HLP 1997: That’s ridiculous - the title is “Humair Louiss Ponty”? … should be switched…
(Let us ignore Discogs… they often have weird ways of doing things… so wrong credits are not surprising… better to leave them to their own petty bickering)
The more I look, the more I see 1968 artist is “Trio HLP”. That is who they were at the performance. That is what was on the posters. It is only later reissues of the albums splitting their names up for sales reasons.
But wow - the more I look at those photos of releases, the more tangled the web.
Were they acting as a super group that day? Or as three individuals? Where is this on your shelf of LPs? I would have it under T for “Trio HLP” as is on the original album and was on the posters that day.
You’d have the Quartet listed as the Quartet.
All of the RGs should be marked as Live. And the compilation of Vol1+Vol2 is a clear compilation.
It is often worth looking at these as “what was originally released? And what was that named?” And then thinking separately about how the reissues were then rebranded with full names purely for sales reasons. This isn’t what the original artist named themselves that day.
To me the biggest argument for them being called “Trio HLP” is the album “As Trio HLP”. As Trio HLP | Discogs That artwork shows they thought of themselves as a band that day called “Trio HLP”
I’d love to see what was on the spine of some of those self-named albums as it would give some clarity.
No, definitely under “Ponty”, as he is the one I collect … as most people do. He is the most prominent, that’s why he moved upwards on subsequent releases (see 1980)
This is what I mean about ignoring any later reissues for the purposes of naming the artist. Reissues are getting famous names plastered on them to get the attention of the collection of Ponty’s works.
I would focus on who they performed as that day. What was the band called for that performance? What was on the door? And what appeared on those first releases? This is why Trio HLP seems the solution I would choose.
It also helps that you you already have the band members in the disambig of the artist. I would go further and blatantly edit the annotations to put crosslinks into place between members and group. That little bit of history I read from the “As Trio HLP” cover explaining they were only a trio due to space on stage is worth pulling out as a description.
I am learning as I read the tiny print on the rear covers.
I initially guessed these were three famous people, now I learn that they just didn’t have enough space for all four to play so it was more a group caused by the space available. .
Maybe some further information:
These recordings were at the beginning of Jean-Luc Ponty’s career. After he became famous this collaboration (I see it as such) was sold again and again in various forms. There’s another album from these recordings. It consists of 4 tracks, two of them also released on the 1991/1997/2003 releases:
That makes me think “Trio HLP” even more. From what I see on that cover these are recordings made by a guy in the crowd over a few nights. And he has labelled them as Trio HLP.
When you are cataloguing Ponty’s Quartet I assume you give those the relevant Quartet names as usual.
The way I am reading it is “Trio HLP” is what the artist at this gig was originally known as. And then the first albums came out with that name. It is not as if this is “Ponty and HL”
These recordings were not “made by a guy in the crowd”. Quality was sufficient to be released as an album, real good quality, not like rough bootleg recordings. But you can guess the small audience. You hear individual hand claps in the applause.
No, it’s not and it was their name at the time, but it was only then, not before and not afterwards. There were only re-releases with more and more tracks from these 1968 live sessions. Supposedly 12 tracks in total (not yet released all together, btw). The best five chosen for the first 1968 single 12" vinyl album. The rest released later. There is nothing else from this trio.
A group because of a strange sampler credit? I don’t know…
My suggested edits:
RG (1968):
1968 : artist Daniel Humair – Eddy Louiss – Jean-Luc Ponty / title Trio HLP
1980 : artist Jean-Luc Ponty, Daniel Humair, Eddy Louiss / title Jean-Luc Ponty, Daniel Humair, Eddy Louiss as Trio HLP ← with 3 bonus tracks
1997 : artist Humair, Louiss, Ponty / title Trio HLP ← with 5 bonus tracks
RG (1982): artist Jean-Luc Ponty, Daniel Humair, Eddy Louiss / title Trio HLP: Last Set (Volume Three) ← 4 previously unreleased tracks
& 4. RG (1991):
1991 : artist Humair, Louiss, Ponty / title Trio Humair Louiss Ponty: Volume 1
1991 : artist Humair, Louiss, Ponty / title Trio Humair Louiss Ponty: Volume 2 included in 1997 release included in 2003 release
RG (compilation 2003): artist Humair, Louiss, Ponty / title HLP Vol 1 & Vol 2
I think collaboration fits it better, but it’s still possible to have it a separate group.
Not all of these RGs have to be added right now. The 1991 partial releases and the 1997 12-track release are the only ones on MB. I would add the 1968 release for original date. But at first there would be no 1980 release with Trio HLP credited as [names] and no compilation album with exactly the same tracklist (maybe the same discs) as on the 1997 release.
Sorry, you took that the wrong way round. Nothing wrong with someone doing a professional taping job because he enjoyed the music. That’s what I understood he did from that write on the cover.
This is the point. These performances were done under the “Trio HLP” name. These are unique performances as this specific Trio. Ponty was just one of three people in that group.
No, I did not say name them because they appear on a compilation. This was an example of this Trio being referred to as Trio HLP elsewhere. A name they are known by. I was hoping to also find other references to them out in the wild, but didn’t get far. A reference to one of the albums on a Ponty website is as close as I got, but no details with it.
I will go away and leave other people to talk. You seem to not want to use the “Trio HLP” name as it was intended - as a band name. I do understand why you don’t want to do that as it will allow everything to appear under the separate artists. It just seems odd to me to wipe out all traces of the “Trio HLP” artist. I assume you’ll merge the one that is currently in MB?
I have been told before that we should respect the artist name as used on the initial release.
If I was doing this I would have all of these as RG’s credited to “Trio HLP”. I can see how you are twisting the band name to now always be the album name instead. I think that is wrong.
sorry if this sounds wrong. not having a great day. communicating is probally all coming out wrong
I would say that the 1997 and 2003 releases belong in the same RG as both contain the full 10 tracks.
It looks like the 1991 “Volume 2” release is largely the same as the initial 1968 release (4 of 5 common tracks), in which case I could see putting it into the same RG.
Reading the liner notes @ernstlx included above, I’d be surprised if this group was originally “known as” anything. It was likely advertised as a Ponty gig since he’d been the one originally booked.
But by far the most important. But it’s probably possible to keep this artist. Would be the least effort.
That’s not surprising. There was not much more.
As I said, it’s possible to do it this way or the other. I tried to get further input.
… but there’s a problem. The compilation should have another secondary type.
…and the 5th is on the other disc. They constantly shuffled them around. The 1980 release claims to have two different sets and the subsequent 1982 release is called “Last Set”. The 1997 release has no word on sets, but two tracks from the Last Set added to the other tracks (it was possible on CD).
Yes, I am convinced of that. Ponty’s violin was always the main attraction.
(The more I think of it. The whole problem results just out of commercial interest. There was no other obvious reason to release two parts in 1991. They could have released it as a whole as it was a few years later. It would have been a straight line. But… First it was sold separately, then merged and then compiled. )
Okay, so the 1997 release is a straight compilation of the Volume 1 / Volume 2 CDs.
Here’s a slightly unorthodox suggestion: only one RG for everything. It doesn’t follow our usual practice, but neither do these releases, and having all the different ways this one set of recordings have been packaged in one place seems more useful.
Thanks, I love that idea:
One RG 1968 including:
1968 Original release
(1980 release - extended version)
1991 Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 - further extended version, partial, with disambiguation comment and release annotation: “first part of the recordings, including 1 track of the original release”, “second part…”
1997 - complete extended version - would be nice if it could have parts, but that’s not possible (as it usually shouldn’t be done )
There’s currently no compiled version, and I will not add it … I will wait until it arrives. Maybe it never arrives, because people are happy with the 1997 release with the same tracklist.
just adding a release group example from my recent editing:
Five Iron Frenzy’s The End is Near Here
I’ve done three release groups in this case:
The End is Near (2003, Album): a studio album released at live shows on their farewell tour (and later digitally, see #3).
The End is Here (2004, Live Compilation Album): a commercial release of the above studio album as disc 1 (with a new bonus track), and disc 2 is a recording of the final show on their farewell tour.
The End is Here (sometime after 2011, Live Album): disc 2 from the above release; was digitally released separately after the band got back together.
as you can see, I’ve of course added “includes” relationships between these three release groups. I’ll also note that Discogs has these as one release group, and Wikipedia has a single article for this grouping too. however, I’ve heard/found Discogs usually favors physical releases over digital ones, so they likely wouldn’t include the 3rd digital-only release listed above.
I will admit, your set of releases seems a bit more complicated… based on what I’ve read in this thread, I might put them in release groups like so (titles to be changed as you see fit ):
Trio HLP - Live (Compilation?) Album (with “includes” relationships to the below 2 release groups)
Trio HLP (1968)
As Trio HLP (1980)
Trio HLP: Volume 1 - Live Album
Trio HLP: Volume 1 (1991)
Trio HLP: Volume 2 - Live Album
Trio HLP: Volume 2 (1991)
Trio HLP - Live Compilation Album (with includes relationships to the above 3 release groups, though I could see this as part of RG #1 too)
Trio HLP (1997)
Humair Louiss Ponty (2003) - could also be in it’s own release group, if it’s a 2-disc version? the Discogs images make me think this…
of course, it’s entirely up to you~ I can definitely see the benefit to having these releases in a single release group, even though it seems a bit odd to me.
from the release images I’ve seen, these releases seem to blur the line between release artist and release title to me, and I could read the artist credits either way.
either way, you know more than I do here, so just follow your heart~
Usually I would put it in the RG with the original album - a deluxe edition with bonus live CD. But as it has its own Wikipedia entry, this relationship would be lost…
Honestly I would prefer to see it as a descendent of the original release, because I’ve got this version and would like it to have an original date 1968. But I know, I must not adjust releases to fit my tagging preferences!
Although I still see reasons to have it in the original RG. It was the first (complete) CD release and the higher capacity made it possible to add additional recordings. It has still the 1980 tracklist, each disc with one additional bonus track appended.
You are right regarding 2. and 3. - they have to be separate for being included in another RG¹. A comment should not replace the correct relationship.
¹) No, that’s not working. It’s only included in the last release. It has to be separate after all
If the 2003 release will be added, it has to be separate too. The 1997 version can be seen as a compilation, but the 2003 release is a compilation by definition.
(Why would RG 1 be a compilation? It’s a selection of the recorded tracks, compiled to be released - nothing unusual for a live album.)
…because they have not given the album a proper title and came up with a strange band name instead. “Live at the Caméléon” would have sounded nice.
wouldn’t have to be… I was just thinking back to my Five Iron example, where #2 was a compilation before the second disc had been released, and it’s pretty clearly labeled as such. I leave that decision up to you~
in theory, you could maybe use _recording_firstreleasedate for the year? depending on your filenaming scheme, that could split the album in two if the recordings are from different years on a different release…
In this case it wasn’t labeled as such, and they certainly had no idea that an extended release would be possible more than 10 years later.
That’s an interesting thought, but if it is used all the time, it will surely lead to failure. I use %originalyear% for date and add the real date (only year) in parenthesis after the title. KODI will surely split the release if there are different dates. And I can’t think of a rule according to which it should be turned on or off.
But thanks! (Maybe I should play around with tagger scripts again )
)
)
):
)