I worry that introducing this relationship will degrade the usefulness of singular MBIDs for artists.
One example: The band Infinity Shred was originally known as “Starscream”, but were forced to change their name (after publishing multiple notable releases) for legal reasons. Notably, there was no abrupt style change with the name (but gradually after that), so I think it really should not be considered a new artist entity.
There have been attempts in the past to split this artist entry into two, which would lead to filtering by MBID showing two separate discographies. For an example outside of the core MusicBrainz web interface where this can be papered over to a certain degree with a prominent link, one might imagine a music player that groups artists by their MBIDs. I was against this now, and I would worry that having this relationship would lead to people splitting artists for minor changes all the time.
In my opinion the existing solution with the alias marked as ended is sufficient, although it could be improved by e.g. showing non-search-hints more prominently on an artist overview page.
But the new relationship can be useful when there is a big member change at the same time of the name change.
Or when there is a group splitting to two successor groups.
Things like that.
We have the choice between artist credit or two artists, on case by case.
But if there is a big change, then it’s probably a new project and not a new name.
And if there’s no change, it would unnecessarily split the artist. I don’t know of any of the above cases, but I do know some where it would not be good to use this relationship.
@elomatreb shows why we need to always have both Alias and this new Relationship. Some bands are clearly the same with a name change (like Infinity Shred) whereas others like On A Friday and Radiohead are separate but very related.
This is always going to lead to arguments whichever solution is chosen. Artists don’t like fitting in neat boxes that are database compliant.
I don’t believe this relationship is about changing any current artists, more about a better link between some that are related.
I’m reminded of a band local to my area, Quarterflash. Originally formed as “Seafood Mama,” they released a single on a local label, which caught the attention of Geffen Records. They chose a new name, Quarterflash, when they signed with the label.
It seems to me that the most intuitive approach would be to add start/stop dates to the artist name. I presume that ability would exist for this new relationship, but it would seem to be less intuitive to make a name change a relationship.
The “alias” kinda does this, but then you have to decide, should the artist name be the original, and all name changes become aliases, or should the artist name be the current, and all past names are aliases? Or, the most well-known name (according to whom?), and all past/later names as aliases?
I’ve been thinking about a couple of related issues recently while doing edits: side-projects and aliases for anonymous musicians. The existing alias relationship works, but the “legal name” label isn’t right.
Side-projects would be when bands share the same members, but exist at the same period as the main band rather than being renamed. Examples: Dee Gees and Foxboro Hot Tubs.
For solo artists, the usual solution is to use annotations, but this can be tricky to use and each alias needs to be manually updated. Often editors just use the existing performance relationship using a primary alias as the main profile. This is a solution that already exists and works. The only problem is the label of “legal name”. The subject was recently brought up here.
I could see either adding a new relationship that doesn’t use the “legal name” label or an option on the existing relationship to change the label to something other than “legal name”.
This describes a situation where an artist (generally a group) changed its name, leading to the start of a new project.
Guidelines:
The start and end dates should contain the date the rename occurred. The same date should be used in both fields, as an artist is not “renamed” over a period of time.
Only use this relationship if the artists should be kept separate to begin with (meaning they’re generally considered separate projects with separate discographies). If the discography is the same, but the artist changed names, use aliases and artist credits for the same one artist entity.
It is acceptable to use this relationship if there was some degree of member change during the rename of a group but the new group is generally understood to be a direct successor to the previous one. Do not use the relationship in cases where a group split into two or more groups, especially if both claim to be the direct successors, since by definition neither of them can then be “the same but under a new name”.
Hopefully the description + guidelines make it clear enough this is not an excuse to start splitting artists which are generally considered the same. Happy to hear any suggestions on improvements if something here seems problematic
I doubt most of these examples are different projects as required by the new relationship’s guidelines. Shouldn’t most of these be merged into the same MB Artist, and only use Artist Credits to change the name?
For example,
On 21 December 1991, On a Friday signed a six-album recording contract with EMI.[10][15] At EMI’s request, the band changed their name; “Radiohead” was taken from the song “Radio Head” on the Talking Heads album True Stories (1986).[10] Radiohead - Wikipedia
I don’t see any reason why these should remain separate MB Artists?
I don’t see why the guideline example of all things, Radiohead, should be kept separate either.
There was a merge attempt but it was apparently merely downvoted for the lack of artist credits (filtering).
If the new band name does not consider the old band name’s releases as part of their canon, then obviously the new band doesn’t want to be linked with the old band name’s releases. They changed name for a reason, usually to avoid the affiliation with the old band name’s releases and style. They shouldn’t be merged. It’s just part of accepting an artist’s artistic integrity.
This seems wrong to me. Most labels do not list a band’s indie work on their discography page, even when the band never changed their name at all. Do we have to separate these MB Artists since the label thinks their indie work is a separate project from their work done under contract with the major?
I’ve never heard of ‘On a Friday’, and have never heard of their albums being considered ‘Radiohead’ albums. So I’ll check them out, thanks… but that seems like two separate projects to me
Even if the distinction is a nebulous ‘before fame/after fame’ situation.
Putting the label aside for a second, if Radiohead really wanted people to check out their ‘On a Friday’ album then it’s unlikely that I wouldn’t have heard of it to be honest.
The question for me isn’t just why they changed their name, but if there’s a clean break between projects, and what the artist intent is. I’ll be curious to see if the sound changed.
Edit: hah, it sounds nothing like Radiohead, it’s pretty straight up (not bad) rock, but they are more like demos (on cassette too) than albums, and are identified as such on sites where the discography is merged.
That makes much more sense to me - I can’t say that I care much if the demo category in Radiohead has this in it. If we are keeping them as albums I would definitely leave them separate. There was clearly a huge jump in sound, whether that came from the label or the band.
MB respects Artist’s Intent for all kinds of things. We should also respect the way they see their past. Radiohead is a different band to On A Friday. They don’t list their old school boy project on their website. MB should not force two disconnected discographies together. That’s one of the reasons this relationship was created.
Yeah, I actually explicitly checked to make sure the Radiohead discography on their website (which has a billion rarities and whatnot) does not include pre-name-change things, so it’s clearly considered its own different project. That’s the kind of checking I’d expect before this relationship is used.
