Band names made up of singular artists

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe3170d41a0>

Heyho meta headz!

I have a little problem… How do we handle Bands thats names are made up of singular artist names? For example I have a release of the group “Trellion & Sniff”… Should I make a new entity “Trellion & Sniff” for them or is “Trellion” & “Sniff” correct?

all the best



Are Trellion & Sniff an established group, or is it just an occasional collaboration between artist Trellion and artist Sniff?

1 Like

if it helps -
discogs has them as individual artists, each with credits outside of the pair.

I wouldn’t necessarily trust Discogs on that. They split other artists that MusicBrainz wouldn’t (and I’m not sure why). For instance, Should these be separated into two artists?

i cut off the rest of your statement to display only the most the relevant part. :rofl:

I never trusted Discogs because of their piss poor data.
I finally joined (long after having joined here), solely to make corrections (that I used here). And at every turn I get someone telling me to go hold a committee meeting on how to fix a credit - and then it never gets fixed.

But, regardless of our feelings towards Discogs, I just meant that the artists had credits alone and with others - as can be seen on the other site.


But… I am even more confused than before…

Even if they have solo releases, wouldn’t a whole album together be enough to be a band? Hence a new entity? Where does a band start?

Why is Bob Marley & The Wailers 1 entity f.e.? Both existed without the other, both released music without the other… But they are one?
To me this makes sense, since this isn’t a feature thing and they did more than idk, 4 songs together. Same goes for Trelly and Sniff.

1 Like

There’s really not a cut-and-dried answer. The line is a little blurry, so you go with the best evidence you have available on whether they are releasing something as as “group” or as a collaboration. In my example, Stahlnebel & Black Selket actually have a logo for that artist identity. What does the way it’s presented on the release suggest to you? How much work have they done together?

Added: here’s the edgiest edge case I know of. Why a group instead of a collaboration? Because they have 11 releases together, including two compilations, and one of them bothered to write up a few paragraphs about their history as a trio.

1 Like

Technology, with all of the bad that it has brought, has some good points -

For example, here on MB, we have the ability to take “A and B” and store them as “A” and “B”. But we also have the ability to come back later and change it to “A and B” if it needs it.

That’s not something you can do with physical media. Once it gets made, there is no editing. Nor can you save that one physical media and store it in two places.

Absolutely, i know i know.

I just wanted to make sure to do it right because i don’t want to get into discussions with random MB diehards because i understood something wrong or acted out of common practise that is different on MB. Been there, had that, thanks not again.

Thanks for the advice!

1 Like

I hear you on that. It’s uncomfortable sometimes, but if you can present a solid case for your decision, disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean you did something wrong. The important thing is you’re taking time to consider it and get input.


I don’t follow how physical media would need to be updated in case “A” and “B” changes into “A and B”. The way the artist/group names would typically be printed on the cover is identical for both cases, and track would still be individually credited to the artists regardless of whether it’s a group or collaboration, no?