Hall & Oates vs Daryl Hall & John Oates: should we rename?

I came over this well-known duo, but i’m surprised the artist is named " Hall & Oates" on MB while almost none of their albums cover art shows only “Hall & Oates” but almost always Daryl Hall and John Oates or some variations of it.

Reading the Wikipedia page about the duo i stumble upon the following paragraph:

The duo never really liked to be referred to as “Hall & Oates.” In an interview with Esquire , Oates said, “There isn’t one album that says Hall and Oates. It’s always Daryl Hall and John Oates, from the very beginning. People never note that. The idea of ‘Hall and Oates,’ this two-headed monster, this thing, is not anything we’ve ever wanted or liked.” [wikipedia ref]

I don’t know if this was already discussed, but i see absolutely no reason to have Hall & Oates as main artist name when it appears almost nowhere as is and when the band said they don’t like it (so hardly any artist’s intent).

Discogs is using Daryl Hall & John Oates as main artist’s name.
Official website main title is Daryl Hall and John Oates


I agree with the rename also. I have always had them in my library as Daryl Hall and John Oates. :relieved:

After reading this I fully 👍 a rename
Looking at ancient (:​D) MB history:
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/debabff3-2559-46e5-862d-ef2a906d7010/edits?page=56 you’ll see quite a few mergers of “Daryl Hall and John Oates” into “Hall and Oats” as well.

1 Like

Looking at the discography, many official releases are credited to “Hall & Oates” even though cover art shows clearly “Daryl Hall and John Oates”

Just few examples over many:

How comes ??

Lazy DJ’s. Once while listening to a late night radio station out of Charlotte, NC, U.S., I heard a DJ introduce the song ‘Do it for Love’ by “H & O”.

1 Like

Likely those where added before we even had artist credits.


Sounds sensible to me. Especially as they don’t like the short version. I know it annoys me when I get referred to by my surname. Probably find some of the first imported entries for this were from a compilation album.

When renaming the main artist, how deep will that go? Does that mean it will rattle down through all the releases and compilations? I can hear some upset if that happens as many people are very protective over the exact text on their CD covers. (Hehe… there is a reason “CD” is part of “OCD” :wink: )

:rofl: And the new fact I have learned today is that “Daryl” is a man…

1 Like

If you don’t check any of the artist credits (under “Artist Credits” on the artist edit page), then it will only affect the Artist name and none of the associated artist credits.


In this case, as there are a lot of releases, and most are credited to Hall & Oates rather than Daryl Hall & John Oates, i ponder about using the hammer: rename artist and artist’s credits, then fix the ones actually credited to Hall & Oates, dunno i have to check in details.


Edit submitted as: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/60133870


The weird thing, and perhaps (?) what motivated earlier MBz editors to do it this way, is that WP itself calls them Hall and Oates. This is discussed on the talk page, where it says that an earlier proposal to rename the WP article had failed.

1 Like

That is one thing that did make me laugh - look at the external links down the right hand side of the MB Artist page. A few too many of their own official pages are still surname based (facebook, twitter, etc)

Actually, their twitter link is @hallo ates

I think it looks and sounds much better fully typed out.

Actually… it does get funnier when you look at the details on Wikipedia. Notice how the Wikidata link is correctly titled? And how Wikipedia hide this link about them disliking the name right at the bottom of their page. It is a classic example of “Ignore the facts, just stick to our rules”.

1 Like