MusicBrainz is an archive of releases. Why would you argue that?
Patricia’s releases were at one point credited to her deadname. That reality hasn’t changed. What has changed is that they are now credited to her actual name. But that is now. The past continues to be true. The present does not make the past false. Why do I even have to explain this?
The problem here is not just that we want to keep the old alias because of an agenda. We just want a way to reflect that at some point the credit changed and make “Patricia Taxxon” the pick of tagging software. MusicBrainz is not equipped to handle such a change yet, we’re trying to figure out what the best way to handle this change is.
Yes, I want to keep the old alias somewhere. But it’s not like I want to publicize it to the whole world to upset Patricia.
I must point out the contradiction of this statement coming from your side in this context or it’s gonna eat me alive.
I am not. I am arguing against your emphasis on the history.
Past releases of an artist are part of “reality as it exists now”. They are still there.
If the name of the artist changes, and with it the name of past releases, the past releases are no longer part of “reality as it exists now”. However, it seems useful to record the history in some way.
We should not put history above current reality.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing against having an alias.
What you said above is valid in my book. I think I just misinterpreted your reply too far.
Well, you’re right, MusicBrainz isn’t exactly history, but it is still an archive that other places use for reference. My emphasis might have been a bit irrelevant.
You just used a keyword ‘artist’. (please note, those aren’t disrespectful scare quotes)
And that plays back to what I said earlier -
I may need to refer to these people by certain names on the street.
But I don’t look at these listings as people. These are artists.
Therefore, I don’t consider terms like “deadnaming” (whatever that is) as being relevant.
An artist changed their name. We allow that name to be changed. But it doesn’t change the fact that previous music was released under the old name.
MB stating that Jane’s album was released under the name Joe is not at all the same as walking up to Jane on the street and caller her Joe.
*Please note, I didn’t mean to offend anyone by using the term ‘her’.
Which also doesn’t change the fact that the releases are now credited to the new name. It’s that discrepancy we try to find a good representation on the artist’s page on MB.
Just crediting everything pre-name-change to the old name and everything after to the new doesn’t reflect the current state very well. Likewise just having everything credited to the new name doesn’t either.
Just in an attempt to move forward in some way: So far nobody here has spoken up against changing the credits for recordings and release groups to the new name, this seems widely supported and IMHO already improves the artist listing a lot. So I’d say we proceed with this, then limit the discussion on how to best represent the credits for the older releases?
Here is a question I have for all of those who believe we need to change the release data because the artist changed their name/gender/bandcamp/etc as well as those comparing physical vs virtual releases -
Since MusicBrainz is, at least partly, a ‘tagger’ (providing ID3 data for music players);
If I downloaded the MP3 when it was first released. What did the tags say?
That MP3 is taking up physical space on my harddrive. Therefore, it is a physical release.
It states Artist X.
If, as example, in 2020 I changed my bandcamp from joesmith.bandcamp.com to janesmith.bandcamp.com - there is no way the ‘new’ music could have been released in 2019, simply because the person and page did not exist until 2020
and as I said prior to reading your post (but after you posted it)
.
I believe MB already has rules in place for how to handle name changes for these things.
When you downloaded it before the name was changed it shows Eric Taxxon, if you downloaded it later it shows Patricia Taxxon (even if you purchased it on date of release).
You are turning it upside down now. The debate is not about attributing the new music to Eric. It is about how to represent the changed credits on the existing music. And indeed the albums themselves on Bandcamp did not change, just their credits did. Independent on when you purchased the downloads, the metadata on Bandcamp now shows the new name.
That very vague statement does not bring us any further really. There is an entire discussion above how the current situation is insufficient to reflect the state of this artist’s releases.
Recording, eehh IDK. It’d sure make it easier though. [edit: actually I changed my mind. recordings aren’t there for archival either, they’re just metadata.]
Release groups I do agree. Those should conform to artist intent or current status, rather than their status at the time of release. RGs are for organization rather than archival.
Took us a while to figure out but we got there already yesterday. We’re just looking for easy fixes we can actually do in the meantime, but not solutions.
Still, it bears repeating until we get a ticket open.
My idea: a special, multivalued type of alias to live alongside the existing ones that stores changes in time, which Picard, for example, can read and then apply the current state of the alias to the tags.
That way we don’t have to keep up with each release’s credit. That would make no sense.
Everyone has the ‘right’ to an opinion, but not everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Non-trans opinions on what is or isn’t respectful to trans people are at the bottom of the ‘valid opinions’ pile.
(edit: that pile has a very small top)
As long as we’re better reconsidering our assumptions, then, let me suggest a re-examination of the assumption that transpeople of other generations and of other nationalities share a common attitude towards their past names. I think that happened somewhere when this shifted from a discussion of how to handle Patricia Taxxon’s old works, to making a general across-the-board policy.
If it’s related to these topics, most likely yes:
Freeskiing
What I should have for dinner today
Graphic design
Binding of Isaac strategies
The Wellington hardcore punk scene
etc
I don’t agree that my opinion on trans topics is less valid than a trans person’s. And I have a lot of things to say about that.
But I won’t do it at the cost of derailing the thread.
Unfortunately, you are gonna need to debate your points properly, and I mean your points on what to do with Patricia’s releases on MusicBrainz. “Your points are less valid than the people I side with under my own rules that I set myself” isn’t a good argument.
