In 2013 I added an artist Cusp - MusicBrainz , a band that a work colleague of mine was in around 2002. We’re talking a band with a friends-and-family kind of following.
Then I saw an edit Edit #130189952 - MusicBrainz where a release was added to the band. It’s highly unlikely that it’s the same band. I did some googling and that confirmed it, so I added a note to the edit to that effect, but the edit stands. More edits are now pending (Edit #135495538 - Add cover art, etc.).
What’s the best way to handle this, IMO, misattribution?
Hi @jesus2099. I thought that might be the case but didn’t want the burden/responsibility of creating a new artist that I have no knowledge of (nor desire to). Just creating another artist called Cusp and identifying them only as “not the other Cusp” seemed the wrong thing. Ideally the other editor would have heeded my warning and acted accordingly.
We can shake hands: that is the sentiment I often have as well. However, creating a new artist and slapping on a quick disambiguation, like “made song xxxx“ is a good method to avoid future lumping in of namesakes. It is then up to the editors who really care for the alternative artist to improve the entry. In my experience, this actually happens. Apparently improving an existing artist entry is less daunting than creating a new one.
It is also highly likely that the other editor doesn’t know much about the different bands either. I know I’ve done this. So just split and create separation and add notes. You have the bonus that you at least know about one of the Cusp’s. I usually fish into Discogs and pull artist links from there to help (but they also get things confused in the same way)
As others have said, happens all the time. Did one of those this morning and spent a bit of time finding the correct artist to create. If you do create the new artist and do not care about how others use that artist, look to the bottom right of the artist page you just created and click unsubscribe. By default you are subscribed to the artist you create, and if you have had to create a artist for the above reason you probably don’t want to get an email about work on that artist.
A lot of fixes I have been doing lately are due to the additions of digital release and those editors being careless. If the release is on Spotify you can link the Spotify artist page to the new artist. In my case this morning I was not sure who the “featured” rapper was but the Spotify page for the album had a link to the features artist I could use.
The only thing I can add to the good feedback you already got is that, to reduce the chances of the entries you add being hijacked, it is helpful to attach (URL) relationships, e.g. to other databases and/or to official pages - just like you did in your edit note to Edit #21710619, but as relationships linked to the artist. See my Edit #135631231, Edit #135631232, Edit #135631317.
Also, if the artist name is fairly common and the artist fairly small, as here, you might also want to consider making the disambiguation even more specific, e.g. with a reference to the decade(s) of activity. That should help for when a new artist with the same name and genre bursts onto the scene decades later.
As regular editors, I think we can do better than shifting the burden on others. Researching a suitable disambiguation for a new unfamiliar artist takes 1 minute. “made song xxxx” is best left for artists that are truly only known for that one song.
If this remark is aimed at me: No worries, I do exactly that. More deeply researched entries are always better, of course. I just didn’t feel comfortable demanding that investment from other people who may not qualify as “regular editor”. I’d rather see someone quickly create a new entry when encountering a wrongly attributed artist than doing nothing.
It’s not really an issue, it can be improved and modified whenever more info is known to sufficiently disambiguate the artist, till then it can just be something like the genre of the artist or so.
(Much like Discogs, any number of artist pages can be created, and with the bare minimum there aren’t even any sources required.)
There’s been a few times where I’ve had to create a new artist that I was unfamiliar with. I usually spend a few minutes researching the artist; just enough to 1) verify that the artist doesn’t already exist in MB; and 2) be able to create the new artist with relevant disamb. Then I move all releases and recordings as needed to clean it all up. A note back to the other editor is also nice. Maybe it’s a burden; it’s kind of fun for me as I learn about new stuff.
