Methods of presenting an artists' group, individual and pseudonym works

Luke the Drifter
Luke the Drifter as Luke the, Hank Williams (country music legend) as Drifter

Don’t worry, these edits are completely minor and mean little. They do not produce mutant sort keys, just a funky hyperlink of course that is of no consequence.

and where is "Luke the Drifter Williams, Hank” sorted or found?

not going to address the rest of your post because frankly i think there’s no need to escalate this conversation to that extent. but i will say:

that this is not a “new idea”, people have been making edits like this for a long time. you’ll notice no one in this thread is saying it’s bad because it’s innovative and new. in fact, from what ive seen here, everyone agrees it would be nice to have an option for the releases to show under both artists. but the fact is this just is not the best way to do it. it’s not future-proof, it’s not supported by any style guidelines, and it’s confusing for both people and computers.

i think it’s a smart and creative idea. i just don’t think it should actually be done in practice.

maybe try tagging all the release groups under the various aliases as “hank williams” with folksonomy tags?

1 Like

Thank you I cancelled

The bottom line is, you’re populating the database with a bunch of inaccurate entries (Gene Autry is certainly not credited as “o,” nor Jimmy Long as “T”) in order to trick the system into showing what you want.

The better solution is to find a way to improve the database so the accurate information can be displayed in more useful ways.


Does anybody know if this field is sorted or connected? I would like to learn

Tumbling Tumbleweeds and Ole Faithful are the only two by Gene Autry Trio

I’ve proposed (but not followed up on) that we should document “leader credited as group” as an allowed approach for this type of short-lived collaboration - in this case “Gene Autry credited as Gene Autry Trio”. The main limitation of that approach is that “member of” relationships can’t be represented, but I question how meaningful it is to say someone was a “member of” a one-time recording group, as opposed to simply being credited on the appropriate recordings via performer recordings.

(Like @tillywilly , I have a lot of interest in older music, and before the 1960s group naming and crediting was much more fluid and inconsistent than today.)

Excellent idea!

btw all edits have been cancelled


The various credits do appear on the artist’s aliases page , is that what you had in mind?

Thanks. Did “Luke the” or “Drifter” show up? Everything is cancelled now so I can’t tell if they were there. If I had seen that show up, I would have cancelled in a heartbeat, but I never encountered any bad effects. It is true I like to trick computers. I used to get paid to do that.

Those aliases wouldn’t have shown up until the edits were applied. I see one such has been applied for Gene Autrey ; only by mousing over it I can see that it’s a multi-part credit to Autrey/Long/Burnett.

haha busted! I thought nobody cared about that stuff.

After loading the Ole Faithful single in Picard, I better understand @yindesu’s comments on sort order. The Artist Sort Order for “Ole Faithful” comes out as “Autry, Gene Long, JimmyBurnette, Smiley” as opposed to the B-side’s more reasonable “Autry, Gene and Long, Jimmy”.

that’s correct except for commas and spaces!
But I’ll be careful doing that anymore and support your epiophonioius or whatever idea for now

(of a person) giving their name to something.
(of a thing) named after a particular person.

that might not work too well on Paul Revere and the Raiders", but I can think of many situations where it would