They merged “Siren Cues” into various artists, but my point is that because “Siren Cues” is the separate music production library it should “count” as separate artist. This aspect still not covered (AFAIK) by MB style guide, but so far i havent met objections to this. I tried several times to raise this question here on the forum, but it seems a topic isnt interested much. Also i have already added/expanded a bunch of such libraries: https://musicbrainz.org/user/Darkloke/subscriptions/artist
Here is the link to “Siren Cues” on label site:
There are so many such libraries there (and not only on that site), that i think it could be justified to create a separate MB artist type for such case.
Speaking about digital stores i could say that there are no standards there - some libraries are made as artists, while others release albums under individual/various artists.
An artist, as defined by MB, is “…a musician (or musician persona), group of musicians, or other music professional (like a producer or engineer).” I don’t think there’s any reason to re-define “artist” to include “library.”
Following your link to APMMusic, every “Siren Cues” album I looked at lists composers, either with individual names, or “Various.” I also see that each album has a catalog number. I would be more inclined to use those composers as the artist, rather than stretching the definition of “artist” in this way.
I think “Siren Cues” is closer to being a label imprint than an artist.
I would also say that merging Siren Cues into Various Artists may not have been the right course either. Some of the albums in their catalog are single-composer albums.
Looking through a couple of others on your subscription list, 1 Revolution Music and Amadea Productions Music, I think my comments apply to them as well. I think they should be imprints rather than artists.
As i see this topic isnt interested much (again) for the editors, but thanks for your opinion, @Beckfield.
Production library isnt suit to default MB artist criteria, but i will leave here some my thoughts about why it should be artist anyway. Or should i say not artist in “common” sense", but rather an entity which “groups” albums too.
Digital stores in artist description also uses such termin as “production team”. This termin is closer to the library defition than artist, songwrtiter, producer, etc.
If we set album artist to various/individual artists and label doesnt match the library name, then turns out that original library name is not mentioned at all. As minimum that excludes album from such search.
Cover art in most cases displays library name, so this probably should be taken into account too.
There are a TONS of such libraries. They are underrepresented on MB, but imo such amount should be a reason to think about individual/separate type for them.
There are libraries where label differs from library name. I suppose it matches in cases where label has only 1 library.
For example (from my subscr. list) War & Audio, Space Tones, Earth Tones, Law & Audio, Gore & Auidio and some others are all libraries of Extreme Music label.
Here is an structure example of AMP music libraries. Suffix means certain library while “parent” group i suppose can be a label or publisher. https://www.apmmusic.com/libraries
I am not sure that series are a good option. Currently i see a problem that if library isnt an “artist” in digital stores, then it couldnt be an “artist” in MB.
and some others have an “artist” profile in digital stores, so there are no objections to use them as “artists” in MB too. But for other ones, who doesnt have such profile, there are objections - but in reality they are the same libraries, just w/o digital store “artist” profiles.
Still hope other editors could tell their opinion too.