…to be closest to reality, not only just what someone wanted to print on the release.
This will definitely have a sales-promoting effect
…to be closest to reality, not only just what someone wanted to print on the release.
This will definitely have a sales-promoting effect
I do not believe this to be correct. I think you are taking words from album art and applying that to artist designation. I have albums by The Section Quartet and VSQ, they are different entities.
Here are link to the different groups:
As for the rest of the “lazy logic” here, do you then also consider the same to be true for The Preservation Hall Jazz band? How about The Glenn Miller Orchestra? (Pretty sure he died in WWII, yeah?.. so how could that possibly be the same group? )
See? VSQ is a group, a single entity, that releases albums. Their line up changes based on many factors. You’re over thinking this.
Have a read of the BIO on The Section Quartet’s website and it talks of these releases. It specifically talks of Eric Gorfain and names the “full album recreation of Radiohead’s OK Computer”. And then continues onwards to talk about 1998 and forming the studio entity with Dodds, Chen, etc.
their ever-expanding repertoire also includes full-album re-creations of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon, Radiohead’s landmark albums OK Computer and The Bends and Elliot Smith’s Either/Or.
This is describing the Vitamin Records work. Directly linking “The Section” to that OK Computer album.
There is clearly some legal argument going on somewhere here as he never says “Vitamin” or being part of “Vitamin String Quartet” and there is a distinct lack of shop or discography.
I dubbed the concept ‘The Section’, as in the string section on a recording session.” This group went on to record Gorfain’s growing list of strings-only adaptations including the music of Tool, Pink Floyd, Nine Inch Nails and, most notably, Radiohead.
This is the Gorfain, Dodd, Chen that appears on the track lists of the early Vitamin Records releases. He talks of “the group” as “The Section”. And they are the band “The Section” that is on the covers. Read the CD covers for some of the best details here. You will see the separate quartets are often named directly, and nearly always the musicians involved.
In the same way that on the VSQ site there is now no mention of artists by name of individuals or the separate quartets. This is a label moving forward and painting over a past. They own the rights so they name it as they like.
I can’t comment on Glenn Miller Orchestra, but I don’t think this is the same as they will name an orchestra lineup but unlikely to have three totally different orchestras on the same CD.
If I look at The Section Quartet, that’s a band with members, they performed, split, reunited and performed again.
VSQ? “VSQ features a rotating cast of musicians and producers and frequently collaborates with animators, creators, and like-minded artists…” No names, the music is performed by various musicians, produced by different producers. Who are the people behind VSQ? What is their job? I don’t want to say that these aren’t artists. There seems to be more than a label usually does.
Or is there a connection between the performers? Are they part of this project? I haven’t found out.
Formed in 1937 … hmm. That’s indeed a bit strange. And there’s Glenn Miller and His Orchestra - MusicBrainz also on MB!
One of the things I came to understand about groups in music is that when a group is formed, they’ve formed an entity that creates art. That entity is the equivalent to what is an “Artist” here on MBZ. Usually, I find, people seem to look for a “front man/woman” to be the connective tissue behind that entity. But what if you are a group that has no vocalist? What about film composers like John Williams or Hans Zimmer, for example? Every session can have different instrumentalists. But we think of the entity that is John Williams. That is no different than VSQ. VSQ is the entity. Preservation Hall Jazz Band is another one, and also previously mentioned Glenn Miller Orchestra. Glenn Miller was MIA in WWII, but the group carried on from generation to generation since.
A record label is a different beast all together and does not apply here.
If I wanted to find all the albums released under the entity VSQ, why would I search for anything other than VSQ? The logic is sound, and if we make it different here…then I’d say you’d have to make it different all over MBZ, and that would not be correct or accurate, nor prudent.
(Enjoying the debate, folks! Thanks! Really makes me think about how to categorize things like this, which is something that’s a large part of my actual profession. Good to think about it in terms like this with you all. I appreciate the perspectives!)
You answer the second question with the fact you try to dismiss above it. Vitamin Records is the label. It is the one thing that links every release here. And all the releases are listed under the label. They are a label who bring in different groups to play the music. This is not an Orchestra with changing line-ups. This is an entity bringing in different groups who perform in their own right.
What is a label? It is a group of people with a common purpose who want to produce music.
For me, the comedy with this discussion is a few years back I also tried to renamed a batch of “The Section Quartet” releases to “Vitamin String Quartet” and a previous editor pulled me up on it. Since then I have spent way too long reading the cover and booklets of CDs and filling in huge numbers of performer credits.
This is nothing like Glenn Miller leaving his band. This is a label, called Vitamin Records, who produced music to be sold without a name. They sell this to be filed under “Radiohead” “Pink Floyd” “Bjork” on the shop shelf.
We need to credit that performing artist for their work. It is only their name that appears on the cover of the CDs. I have not yet actually seen “Vitamin String Quartet” appear on a CD cover. (And I read about 30 of them the other night when I went on the blitz).
I get it that you want to see these all on the same shelf when tagging these. Just like I did a few years back.
There is no “group” called Vitamin String Quartet. This is why I used that “project” tag. They don’t fit in a normal box. These albums are The Section, Da Capo Players, The Tallywood Strings and many other groups who are groups in their own right. Separate groups who recorded music put out under the VSQ brand.
The suggestion made by @aerozol is to credit everyone on the Release Groups. This covers all sides then. The correct bands get their credits, but also VSQ even though their name never appears on these CDs. This then makes every release appear under the VSQ artist name, but also still give the real credit to the real bands at the same time. The Section should get the credit. Just like on their own website they talk of these (and I get a feeling there were some of the original people behind VSQ)
The back and forth is fun. We are all seeing different things in the categorising here. And it is the classic problem of these pesky artist not following MB guidelines. How dare they work outside the box. What ever solution we use has to bend a MB guideline somewhere.
I haven’t checked the covers myself, but I understand that the original point was that some CD’s weren’t credited to VSQ on the cover?
If I am looking for VSQ, that’s what I would search.
But if I have the CD in my collection I would be looking for the artist on the cover (not VSQ).
If a release group has releases credited to the artist and then later to VSQ…
The lazy and possible-not-technically-correct ‘why not both’ approach works for me - my brain is too soft and smooth to want to argue about which one to pick so it’s taking the easy way out
They break all kinds of MB rules.
(More cover art OK Computer )(the one in the original edit)
( more cover art Bjork - tracks split between groups in booklet )
That is first three I can pull out with rear covers.
Digital releases have changed to “VSQ tribute to…”
This is why they are so confusing to force into a compliant box
I think it is also worth noting that it is mainly the first albums that credit the Quartets fully. The later ones just credit musicians, even when it is clear they are part of a known lineup. And then they are just naming musicians from many sources. So the later releases are certainly VSQ, it is more the early ones I question. Especially those by The Section, Tallywood and Da Capo.
We’d have to disagree here, I think. Label are basically distributors who often own the rights to the content they are distributing. See:Taylor Swift’s legal drama over her ownership rights.
But yes, Vitamin Records is the label that releases all the albums by the entity called Vitamin String Quartet. Therefore VSQ is the artist, to use MBZ’s terms. Vitamin Records is the company which releases the albums, not the artists. By this same vein, NOFX releases albums under their own record label Fat Wreck Chords. But we wouldn’t list every “Fat Band” as the artist Fat Wreck Chords here would we? No. That doesn’t make sense.
VSQ should most definitely be associate with the label Vitamin Records, as well as any other artists who releases under that label. But Vitamin Records is not the artist.
Well, to the contrary… looking at the art that was listed below your comment, if anything, the argument against what I’m saying should be “the artist is THE SECTION.” Not The Section Quartet, not VSQ… THE SECTION. Since that’s what is actually printed on the back.
But… we know that this all falls under the entity known as Vitamin String Quartet. Therefore, VSQ should be the artist name, and THE SECTION should be an alias. “The Section Quartet,” however, is not an alias as they are a completely different group all together.
Yes. And then if it is reissued later with ‘Vitamin String Quartet’ on the cover, we are in a pickle - depending on what I hold in my hands my requirements change.
this seems like a very similar case as Caramell vs Caramella Girls, at least as far as a label re-releasing music under a different artist name. for example, Caramelldansen (Speedy Mixes) was first released in 2008 as a Caramell single, but was replaced by a Caramella Girls single in 2019. the old Caramell single is no longer easily available on streaming services.
that aside, I believe what is found on the physical release should be the credit given on the MB release. so using the examples Ivan gave above I think the release artist credits should be:
I will note that on the digital version of Strung Out on OK Computer, VSQ is credited both on the cover, and on the streaming services, so that credit is correct.
for the release groups though, I think either the artist who was originally credited as should be the credit (as I did with Caramell above), or we could use Aerozol’s trick of also crediting Vitamin String Quartet.
another option might be a Vitamin String Quartet series, if we want a place to see all the Vitamin Records label’s various String (Quartet) tribute albums, as @ernstlx suggested on the original edit above.
all in all, I think I see Vitamin String Quartet as a group of groups. sometimes it’s The Section Quartet, sometimes it might be The Da Capo Players, sometimes it could even be a combination from different groups.
I just love when a label tries to rewrite history… it’s always a fun discussion~
Therefore, should our discussion then be about aliases and which one is the “master record?”
To help with the MB search, I guess so? But when people browse an MB artist (I always go to the artist and then the release group from there) they may still not be finding what they want, or think albums are missing.
This is what is being credited. The Section, which is an alias for The Section Quartet, as noted on their own website BIO. The artist is in the MB DB as “The Section Quartet” as this is their current name, but they started out as “The Section”.
@UltimateRiff - good summary. Also “a group of groups” sounds better than me saying “Project”.
This is why your multi credit idea fits the database use well. I can find The Section releases they mention in their BIO where they should be - under The Section Quartet. And I could go to Vitamin String Quartet and find them listed there too.
Already a lot of duplication occurs. Many releases are popping up in both places, separate RGs, even though they use the exact same audio. This is being accelerated now by this VSQ rebranding. (Which I have also noticed is using that classic Digital Media trick of quoting a “release date” for the original edition, not the renamed one… but that is another confused tangent… )
Making a Series - unless there is a script, there would be five pages of releases to add to just cover the Strings. (eek!) Then there are the Piano releases, Swing, Dub, Electronic. Vitamin Records covered a lot of ground.
The “Vitamin Piano Series” also splits between the brand and naming the performer. With the electronic and dub are usually various artists. They don’t seem to have a name like “Vitamin Swing”.
On the artwork side - and the label rebranding mess. Here is a good example: Release group “The String Quartet Tribute to the Rolling Stones” by Vitamin String Quartet feat. What Four? & The Da Capo Players - MusicBrainz
Digital Media, on Spotify (founded 2006), claiming a 2003 release date:
Original cover, on a CD, released in 2003,
Performed by The Da Capo Players and What Four?
What is happening in many cases is the new Digital Media copies are imported from iTunes, Spotify, Amazon and just get today’s brand name and the original dates. There are loads of duplicate RGs when you start to look.
On a geek note, that looks like someone still has all those backgrounds somewhere on a hard disk… doing a good job of erasing the text. And now changing the classic title “A String Tribute to xxx” to “VSQ performs”. They really trying to re-write history here. This is part of what is driving my frustration. I don’t like people editing the past to make a profit.
I haven’t followed the whole discussion, but for batch-adding (series) relationships you can use one of the following bookmarklets:
I would recommend to use this bookmarklet in combination with the following userscript which lets you copy the MBIDs to feed the bookmarklet (my reply describes an older version of the bookmarklet, but the concept is still the same):
yeah, until we figure out when they rereleased these albums, I’d leave the digital media release dates blank. could maybe guesstimate using the Apple Music ID, like @yindesu did for the Caramella Girls. since they’re assigned sequentially, we could probably at least get a year, if not month and day too.
I was just flagging the mess that is in this data, I know not to add digital dates like that. The digital media additions are coming from a number of people using scripts. Still do not understand why that script can’t just cut off dates like this that are obviously too early (but that is for another thread… lol)
My mission is adding artwork and performer credits from the booklets. Discogs and AllMusic are pretty good to find missing data.
@kellnerd - thanks, they look handy to have in the arsenal. I keep coming through and battering VSQ with the Cricket Bat of Compliance™ and the script will be good to have if a series is required.
If we are putting both artist names in the RG, how do we join? Comma or feat?
Vitamin String Quartet feat. The Section
This seems to cover many bases.