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:
The Section Quartet credited as “The Section”
The Section Quartet (credited as “The Section”), Stereofeed, and The Savitri String Quartet (with the tracks credited to the group that performed it, of course)
either The Section Quartet OR Vitamin String Quartet, since there’s not an artist obviously credited on the release. (it does look like it’s The Section Quartet performing, because it’s got a couple names in common with their two lineups on the other releases).
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~
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”.
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.
Also “a group of groups” sounds better than me saying “Project”.
)
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)