Example: “X a.k.a. Y”
It looks like this track has been incorrectly entered as its artist links to both “X” and “Y” (how Discogs does it). Am I right to assume it should only be linked to a single artist but then just credited as “X a.k.a. Y”?
Having looked up some info on both these artists, it looks like “Y” (the latter) is what should be linked to as “X” (the former) only has one release on Discogs (and earlier than all other releases by “Y”). My understanding is that the purpose of an “a.k.a.” is to raise awareness for another alias in most cases, and so I guess there’s no hard rule on whether to always link to the artist before or after an “a.k.a.” when present? My reasoning is that an artist could be credited in reverse, e.g.: “<new_alias> a.k.a. <former_alias>”.
A previous post had some useful information.
Thanks.
2 Likes
For cases like these I think I’d use the artist X credited as X a.k.a. Y.
If ‘Point Blank’ is different enough to be considered its own artist, rather than just an alias of the same ‘musical intent’ (a very grey area…), then I think the way it’s credited now is correct.
Otherwise I would merge the two artists and use ‘credited as’ as you suggest.
In other words I don’t think the question is ‘what’s the rule to credit these kind of tracks’ but ‘should these be the same or separate entities’.
3 Likes
You’re right, that’s the better question. And after some thought, the way it’s credited now seems right indeed.
My conclusion is to nearly always link both artists in an “a.k.a.” (the same as is done for featured artists), but the caveat being if one of the names is a pseudonym (which can’t and shouldn’t be linked to anything), then link to the mentioned artist in the “a.k.a.” that is a real artist, using the full “X a.k.a. Y” as the credited-as string (see here).
1 Like