[x] Weird situation

The majority of our splits come from punk/hardcore, where referring to them by the other band seems much more correct. Because that's not really your scene, I can see why it seems odd to you.

Also, what do you suggest when there is more than one song per band on each side?

Apologies, this discussion should have gone in its own thread - put it down to a senior moment.

When there's more than one song per side, it is usually because:

a) It's an LP or EP with a name, in which case we use that and set it as "multi band compilation".

b) It's a maxi-single, in which case (as per usual for these things) there's a "main" title song under which the release is understood, same as with an A side.


I could never understand *why* punk/hardcore should insist on naming their splits after the other band on the record. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me that is relevant only to that limited niche market, but let's not break each other's balls over it.

I'm with you Matt - I think we have erred in adopting a styling that is prevalent among the fans of one small genre and applied it to all recordings featuring different bands on two sides of the record. The BBD example just highlights one potential error this would cause.

I might agree with you two, except for the fact that the majority of the splits in the database are punk/hardcore stuff.

I think it makes more sense to make the non-punk/hardcore stuff conform than to make the majority conform to however you want to list the other stuff.

Splits are not really a marketing ploy (very little in traditional punk/hardcore is a marketing ploy.) But rather just some friends who want to be on a record together.

We already make some distinction in our rules for splits. i favor simplicity on the issue. At least as much as possible.

I'm not trying to pick on or dismiss any genre and the naming conventions the fans give releases - but giving a release by a band a title that has nothing to do with that band when there is a clear option to give it a title that relates to the song(s) the band played seems inconsistent with how we record all other releases here. eg [www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/hourglass/new-day-rising

I could even see sense if our naming convention was:
ABC and XYZ make a split release - the two entries are in our dB as:

ABC : ABC/XYZ split
XYZ : XYZ/ABC split

That at least would reflect the reality of the release. It seems absurd to me to call them simply by the name of the other artist. I don't believe that's how anyone in any genre refers to releases.

"I don't believe that's how anyone in any genre refers to releases."

That's simply not true. When referring to a release as a whole, then, yes, I would use "ABC/XYZ split." However, when talking about records Crimpshrine has released -
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/crimpshrine
I refer to this as the "Mutley Chix split" -
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/crimpshrine/mutley-chix
and this as the "G-Whiz split" -
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/crimpshrine/g-whiz

"... the majority of the splits in the database are punk/hardcore stuff. "

That's only because of the personal tastes of the main contributors. If you go back to the birth of Jazz you find there's loads of discs with one band on one side, one on another.

Okay not marketing ploy, but a specific genre convention to refer to particular releases according to the band with whom they collaborated on releasing a record.

Okay, if that's the way it is, then call site "hardcorepunkbandtohardcorepunkbandwithafewothergenresrepresentedsowedontlooklikeabunchofgeeks.com".

At last! A genre-related scrap! It's what we've always needed.

scott, that Crimpshrine/G Whiz actually appears to have a title - so not even sure why it's not called 'Burning Bridges'. [www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/Crimpshrine--G-Whiz-Burning-Bridges-EP/release/723498 suggests that not all adherents of that genre are sticking to the naming convention which you are advocating.

There are quite a few jazz "splits" but it seems that we have that situation covered in our rules. We have defined them as "shared releases" so I did not consider them as part of this conversation.

We used to have that the G-Whiz split as "Burning Bridges" but changed the rule at some point, to its current form. Which makes sense, because if you ask a Crimpshrine fan about the "Burning Bridges" record, most would not know what you are talking about. However, everyone would know about the "G-Whiz" split.

scott - I don't doubt your huge knowledge on this sub-scene which way outweighs mine. However, if what you say is true, I just hope I never get stuck relying on the intellect of some Crimpshrine fans to get me out of a sticky situation if they cannot piece the clues together to recognise this as 'Burning Bridges':

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/crimpshrine/g-whiz

I confess, I'm with MattW on this one - I think the background of the majority of the contributors is leading us to adopt a fan-based, subjective naming convention.