FAQ: Why Are Solo Artists 1 Member Bands?

Read all about it on the FAQ page, a response has been written.


Kevin

Sorry, I still disagree completely with you, so you can sue me now.

First, so far every other band's "members" on the site have been based on what the band's conception of its membership roster is, not on anything relating to the legal rights held by the members. As you say, in some cases where the band is NOT named for a single artist, a singe member may still hold all the legal rights to the band name etc. If band membership on the site had anything to do with legal rights, that would be the sort of thing you'd be researching for those bands, and the concept of "who the band thinks its members are" would be completely irrelevant, though we've clearly seen it's not, and in fact it's the defining criteria for everyone except "solo artists", where we suddenly get this new law-based definition in the picture.

Unless you're going to rule that every band everywhere in the database has its membership roster based on legal contract (and then also allow full band lineups for "solo artists" who do happen to have a contract that gives rights to other band members), this is inconsistent. So regardless of whether it makes any logical sense, it shouldn't be the rule.

Either band membership is based on who the band thinks is in the band (or, if we have no indication of this, then who seems to be a consistent member of the band and not just a session musician), or it's based on who has the rights to the name. Don't use one for one type of band and another for a different type.