Legal Name : "Credited Name"

You say "every legal document I've encountered will either use your full name to avoid ambiguity, or shorten to first + surname."

I'm sure that's true as to what you've seen but, as I said before in this context, my father has, since birth, gone by the forename which is second listed on his birth certificate. I've checked with him. Of course many formal documents, probably most, do have the non-ambiguous "every and all names" approach. However, the others call him by his normally-given name, i.e. his equivalent of "Les Gray". He doesn't have any which call him by the name he is never known as (the "Thomas Gray" styling).

So again, I submit that a 'middle' name is a valid forename and therefore there is no need to reference any other preceding or succeeding forenames where the artists' first name as credited is any one of his forenames. To do so, simply creates a non-person in the dB.

If I could interject an issue unrelated to the Great Middle Name Debate... One thing that bothers me about the <Legal Name:"Credited Name"> arrangement is that the Legal Name is the default that pops up in the band-to-band maps. Would it be possible to use the Credited Name in the map view? It's a little annoying to see "Hugh Clegg" or "John Mellor" in a map instead of those artists' more recognizable names.

BGZ, I've thought about your suggestion many times, but there are quite a few people with multiple stage names. In going from one record to the next, the program would have to pick one, but which would be correct?

OK, how about this... if the Credited Name is the same for the two albums that a linking artist appears on, then the map would show the Credited Name. So the Cream to Yardbirds map would link via "Eric Clapton" since that's how he's credited on both bands' releases. If the Credited Name doesn't match on the two linked albums, then the map could revert to the default Legal Name. Or would that be too difficult to implement?

I think you're citing something different than I am, misterpomp.

What you're referencing sound like cases where your father has actually supplied the shorter name. I was referencing documents where you enter, separately, the components of your full name, and are later referred to by a shortened version of that name you didn't provide.

I also believe I said that "middle + surname" was probably legally valid. That doesn't change my desire to know what our _policy_ is and my feeling that knowing someone's full name a la "Thomas Lesley Gray" is useful.

Mike Oldfield's "Heaven's Open" was released by "Michael Oldfield" (as a derisive gesture towards Richard Branson, apparently). Now, we already have Mike Oldfield on the db, so do we credit this album as by:
Mike Oldfield : appears as "Michael Oldfield"
... or do we change the Mike Oldfield entries (and believe me, there's gonna be a few) to:
Michael Oldfield : appears as "Mike Oldfield"
?
Discuss.

pk, I've previously said that, although I disagree with it, your call for full "legal names" has a consistency about that I understand. However, within our current framework you now seem to be, after our discussion, agreeing that ' "middle + surname" was probably legally valid'.

So, I guess that means that you are agreeing that, under current rules as they seem to stand, Les Gray should just be Les Gray?

Michael Oldfield : Mike Oldfield.

And no, I don't agree that Les Gray should be credited as "Les Gray". I'm still waiting on a definition of "legal name" from Mark/Kevin. Failing that he should be Thomas Lesley Gray.

You now agree that Les Gray is (as you say) "probably a legally valid name". It either is legal or is not legal. It can't be "legal but less legal". Within the current rules, it's either "Thomas Gray" or "Les Gray". The one you are asking for "Thomas Lesley Gray" reflects your suggestion as to where name should go but is the only one that is definitely not in keeping with the current rules.

Now it's my turn to ask _you_ why Thomas Lesley Gray is definitely not in keeping with the current rules, since it's certainly the most legally accurate. We're both arguing about a rule that neither of us apparently understand, which is why I keep insisting that I'm not agreeing to anything until I know exactly what the real rules actually are.

Les Gray is "probably a legally valid name" in the sense that if you identify yourself as Les Gray legally there's nothing wrong with doing that. That doesn't mean it's actually his "legal name" in the sense of FULL LEGAL NAME, which is the distinction I keep trying to make. Don't assume I'm conceding a point that I'm not conceding.

This issue is too trivial to be worth getting annoyed over, and I'm growing weary of rehashing the same issues. I've made myself as clear as is necessary, so at this point, I'm officially OK with whatever gets decided. Les Gray, Lesley Gray, Thomas Gray, Thomas Lesley Gray, Bob Johnson... whatever Mark/Kevin want to do.

Now is as good a time as any to discuss three somewhat related issues and how we're going to deal with them (for now):

1) Artists: Legal Name : "Credited Name" Part 1

Les Gray? Or Thomas Gray : "Les Gray"? Let's just go with Les Gray. The main goal here is to pin down the one person responsible for the music. If we find an accepted subset of the person's full name, let's use that. Les Gray is a fine enough representation of Thomas Lesley Gray just as Vince Guaraldi nicely represents the person born as Vincent Guaraldi. We don't need middle names unless the artist regularly uses one (like David Lee Roth does).

2) Artists: Legal Name : "Credited Name" Part 2

Michael Oldfield? or Michael Oldfield : "Mike Oldfield"? or Mike Oldfield : "Michael Oldfield"? With the alias function, we are able to list each person exactly as that person appears on an album (excluding typos). If an artist has multiple stage/credited names, we'll use the most used name as the base name when it is possible to observe a pattern. Thus:

Bob Marley : "Robert Marley"
Mike Oldfield : "Michael Oldfield"

This, we think, properly represents reality and makes the artist display screen look tidy.

If a "most used" name cannot be determined, we can fall back on the first name used or the extended name. Note that this "most used" idea only applies only in colloquial name substitutions (Robert => Bob, David => Dave, Michael => Mike, etc) and only to artist names. That leads us to #3.

3) Bands: Trivial Name Change (Rule 5(a))

Given the seemingly infinite amount of albums and band names to contend with, it no longer seems as important (to Kevin and me) to force albums to be grouped together if their band names are not close to identical. Trivial changes are stylistic and usually preserve the meaning and/or pronunciation. They involve punctuation changes, a single letter change, minor re-characterizations, or the word "the."

* Booker T. & The M.G.s = Booker T. & The MG's
* Joan Jett And The Blackhearts = Joan Jett & The Blackhearts
* Electric Light Orchestra Part Two = Electric Light Orchestra Part II
* Misfits = The Misfits
* Thee Speaking Canaries = The Speaking Canaries

Non-trivial changes are intentional alterations: changes of more than one letter, the addition / removal of a syllable, or possession changes:

* Robert Marley != Bobby Martel != Bob Marley
* Mike Oldfield != Michael Oldfield
* Dave Holland Quartet != David Holland Quartet
* Mike Westbrook's Brass Band != Mike Westbrook Brass Band

I may have run afoul of your point (2) with my submission of Wilhelm Leeb : "Bill Leeb", who's known as Bill most places. One reason I was careful to do it the way I did it, though, is because his Skinny Puppy (and related projects) names was Wilhelm Schroeder, which makes a lot more sense when you know Wilhelm is his real first name...

It looks with points (1) and (2) like you're backing away from any idea of "documenting a real name" and trying to move to a standard of "documenting a consistent name". I probably prefer the "real name" approach, but hey, I don't win every time.

My personal preference is for full expansions of the "real" name (whatever that is) as often as possible. With people like Mike Oldfield and Bob Marley though, opting for Michael or Robert as the base name turns dozens of entries into aliases, which just feels like overkill, especially given the dominance of the short form. I think you've taken the right approach with Leeb.

You may change your mind if we ever submit his complete works... he will easily be in the "dozens" category :)