[x] Kevin - aliases

You've amended (or ?d so it got amended) an entry for The Syn. You've said that (I précis): "Since this is a 45, no names would be listed, therefore aliases aren't necessary". I disagree and I think you've overlaid a style there that is contrary to what we do. Otherwise all those Beatles 45s will have to feature Richard Starkey (with no alias). If an artist has an accepted alias (even if that's not used for ever but is used with some consistency at that time in that band) - it would be incorrect of us not to recognise that alias and use it on releases where it is silent but would obviously have been implicit. This has been our style for some time and seems to me absolutely correct - otherwise we look like a bunch of ninnies. Practically every 45 ever released will have to have non-aliased members.

My understanding of the rules is that if a song is used (on a single or a comp) that is from an album, the aliases from that album are imported to the single/comp.

If it is a separate EP of some sort, or songs not from another release, then no aliases are used unless listed.

I disagree. Did Richard Starkey really go into the recording studio for the non-LP 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and say "I am not Ringo - today I am Richard!". He was always Ringo when in the Beatles so we should recognise this. Ditto Peter Brockbanks did not go into the studio (having been previously known as Peter Banks) and decide to revert to Brockbanks for this release. I think we need to let the silent intent remain in the line-up where it's obvious.

I think if we start to get into the realm of "silent intent" of people we don't know, we run into issues.

Do you think we should credit him as Richard Starkey on 'Strawberry Fields'? Do you think that better represents that band's line-up and makes our data look more meaningful?

I agree with misterpomp here. When there is consistent surrounding precedent for how someone is credited, we should preserve that unless given conflicting evidence.

"Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence" - so if we are given no credits, that does not mean we cannot use aliases when doing so would be more consistent.

What does everyone think of allowing a stage name to appear in the database, even in the absence of credits, if every known release with credits lists that stage name? That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

Kevin and I have decided to formally adopt the aforementioned compromise.

Here's the current approach:

1) actual credits

2) if no credits and the songs are taken from an earlier release, then inherit the credits from the earlier release

3) if no credits and the songs are not taken from an earlier release, then

a) if every release with credits lists the artist's stage name, use the stage name.

b) otherwise, use the default name.

Does 3a) only cover the artist's releases with that band, or all releases?
Is 3a) flexible to cover trivial, jocular, typographical or other minor variations?

Good questions. Do we need to answer them yet?

Actually, I'd change rule 3a to:
If releases on both chronological sides of this release use the stage name, use the stage name. (If this is the band's first or last release, only the next or previous release, respectively, is considered.)

Consider for example a band with:

Album 1
Bob Savage||Sav-Man

Album 2
Bob Savage||Sav-Man

Album 3
(no credits)

Album 4
Bob Savage||Sav-Man

Album 5
Bob Savage||Sav-Man

Album 6
Bob Savage

In this case, your 3a would suggest we credit Bob Savage, but I would think that Bob Savage||Sav-Man is more correct, because there's an implication in the usage by albums on either side of the creditless album that "Sav-Man" was in use. Then maybe later in the band's career Bob realized that was a really stupid name and finally ditched it.

The questions do need answering, I think. Even thinking about 'Ringo Starr' for example; he appears as 'Ringo' on one long post-Beatles release. Does he therefore revert to 'Richard Starkey' for an uncredited Beatles release due to inconsistency in his alias? Who decides what's a trivial name change? What about all that restatement when an artist changes their alias later in their career?

1) If an artist uses an alias, or diminuitive form thereof (Ringo Starr / Ringo), on every release for band A, any releases by band A that do not contain any credits has implied usage of the alias.

2) If an artist establishes an alias in accordance with (1) in band A and continues on to band B where he fails to use the alias in a particular album's credits he loses the implied alias for all band B releases that do not carry credits. The "The" loss of the alias only applies to band B.

3) If an artist establishes an alias in accordance with (1) in band A and continues on to band B in which no band B releases contain credits, third party sources should be reviewed to determine whether the established alias is implied on the band B releases. The alias is available for the implied usage until a the "The" violation occurs in band B that forces the loss of the alias.

Does this need to be codified into the Rules?


Kevin

Yes, putting it in the rules would be nice.

Is there a particular reason you elected to reject my proposal?

PK,

I'll look into incorporating it into the Rules then. The reason I didn't go with your suggestion is that quite often we don't have all the releases by a particular band so trying to determine the alias usage based on chronological order can ultimately be based on incomplete data. Another problem is that I can envision a situation where we only have the release years for a number of albums and the ordering of the albums in question could impact the final result. We simply may not know how to order those albums and I don't like having the use of an alias based on something we can't find a concrete answer for. I prefer the blunt approach that has a definitive solution based upon evidence we can produce and that is able to stand up to investigation.


Kevin

I've added the Implied Usage alias rules to the Rules page. I really need to re-orginize the entire Formatting section. Next on the list...


Kevin