Multiple Artists - Same Name

I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but just in case some thoughts on the matter....

Currently the way to handle this is by adding a bracketed number, e.g. [1]. Would it be better to use a nationality or genre, e.g. [Sweden] or [Jazz]?

Using this alternative method would better differentiate between artists and in a more informative way, especially with drop-down boxes for submissions and internal hyper-links.

Our new editor, Moe, is keen on this. Not sure what other editors think.

I like the idea, although I can see problems developing a standard approach (especially with lots of strong-minded editors ).

Perhaps an official pecking order...

First... Nationality (as this is objective)

Second.. If two bands are from same country, Genre (broad like Jazz, Rock, Reggae, rather than sub-genre like Hard Rock, Punk, Bubblegum)

Third... Well, I have no clue here

Moe & VV (if you can), read this first:

https://secondhandsongs.com/topic/27280?offset=0#m104399

I'm also keen on this idea from day 1, but I must admit, some cases are pretty much unsolvable. Example: "Dave Stewart" both UK, same time frame, same genre. Still, I think this should not hold us back from lighter cases.

Last edit: 2017-06-30 09:28:41 UTC by walt

Perhaps an official pecking order...

First... Nationality (as this is objective)

Second.. If two bands are from same country, Genre (broad like Jazz, Rock, Reggae, rather than sub-genre like Hard Rock, Punk, Bubblegum)

Third... Sub-Genre, e.g. Heavy Metal, New Wave, Smooth Jazz

Fourth... Related group, e.g. Dave Stewart [Eurythmics]

Fifth... Birth year

Quote from VirileVagabond

Perhaps an official pecking order...

First... Nationality (as this is objective)

Second.. If two bands are from same country, Genre (broad like Jazz, Rock, Reggae, rather than sub-genre like Hard Rock, Punk, Bubblegum)

Third... Sub-Genre, e.g. Heavy Metal, New Wave, Smooth Jazz

Fourth... Related group, e.g. Dave Stewart [Eurythmics]

Fifth... Birth year

I think this might be overthinking it slightly, if it's too complex or the rules are too open for interpretation/opinion, it won't be used or won't be used right.

It could be as simple as If two artists have the same name and are from the same country, then

1. Use the most identifying trait, i.e. group affiliation.
David Jones [UK][Monkees]
David Jones [UK][Bowie]
David Jones [UK][1770s musical pirate]
-----------------
Dave Stewart [UK][Eurythmics]
Dave Stewart [UK][Lives off royalty checks sent to the wrong address]

2. If no clear identifying trait, or identifier considered too obscure, then:
John Jane Doe [N/A][DISAMBIGUATION]
John Jane Doe [N/A][DISAMBIGUATION][1]

My calculations show this would cover 99% of most cases a hundred percent

m.

Yes I think that would work well. I also prefer to keep things as simple as possible. Thanks VV and Moe

Quote from walt

Moe & VV (if you can), read this first:

https://secondhandsongs.com/topic/27280?offset=0#m104399

Check!

Quote from Quentin

today I create John Smith [US], tomorrow I create John Smith [UK]. If the day after tomorrow I create another American John Smith, should he be John Smith [US] [1] ?

Yes, that's more or less exactly what I think should happen. We have a choice between

John Smith - Some rando dude with one entry in SHS
John Smith [1] - minor, but likable C&W artist from the seventies
John Smith [2] - Someone
John Smith [3] - Household name, Grammy Award winning superstar from America
John Smith [4] - Respected Jazz musician

...this doesn't scale very well at all and it offers no clues as to which J.Smith is which. Or we could do

John Smith [NL] - The rando. Turns out he's Dutch!
John Smith [UK] - Still just someone, but someone from Britain
John Smith [US] - I love that guy!
John Smith [US][C&W ] - The Nashville cowboy
John Smith [US][Jazz] - Ugh, jazz, it's just noise

I think that's much more useful, creating a list that makes sense just by glancing at it.

I wouldn't think it wouldn't be too complicated until the rare occasions that one gets to the third or lower tiers.

Quote from VirileVagabond

I wouldn't think it wouldn't be too complicated until the rare occasions that one gets to the third or lower tiers.

I agree, and I love your idea. I'm just saying let's keep it as simple as possible by default.

[Country]+[Identifier, if needed]

Already this is a yuge improvement over what we have now, imo.

Count me in, can't wait to begin...

But before we do, we should convince more people!

Last edit: 2017-07-02 14:16:22 UTC by walt

Quote from walt

But before we do, we should convince more people!

Being relatively new to the site - what's the best way to do that? Leading by example maybe or is there another "proper way". We could always ask for a read receipt on this thread, those seem to be popular

a) I would assume that there is already a rule regarding these situations, which would need to be followed until officially changed.

b) Are there not editor meetings to discuss SHS business?

As a typical reference case, I just stumbled into this one: https://secondhandsongs.com/case/73230

Quote from VirileVagabond

a) I would assume that there is already a rule regarding these situations, which would need to be followed until officially changed.

b) Are there not editor meetings to discuss SHS business?

Yes, there's an official guideline regarding this situation, and yes, the matter should be (and indeed has been) discussed internally.

That doesn't mean that we don't appreciate suggestions and fresh ideas, especially when they come from users who, by definition, use the site; editors sometimes have a more behind-the-scenes, I-know-how-it-works mentality.

Personally, I'm in favour of using specific identifiers for labels (country, dates...) but I don't see how using specific identifiers for artists could be a solution. It certainly wouldn't hurt, but would it solve our problems?

As an editor, if I want to add a song written or performed by John Smith, I need to search for "John Smith" to see if the artist is in the database. If I find three John Smiths, I have to make sure that my John Smith is one of them. It doesn't really matter if they are [1] or [1961] or [US] or [Free Jazz-Punk], I will still need to check their pages to see if we're really talking about the same artist.

Quote from Quentin

It doesn't really matter if they are [1] or [1961] or [US] or [Free Jazz-Punk], I will still need to check their pages to see if we're really talking about the same artist.

If you are entering a free jazz-punk track or you know you are entering an American artist your last two examples would absolutely help you - with John Smith [1] you would have to go check.

And that's my point; using a number offers no information or usefulness other than to flag multiple same-named artist. Using the ISO Alpha-2 is standardized and carries actual meaning. This goes a long way in streamlining the workflow imo.

Also it's an established practise by several submitters to ISWC, like this one I stumbled over today:

Mark Hudson - IPI 00040696482 / HUDSON (US) MARK

Speaking from a senior (old-style ) editor's point of view, you are always supposed to check if there are artists with the same name. That's the only way to avoid (or reduce) errors.

Labels are a bit different, for me at least: the moment I add a release, it's because I know everything there is to know, including the label, but I still have to pay attention moving inside the maze of sublabels, record companies, local branches, name variations... Therefore, a [Germany] or a [1937-1961] makes all the difference.

Any news from the big poo-bahs on this matter? I'd like to avoid submissions for a new artists [1] just to have some editor change it later.

Also, just think of all those wonderful error reports to file to change exiting entries!

I agree with Walt, Moe and VV that moving away from numbers to, say, country descriptors would really help avoid confusion in the future, both for editors and more importantly those submitting new covers.

Labels seem to be less contentious. Shall we start with them and see how we get on?

Sure, start with labels, good idea.