On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:38 AM, SwissChris <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can't see your problem (and not only because of your elaborate english > syntax ;-). The rationale behind sort names is to find all my Jimi Hendrix > discs (with or without "Experience") and all my Bill Haley releases (with or > without "The Comets") at the same place in a sorted list. The guidelines as > implemented now do exactly this. Or am I missing something? > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 2010/3/13 Brian Schweitzer <[email protected]> >> >> We've addressed this type of thing many times before: >>> >>> Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble >>> Don Redman and His Orchestra >>> Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine >>> Bob Marley and the Wailers >>> Bill Haley & The Comets. >>> >>> Similarly, with: >>> >>> The Sensational Alex Harvey Band >>> The Jimi Hendrix Experience >>> The Alan Parsons Project >>> Ben Folds Five >>> Dave Matthews Band >>> >>> Now it's Lew Stone & His Monseigneur Band's turn. >>> >>> Sortname Style should be relatively simple to follow. Admittedly, it has >>> 6 guidelines, but http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SortNameStyle#Guidelinesis >>> pretty clear. The problem always seems to come with >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SortNameStyle#Guidelines #5, when compared >>> to the examples. >>> >>> Prior to last year, whenever this came up, #5 was the ultimate answer >>> (even though the wrong answer was often given :P). The guideline was >>> simple: >>> >>> If it is a case of "[Artist 1] and [Artist 2]" - two individual artists, >>> aka a "workaround" artist - the sortname was "[sortname for Artist 1] and >>> [sortname for Artist 2]". >>> If it is a case of "[Artist and Artist]" - one individual artist which >>> happened to contain "and" in the name - then the two sides of the "and" word >>> were not separately sort-name-ized. >>> >>> Then came this RFV: >>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2009-March/007713.html >>> >>> While it should have been implemented by changing guideline #6 of the >>> style from >>> >>> "All parts of a sort name are separated by ", " (comma and space). " >>> >>> to >>> >>> >>> "Artist names that contain a person's name (usually eponymous band names) >>> sort as the person primarily, with remaining identifiers as comma-separated >>> suffixes. Examples: "The Sensational Alex Harvey Band" has sort name >>> "Harvey, Alex, Sensational, Band, The". "The Jimi Hendrix Experience" has >>> sort name "Hendrix, Jimi, Experience, The"." >>> >>> it was instead implemented by leaving #6 as it was, and inserting that >>> language into the examples section instead, as: >>> ----- >>> Artist names that contain a person's name (usually eponymous band names) >>> sort as the person primarily, with remaining identifiers as comma-separated >>> suffixes. "The Sensational Alex Harvey Band" has sort name "Harvey, >>> Alex, Sensational, Band, The". "The Jimi Hendrix Experience" has sort >>> name "Hendrix, Jimi, Experience, The". -----There are a few problems >>> here. First, this text is now not a part of the guideline text; it's >>> instead tucked away down in the examples. Also, while it was intended, from >>> the RFC discussion, to apply to the second set of artists: >>> >>> The Sensational Alex Harvey Band >>> The Jimi Hendrix Experience >>> The Alan Parsons Project >>> Ben Folds Five >>> Dave Matthews Band >>> >>> it is now being applied to the first set as well: >>> >>> Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble >>> Don Redman and His Orchestra >>> Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine >>> Bob Marley and the Wailers >>> Bill Haley & The Comets >>> Lew Stone & His Monseigneur Band >>> >>> This puts this part of the guideline (the "eponymous clause") in direct >>> contradiction with #5 (the "collaborating artists" clause). >>> >>> Per the collaborating artists clause, "Bill Haley & The Comets" sorts as >>> "Bill Haley & The Comets", because The Comets was not a separate artist, and >>> therefore "Bill Haley & The Comets" is not a case of a collaborating artist. >>> >>> However, since that 2009 RFV, per the eponymous clause, "Bill Haley & The >>> Comets" now sorts as " Haley, Bill & The Comets" not because it is a >>> collaboration, but because it has someone's name in the name. This wasn't >>> the intent. The intent was only that artists in the first group be >>> affected; >>> >>> "The Sensational Alex Harvey Band" sorting as "Harvey, Alex, Sensational, >>> Band, The" and not as "Sensational Alex Harvey Band, The" >>> >>> or >>> >>> "The Jimi Hendrix Experience" sorting as "Hendrix, Jimi, Experience, The" >>> and not as "Jimi Hendrix Experience, The". >>> >>> The application of that clause, now, to the other group (the "some name & >>> the someones" types) essentially makes moot guideline #5. This was not the >>> intent, nor was it discussed when the eponymous clause was proposed. The >>> even more recent RFV that removed "Bob Marley and the Wailers" (old example >>> sortname: "Marley, Bob & Wailers, The"), and the RFV that specifically >>> removed Bill Haley & His Comets (old example sortname "Haley, Bill & His >>> Comets") as an incorrect application of #5, both would seem to indicate that >>> the desire is that, for the "some name & the someones" type of artist, the >>> intent still is that the eponymous clause not apply, and that that clause >>> *only* apply to the "The Sensational Alex Harvey Band" type of name. >>> >>> So, how can we fix this guideline? Part of the problem stems from the >>> RFV being applied to the guideline in a way different than described by the >>> RFV, but even if it were implemented properly, the contradiction and problem >>> would remain. >>> >> >> I spotted a sentence with 85 words :-D Please Brian, have mercy on users >> who only learned English at school! Especially when the subject is rather >> difficult like this! >> >> "The Jimi Hendrix Experience" -> "Hendrix, Jimi, Experience, The" (a) / >> "Jimi Hendrix Experience, The" (b). >> Which of (a) or (b) is wrongly applied from the RFV? Which would you >> prefer? >> >> -- >> Frederic Da Vitoria >> (davitof) >> > I don't see a problem here at all, the purpose of that March 2009 guideline change was to "...indicate that in the case where an artist name contains the name of a person, that it sort per the person's name, not as a fictitious name." [1] I agree with that change, and I'm not sure why you think Bill Haley & The Comets, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, or Lew Stone & His Monseigneur Band offer different cases as to which type of sortname to use. They all contain the name of a person and thus, should all sort per that person's name. The only hurdle to this is that the example/text for the exception listed at [2] doesn't contain a more meaningful example, nor does it point to the The Jimi Hendrix Experience example section near the bottom of the examples. As for the RFV being applied to the guideline in a different manner than was stated, I take responsibility for that. Paul did indeed amend the last bullet point of #6 like he says he'll do in the RFV [3]. However about a month later I edited the page to split the examples from the guidelines in order to make the page more consistent with how examples are given in other guidelines, and to generally make the page more readable. [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2009-March/007713.html [2] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SortNameStyle#Collaborating_Artists [3] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Sortname_Style&oldid=28763 Pavan Chander // navap
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
