"Elvis vs. JXL" vs. VersusStyle

[discHead]

There's a style issue that's caused some difference of opinion between a few other editors and I, and it seems like the kind of thing that should be discussed here.

Here are pertinent facts:
(1) An artist named Jackal XL has a popular remix of Elvis Presley's "A Little Less Conversation" that is promoted under the name "Elvis vs. JXL".
(2) An artist entry for "Elvis vs. JXL" currently exists and has most if not all instances of this remix credited to that name.
(3) An official style guideline, VersusStyle, specifies that when an artist name is a "vs." name and it "means one artist is remixing another, use the original artist as the ArtistName, and put the remixer into the track title as you would with other remixes, following the RemixStyle."

From my standpoint, it seems clear that VersusStyle applies here, meaning that the track should be treated (and entered into the database) as if Elvis Presley was the artist and Jackal XL the remixer.

But according to other editors, since the original single has "Elvis vs. JXL" emblazoned on the cover and the remixes are credited to "Elvis vs. JXL", then that constitutes artist intent, thus warranting leaving Elvis vs. JXL as a distinct artist entry.

This leaves me confused.  On the one hand, I recognize the "Elvis vs. JXL" on the single and in other on-line databases.  On the other hand, it seems to me that those who wrote and agreed on VersusStyle were trying to avoid having "vs." artists in the database as much as possible, and that this is exactly the kind of case they had in mind when they agreed on it.

So is it better to leave "Elvis vs. JXL" as it is, or not?

If so, is it something that could (or should) be codified on the ArtistIntent page as an acceptable exception?

--Larry (a.k.a. discHead)

[Thomas Tholén-3]

On 3/3/07, discHead <stolen-from-nabble@...> wrote:

>From my standpoint, it seems clear that VersusStyle applies here, meaning
that the track should be treated (and entered into the database) as if Elvis
Presley was the artist and Jackal XL the remixer.

...

This leaves me confused.  On the one hand, I recognize the "Elvis vs. JXL"
on the single and in other on-line databases.  On the other hand, it seems
to me that those who wrote and agreed on VersusStyle were trying to avoid
having "vs." artists in the database as much as possible, and that this is
exactly the kind of case they had in mind when they agreed on it.

--Larry (a.k.a. discHead)

I do believe 99% of all existing "vs." tracks are home made bedroom remixes, and that the point to minimize the amount of "vs." artists in the database is to
make these in some sense less important that they could be considered otherwise.

But your other paragraph worries me a bit. Is your proposal that this track should be Elvis Presley - "A Little Less Conversation (Jackal XL remix)", or that such name constructions should ever be made?

//[bnw]

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[Elliot Chance]

On 3/4/07, discHead <stolen-from-nabble@...> wrote:

Here are pertinent facts:
(1) An artist named Jackal XL has a popular remix of Elvis Presley's "A
Little Less Conversation" that is promoted under the name "Elvis vs. JXL".

Not sure where you got 'Jackal' from. It is "Junkie XL"

(2) An artist entry for "Elvis vs. JXL" currently exists and has most if not
all instances of this remix credited to that name.

 

(3) An official style guideline, VersusStyle, specifies that when an artist
name is a "vs." name and it "means one artist is remixing another, use the
original artist as the ArtistName, and put the remixer into the track title
as you would with other remixes, following the RemixStyle."

Yes, and this is a guideline, not a law.

>From my standpoint, it seems clear that VersusStyle applies here, meaning
that the track should be treated (and entered into the database) as if Elvis
Presley was the artist and Jackal XL the remixer.

But according to other editors, since the original single has "Elvis vs.
JXL" emblazoned on the cover and the remixes are credited to "Elvis vs.
JXL", then that constitutes artist intent, thus warranting leaving Elvis vs.
JXL as a distinct artist entry.

That is what I believe. Because the track is always credited to "Elvis vs. JXL", it stands as
artist intent, and therefore becomes its own artist entity.

This leaves me confused.  On the one hand, I recognize the "Elvis vs. JXL"
on the single and in other on-line databases.  On the other hand, it seems
to me that those who wrote and agreed on VersusStyle were trying to avoid
having "vs." artists in the database as much as possible, and that this is
exactly the kind of case they had in mind when they agreed on it.

The style guidelines are more of a comprehensive guideline, they don't encompass every situation
of every artist of all time, and sometimes exceptions have to be made especially if there is artist intent
which supersedes any guideline.

So is it better to leave "Elvis vs. JXL" as it is, or not?

If so, is it something that could (or should) be codified on the
ArtistIntent page as an acceptable exception?

--Larry (a.k.a. discHead)

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22Elvis-vs.-JXL%22-vs.-VersusStyle-tf3340110s2885.html#a9289418
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

--
Elliot
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[discHead]

Elliot Chance wrote:

On 3/4/07, discHead <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Here are pertinent facts:
> (1) An artist named Jackal XL has a popular remix of Elvis Presley's "A
> Little Less Conversation" that is promoted under the name "Elvis vs. JXL".

Not sure where you got 'Jackal' from. It is "Junkie XL"

Quite right.  Junkie XL.  I was not having the best of days yesterday, between that and locking my keys in the car at the grocery store. :-)

Elliot Chance wrote:

Because the track is always credited to "Elvis vs. JXL", it stands as artist intent, and therefore becomes its own artist entity.

Okay.  Now, assuming that to be the case, let's take a look at the soundtrack for Las Vegas (http://musicbrainz.org/release/55389086-9068-4457-a239-4178ea527c58.html).  Follow the link from the annotation there to the record label's information on that soundtrack.  (Their website is down as I write this, so if you can't get to it, let's just treat this as a theoretical exercise.)

Here are the questions raised by the record label's information:
(1) IIRC, they have the track credited to "Elvis Presley (remix by JXL)".  Is it still okay to leave the artist as "Elvis vs. JXL"?  (I am guessing yes, since this album's credit seems to be the odd one out in this case.)
(2) Another track on the same album is credited to "Wayne Newton vs. the Legion of Doom".  How do we decide whether that, too, is a case of "artist intent", or whether it needs to be broken up as per VersusStyle?

--Larry

[Jan van Thiel-3]

On 3/4/07, discHead <stolen-from-nabble@...> wrote:

> Elliot Chance wrote:
> >
> > On 3/4/07, discHead <stolen-from-nabble@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Here are pertinent facts:
> >> (1) An artist named Jackal XL has a popular remix of Elvis Presley's "A
> >> Little Less Conversation" that is promoted under the name "Elvis vs.
> >> JXL".
> >
> > Not sure where you got 'Jackal' from. It is "Junkie XL"
> >
>
> Quite right.  Junkie XL.  I was not having the best of days yesterday,
> between that and locking my keys in the car at the grocery store. :-)
>
>
> Elliot Chance wrote:
> >
> > Because the track is always credited to "Elvis vs. JXL", it stands as
> > artist intent, and therefore becomes its own artist entity.
> >
>
> Okay.  Now, assuming that to be the case, let's take a look at the
> soundtrack for Las Vegas
> (http://musicbrainz.org/release/55389086-9068-4457-a239-4178ea527c58.html).
> Follow the link from the annotation there to the record label's information
> on that soundtrack.  (Their website is down as I write this, so if you can't
> get to it, let's just treat this as a theoretical exercise.)
>
> Here are the questions raised by the record label's information:
> (1) IIRC, they have the track credited to "Elvis Presley (remix by JXL)".
> Is it still okay to leave the artist as "Elvis vs. JXL"?  (I am guessing
> yes, since this album's credit seems to be the odd one out in this case.)
> (2) Another track on the same album is credited to "Wayne Newton vs. the
> Legion of Doom".  How do we decide whether that, too, is a case of "artist
> intent", or whether it needs to be broken up as per VersusStyle?

I'd say: keep it like "Wayne Newton vs. The Legion of Doom".

VersusStyle is not very clear and could use a rewrite.

Jan (zout)

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

[discHead]

Jan van Thiel-3 wrote:

VersusStyle is not very clear and could use a rewrite.

I don't agree.  But since there is still disagreement, is this something that's better discussed on the mb-style list?

--Larry

[discHead]

Jan van Thiel-3 wrote:

VersusStyle is not very clear and could use a rewrite.

Actually, this may be a case where we're trying to solve a problem with a style debate that's better solved by improving the advanced relationships.  I'm thinking something like "artist X is the name of a remix project where artist Y remixes artist Z" or "artist X is the name of a remix/mashup project where artists Y and Z are mashed up by someone else."  Maybe that would make everyone happy.

--Larry