Talk:Member of Band Relationship Type

Open Issues

• It would be nice to specify what instrument someone played in a band, not just their membership. This raises questions concerning ArtistRoleInheritance. This might also be an issue for CollaborationRelationshipType. This is now an Advanced Relationship Type Proposal.
• What's the best use of the DateRelationshipAttribute to specify that someone was a founding member of a band, or was in the band when it broke up? I think this question is worth having a separate wiki page for, FoundingMemberDatesQuestion. --MatthewExon
• Can anyone think of an example where one band is a member of another band? That is, a band, not just a collaboration.
  • Just came across this: Tosca String Quartet joined with Glover Gill to form Tosca Tango Orchestra. They've released six albums. See description at http://www.toscastrings.com/tosca_tango.htm. -- jdc0730

• Hi, I was reading the comment about specifying the instruments someone in a band plays. I have added this subcatagory to my proposed SupportingMusicianRelationshipType. This proposal aimed at artists who play on albums (or tour with) solo artist, as people are currently listed as members of other 'people', which is quite messy and inappropriate. Please check it out.

--EdKaye

I (and shep) have implemented this on test:

• artist is/was a{additional:n additional} {instrument} performing member of artist, artist has/had {instrument} performing member artist
• artist is/was a{additional:n additional} {vocal} vocal performing member of artist, artist has/had {additional} {vocal} vocal performing member artist

check it out. ~mo

---

Resolved Issues

What happens when someone performs under several different names during the course of their membership? For example, Tim Commerford of Rage Against the Machine is credited as "Timmy C." on their self-titled album, but "Y.tim.K." on "The Battle of Los Angeles". My suggestion would be that this case should be handled by just choosing something common-sense, like the most widely-known name, or in this case just using the legal name is fine, since it's fairly clear what the alias is referring to. --MatthewExon

• Seems reasonable to me - I think the common sense approach is the right one. --JohnCarter

This was discussed & agreed upon in April 2005. There was however no firm ruling, so it was briefly discussed by the StyleCouncil & agreed upon in May 2005.