[Hayden]

Hello AM, BEA—

This has most likely been suggested before, or at least discussed, but I'm wondering if BEA's code is situated for a potential update on considering solely the overall umbrella/parent artist as representation for stat composition. This would not consider splits/collaborations/joint projects, etc, just the artist's overall 'tree'—

Currently, when I look at my 'listened composition' or the 'overall chart composition', etc, and sort by artist, it separates artists from their branches, despite them being listed on the artist's actual page. Artists with multiple personas/band names/group names don't seem to quite get their proper representation, and end up scattered throughout the composition's rankings instead of an overall tally.

This is not about Sun Ra in particular, but I feel like it's one of the better examples of the situation. I'm going to use stats from my personal listening composition as an example.

My listened composition states I have listened to the following—
Sun Ra — 11

However, when you dive deeper, Sun Ra has many multiple entries, including—
Sun Ra And His Arkestra — 7
Sun Ra And His Myth Science Arkestra — 6
Sun Ra And His Solar Arkestra — 5
Sun Ra And His Astro-Infinity Arkestra — 2

Which, are all kinda the same thing—
Including all non-collab variations, a more realistic stat would state I've listened to 31 Sun Ra albums, not 11.

For a second example, something similar with Oscar Peterson—
(I do find this issue persists primarily with jazz musicians, who flipflop bandleading trios/quartets/solo, etc)
My listened composition states I have listened to the following—

Oscar Peterson — 19
Oscar Peterson Trio — 18
Oscar Peterson Quartet — 2

I feel a sole stat of 'Oscar Peterson — 39' would be easier to search/comb through, and represent the artist's prominence slightly better than it currently does. Although I have listened to over double the amount of albums from Oscar Peterson than I have, say The Beatles (19), it is not represented as such in the composition's tally.

When looking at overall composition stats via artist credit, would it be a popular idea to tally these albums under a sole parent/umbrella, utilizing the variations stat on the artist pages? If the current method is preferred, understood, as technically they're 'different', but I don't quite find this a particularly easy or accurate way to sort stats, and I feel like we have the background data to summarize artist's stats under their main parent.

Like I said, if this is not popular, or doable, it is not the end of the world, but I feel it would help tidy things up a smidge, and represent artist's discography a little better on our charts. Are there complications? Yes. But all I'm asking is for tallies to count all variations of an artist's parent ID umbrella, and we'd leave it at that.

Thoughts?
_________________
Doubles & Conch

[albummaster]

[Hayden]

Also thinking of the potential repercussions of doing so, but for the most part I can't think of any major negatives (by all means, artists are already given a parent ID)—

This wouldn't apply to collaborations, general credits, etc, etc, as it is now, just the overall parent umbrella/ID—

This would be a recommendation for the entire site, note just the personal listened stats. I think looking at the artist breakdown on charts and seeing—

Miles Davis —10 albums
Miles Davis All-Stars — 3 albums
Miles Davis Quintet — 3 albums
Miles Davis + 19 — 3 albums
Miles Davis Sextet — 3 albums
Miles Davis And The Lighthouse All-Stars — 3 albums
etc...
(not real numbers)

—ranked individually in the stats, doesn't properly represent the weight of the primary artist's 25 albums.
And, I mean, nor is it too fun to fish through stuff with ctrl+F, or miss things completely, etc—

(Or, like your example with Prince)

It wouldn't change anything else. Just what's represented on stat breakdowns.
_________________
Doubles & Conch

[albummaster]

[Hayden]

[Hayden]

Additional note—

In the chart summary (top box) where it states the 'top artists' of that period (i.e. the 50s) it currently includes the following—

1950s decade summary
The best artists of the 1950s were Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, Frank Sinatra, Charles Mingus, Elvis Presley, Art Blakey, Thelonious Monk, Billie Holiday, The Dave Brubeck Quartet and Duke Ellington.

With this potential update, I would lean towards only parent IDs being valid for these situations, so we wouldn't have Brubeck listed twice. I'm under the impression that all of the points that are being tallied for the The Dave Brubeck Quartet to land in the top 10 are being counted again under Brubeck's ID umbrella.

A similar circumstance happens with our top-ranked artists of the 60s—

1960s decade summary
The best artists of the 1960s were The Beatles, The Velvet Underground, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Beach Boys, The Velvet Underground & Nico, The Doors, Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones.

And yes, credit is where credit is due, but we essentially have a redundancy here. Hendrix really only needs to be represented once. Does it get tricky sometimes? Yes. Would all of (i.e.) John Lennon's points be tallied within the Beatles parent ID? No, different project, solo work, etc. It wouldn't consider the work of 'members', just the overall parent ID.

(This happens again with Nat King Cole in the 50s, but you get the point)
_________________
Doubles & Conch

[Johnnyo]

Sounds like an interesting idea. One artists for me who stands out is Neil Young

So many collaborations, Neil Young And Promise Of The Real, Neil Young & The Chrome Hearts, Neil Young With The Santa Monica Flyers to name just three

Will be interesting to see how this pans out

[albummaster]

[Hayden]