Currently, I'm working with an "Artist" with the type "Group," but the "Artist" in question actually just holds a recurring compilation. The decision to be made here is whether these recurring compilations should continue to go to this "Group," or Various Artists. An argument can be made for both. The most obvious is that the compilation has various artists making tracks, so it belongs under Various Artists. But a "group" would be nice because we can eventually add some of the recurring artists as members. Here's the problem: "Group" is described in the editor as a group of musicians that perform together, which does not generally happen in compilations.

I propose we add a new "artist" type called the "collective." It does not imply that the members create each song together, and that's why the individual track artists aren't also listed as the "artist" which the compilation release itself is credited to. It does imply that there is a set of artists that will all release songs together, and that we can eventually add these artists as relationships.

Long story short, this new "collective" would acknowledge that it is composed of various artists, while also promoting the use of relationships ("member of / has members" in particular) to tell MusicBrainz who is a part of it. As we have it now, "Group" is misleading because these collectives are not bands, and putting these releases under Various Artists neglects the fact there is a recurring set of artists in a literal group that makes these releases.