ZZ Top

I agree with misterpomp. Seems like cheating, but it is what it is according to our rules.

This doesn't feel right. David Lee Roth's solo band isn't allowed but this is?

I agree - but we have to have some way of codifying the relationships. If Sheehan/Vai and the drummer with the bad wig couldn't get any sort of billing in the band name then we have to (even though we don't believe it) take it that the were totally subservient to DLR. We end up with problems like this, I agree but is there another objective way of doing it?

The other way to do it would be to create a rule that says a list of first and last names does not equal a band. It would need lots of tweeking and re-editing what is in the dB.

I don't like that option.

That would disbar any collaborations. It's an interesting view and opens up the whole basis of the site. Many people visting this site would say that our definition of linkage is already very tight since sessions musicians or indeed long-term musicians backing a solo act get no recognition. We have a ruling which (in my view) is completely arbitrary that by never having released anything under a particular name, that band/artist name can then conjoin with another band / artist in a way that we deem more meaningful than if there are prior releases. We then extend that so that you can drag your artist/band name round multiple collaborations that we recognise as bands, as long as you never use it properly 'solo'. That means that Lemmy/Dave/Billy = a band, but that (say) Sutherland Brothers and Quiver who effectively merge into a single band mid-career are left as unlinked. There is no doubt which group was a proper group, and it's not the one we recognise. However, we need to codify somehow and if that's my bugbear and Python's is Steve Vai in DLR's first band, so be it.

I think the restriction you suggest would work against many genuine collaborations (unless we had more arbitrary exemptions: 2 names OK? 3? 4? genre-specific?) and that our current rules are only an imperfect solution in that they attempt to resolve an insoluble issue.

"our current rules are only an imperfect solution in that they attempt to resolve an insoluble issue."

I think this statement applies to quite a few of the situations that come up on the site.

The reason, from what I remember, for collabs not being bands was so that some lame rap act would not be linked directly to some kickin rock band (can't remember which or what) when they worked together on some soundtrack album.

My view was always: they worked together, they deserve to be linked in the DB together, despite how ugly it makes history look.

Besides, if we treated *all* collabs as bands, we'd be able to get Roy Harper in the DB, on the strength of Jugula. Which would be excellent

I am not advocating guests as being included (yet), so Roy Harper's contribution to Floyd's Wish You Were Here would not be documented here.

Independent of this thread, I was thinking almost the exact same thing this weekend, Matt. The connectivity rules are/were set up to somehow decrease "cheating" but I don't know if they are a good reflection of reality. If X and Y recorded and released something together, then X and Y did something worth documenting here. Why penalize them for their band name?

I agree. The current rule has less merit than it causes problems, particularly the issue of 'prior material'. Do we really think that very many of these people to whom we assign 'no prior material' status didn't do a demo, a cassette, a something that, when we find it, will unwind all our labour of proving that the collab could be connected?

Misterpomp's last post the best argument against distinguishing the two different types of collabs. I think they way we do it makes sense, but how do we know we are catching everything?

As for X and Y working together, if they were really "working together" as a band, then they would have a band name. This is the argument against including any collaborations as bands.

Just a couple random thoughts.

If we disallow all collabs as "connected bands" then that breaks great chunks off our DB. If, OTOH, we allow all collabs as "connectable" entities, whether as proper "bands" or just as "collaborations", then we allow a great deal more connectivity into the equation.

While I understand that the structure of the software causes the app to feel ill if all bands are not rigorously part of The One Tree, might it be possible to amend it in some way such that collaborations still allow the DB to hang together consistently?

How can ZZ Top still elude us?

Because they're Bad and they're Nationwide.

I never knew the title of that song! Thanks... I think.

Now that we allow '... & Friends'-situations as bands (in some cases), perhaps this could be a band too:
[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/Various-Just-Tell-Me-That-You-Want-Me-A-Tribute-To-Fleetw...
"Billy Gibbons & Co. - Oh Well: Bass, Guitar, Drums – Blake Mills/ Drums – Danielle Haim/ Electric Guitar, Vocals – Billy Gibbons/ Guitar – Matt Sweeney"

Would get Billy Gibbons in, and Haim as well...