Collaborations Change

Rule 6 dealing with collaborations has changed to better reflect reality.
[bandtoband.com] https://bandtoband.com/rules#rule-6-with-or-without-you

TLDR:
- solo artist collaborations no longer need the "prior release" clause
- collabs with 3 or more parties, which includes a band, are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis

--

The change for solo artists is because this is not a band:
Happy Traum · Artie Traum · Maria Muldaur · John Herald · Eric Kaz · Jim Rooney · Bill Keith · Toni Brown · Lee Berg
It simply isn't.

If they used non-solo artist names and didn't all have previous releases, this hypothetically would be a band:
Traum / Muldaur / Kaz / Rooney

just as this is a band:
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young

--

It's too hard to construct a Rule that would properly reflect the realities of mega-collaborations. Therefore, if it more than 2 parties including a band (as solo artists has just been discussed above) we'll rule on them individually.

For example, this should not be a band:
Salt-N-Pepa · Kool Moe Dee · Grand Daddy I.U. · Ms. Melodie · Ziggy Marley · Kid Capri · DMC · KRS-One · Chuck D. · Doug E. Fresh · Red Alert

There are too many edge-cases for one Rule To Rule Them All, however not so many edge-cases that we can't handle rulings on each so that's what we'll do.

--

I'm putting together a quick action to duplicate existing non-band collaborations that are currently live and putting additional copies into the queue so that certain albums can be broken up rapidly. Some connections may be lost, but we'll deal with them by hand. We simply need to reflect reality better with our Collaboration Rules.


Kevin


Daryl Hall · John Oats will be a casualty of these new Rules as, amazingly, they never released anything as "Hall & Oats" but always by the full solo artist collaboration name.

I'm a bit confused. If the "prior release" clause no longer applies to solo artists, why does Rule 6b.1 still mention "prior release" 3 times? It's as if the new rule got sidetracked into talking to those in the know about the old rule, and missed laying down how the ruling works now. Can 6b.1 be rewritten without mentioning "prior", encompassing releases from any time?

I mean, we're told Daryl Hall · John Oats [sic] is a collab, and we're told that's no longer due to their prior release situation, but it's unclear what /did/ trigger their solo artist designation now. Is it:
a.) As soon as one of Daryl Hall or John Oates had a solo release, indicating that they are separable entities (1969 single below meaning they were never a band for B2B purposes)
b.) When both Daryl Hall and John Oates had solo releases (very first solo from Oates is on the 1986 About Last Night soundtrack, meaning Daryl Hall · John Oates was historically a band for B2B purposes for about 14 years at least)
c.) The fact they used their full names in the collab name

Unfortunately B2B's mistaken in thinking "the lack of prior releases by either party" as Daryl had a solo single in 1969:
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/master/860228-Daryl-Hall-A-Lonely-Girl

I got similarly lost when you said Traum / Muldaur / Kaz / Rooney could hypothetically be a band based on "previous releases". It might make sense once you answer the above, but I'm not sure I understood "non-solo artist names".

To continue the topic of aliases/shortened solo artist names (such as Nas). They're not in B2B, but when would Sofi Tukker stop being a band? Is it one or both of "Sofi" and "Tukker" who has to release solo material, and would they have to release it under those exact names? (Note it's come up before that a collab can have no keyword, in which case we still identify the collab and use a middle dot, eg. Built To Spill Caustic Resin: [bandtoband.com] https://bandtoband.com/album/built-to-spill/s-t )

A similar hypothetical one would be if the DJ was never considered a 3rd member of Salt 'N' Pepa. Would they still be a band solely because neither Salt nor Pepa have solo releases? Could something as minor as the snippets from Salt on this promo defeat that?
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/release/19411384-Various-EMI-Music-Celebrates-Black-Musi...


I loved the simplicity of the prior release rule, ie. Simon & Garfunkel is a band, Lou Reed & Metallica is not. It was actually one of my favourite things about the site. I get that it allowed some quirky entries. My previous idea to solve that was basically to have a 2nd "wider" tree of bands including all non-connective collabs, full roster on charity singles, broadway cast numbers etc. I realise how crazy that may be.

The way I imagine that working is:
1.) You come across a collab such as Salt-N-Pepa · Kool Moe Dee et al. you wish to enter. But since several of the participants can't be connected any other way, you enter it as one album and tick a 'Secondary Tree' box that excludes the album from Family Tree and Stats and wherever else it makes sense to do so.
2.) When you map a link between two bands/artists, have a box to tick to optionally include all such albums in the search path. This would include collab albums that were able to be entered individually for each party, so eg. Lou Reed & Metallica would be 0 steps apart if searching with the box ticked.


As an aside, Hall & Oates has definitely released things under the shorter name, eg.
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/release/2176268-Hall-Oates-Sara-Smile
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/master/522336-Hall-Oates-Ecstasy-On-The-Edge

Excellent points, I'll try addressing them one-by-one so no single post gets too long to read.

"Can 6b.1 be rewritten without mentioning "prior", encompassing releases from any time?"

Absolutely. I went through so many edits for this Rule that I got stuck in my own head and lost track of the clarity of the text itself.

I've now edited the text of Rule 6(b) - 1 to drop the "prior" text.

Please let me know if that portion is more clear now before I attempt to address your other concerns so we can stay in sync with any additional Rule edits.

Thanks.


Kevin


Also, please excuse my reckless example of Hall & Oats without a full knowledge of their history.

Makes more sense! I'm now thinking Rule 6 feels a bit clunky because 6a. only addresses bands (which the word 'subsequent' applies to). Then solo artists crash the party in 6b. The solution could be to make 6a. a bit wishy-washy, given 6b. refines things. How about if it said something like:

6a. A collaboration is defined as two independent parties performing in conjunction. Typically bands whose subsequent recorded material is released under the billing of their current band names joined by a collaboration keyword such as "and."

That allows room for the atypical: keywordless collabs such as Built To Spill Caustic Resin or a hypothetical "Lou Reed Metallica", or solo artists who are dealt with differently.

I also suggest changes to wording as follows:
- fix spelling of Oates in 6b. 1
- 6d. should perhaps say "additional members" instead of "additional artists", since 'artists' could encompass guests on an album
- Rule 4f. also needs fixing as it references a "4(d)", but there's no 4d. any more.


Anyway, I think I understand more now:
- Traum / Muldaur / Kaz / Rooney can be a band because those artists haven't adopted their surnames as stage names and/or made it big enough to be recognised that way, unlike say the mention of Eno in Rule 4.

- Daryl Hall · John Oates isn't a band because they used their full names, per Rule 4. So similarly we'd need to add Nicoletta Stephanz in an actual band to save her being deleted from B2B:
[bandtoband.com] https://bandtoband.com/band/daevid-allen-and-nicoletta-stephanz

Still murky on Sofi Tukker's hypothetical future. If only Tukker forges a solo career under the name "Tukker", he'd be demonstrating he's an independent party. So either we'd have to argue "Sofi Tukker" doesn't create "the appearance of a collaboration" (band still eligible), or given we have to choose between 6b.1 & 6b.2, "Sofi" is now obviously also a solo stage name despite her never releasing any solo material (band ineligible). I don't think we should treat it any differently than if the band had been named Sofi + Tukker.

You're right about Rule 6, it needs a good deal of cleaning up. Your edits are good ones and I will work on incorporating them. Improving clarity is always in our interest.

"- Traum / Muldaur / Kaz / Rooney can be a band because those artists haven't adopted their surnames as stage names and/or made it big enough to be recognised that way, unlike say the mention of Eno in Rule 4."

This is 100% correct.

"Daryl Hall · John Oates isn't a band because they used their full names, per Rule 4. "

Again, right on the mark. It is too difficult to determine whether every group of solo artists intended to be 1) a band or 2) a collaboration of individuals. We're now defaulting to 'always a collaboration' rather than 'always a band.'

Also, by defaulting to 'always a collaboration' we make our lives easier as we do not need to hunt for prior material for each and every solo artist. I've already unwound multiple "bands' into solo artist collabs two of which, upon further review, revealed that every single solo artist had prior material that hadn't been surfaced at the time of going live on B2B. These should have been collabs from the start even by the old Rules but the historical record wasn't fully available at the time.

Lastly and a bit unrelated, from a band vs collaboration perspective, we want to allow ourselves the room to distinguish between:

'Daryl Hall · John Oates'
vs
'Hall & Oates'

as two different entities. Legally these can be considered two different groups in terms of royalties. For B2B this is also a non-trivial name change and should not be aliased.


Kevin

Thanks to Bloopy, I've just become aware of this rule change. I don't think that I like it much.

Does 6b(1) [in combination with 6c] say that two or more solo artists can never be a band? Regardless of whether they ever had any solo releases? Even if they use an alias that they don't otherwise use?

I realize that occasionally, something will have to be undone under the old rule, but this seems like a hammer in search of a nail and is a big change after 20 years.

Under the change, if they use an alias that they don't otherwise use, that's supposedly acceptable. That's what I was working out above to clarify why Kevin said Traum / Muldaur / Kaz / Rooney could be a band. As long as the alias can't be established as a solo artist under Rule 4 (which says little about releases). So Bono / Eno / Slash surely couldn't be a band even if Bono had no solo releases, given his "Bono" stage name is so ubiquitous and credited/guesting all over the place (in reality he has the occasional solo compilation appearance, eg. the Honeymoon In Vegas soundtrack).

It's still murky to me though. 6c only applies when at least one of the collaborators is a band. So let's expand my most murky example from December into a list of two:

1.) Eno / Slash / Newguy
2.) Sofi Tukker

Eno / Slash / Newguy is comparable to Kevin's example of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, especially if you think of that as established act(s) plus one newbie on the end, ie. Crosby, Stills & Nash / Young. This raises some questions:
i.) Are we saying Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young is acceptable only because Neil Young never established his stage name as "Young"? (ie. it's irrelevant that Crosby, Stills, Nash aren't stage names individually when the trio has prior releases)
ii.) Since "Newguy" and "Young" aren't solo artists under Rule 4, are we saying they're "bands" by default, thus triggering rule 6c, ie. subject to case-by-case interpretation where Kevin may yet tell us Eno / Slash / Newguy still can't be a band because it looks almost as silly as the stuff the new rule was intended to prevent?
iii.) What if Newguy finally adopts that stage name properly in the year 2075 during a career resurgence in old age? Under this change we can potentially expect to delete entire corners of the B2B tree decades after they were entered, if we're still alive to enforce it.

Sofi Tukker was my example where neither has solo releases. This is similar to what rule 6d is getting at: if Jam Master Jay had never joined Run-DMC, then Run-DMC is just a non-connective solo artist collab because without knowledge of current B2B they simply combined their stage names Run & DMC. The sole difference to my knowledge is that Sophie and Tucker have yet to really adopt "Sofi" and "Tukker". I could see them getting more famous until the origins of the band name are so well known that their stage names are assumed to be ||Sofi and ||Tukker and they get called that everywhere, whether they intended for that to happen or not. So they slide into Rule 4a over time. leading to the possibility that if Sofi Tukker is ever entered into B2B, it may only be for a few years before it's time to delete them again.

So I don't like it much either. I think I like my idea of a 2nd "wider" tree the most. I realise a tree with 2 different types of edges is that much more complex.

Bumping this to discuss Broadway casts. I entered one here:
[bandtoband.com] https://bandtoband.com/queue/album/109629

Seems as much like a band as a lot of other things we include.

Aside from any technical aspects, there's also the philosophical question of why we'd want to link solo artist mega-collabs and Broadway casts. On the against side, I figure Kevin didn't want them because they make the website/tree messy and a bit farcical compared to its original intention.

On the for side, it's a lot of fun to enter them and have the tree be more inclusive, making those interesting/unexpected connections. Like me trying to figure out who performed in Spirit Of The Forest. I think making them part of an alternate/wider tree (not included in default search results etc.) would at least solve the farcical aspect. Maybe not the messy part.

I am still a bit salty that you guys rejected Blues Traveler being allowed to release an album of collaborations (calling it Blues Traveler with guests). And now you come along wanting to wedge something far more oddly shaped into the tree. For now that entry of mine falls afoul of this change with the solo collaborator's work not needing to be released prior anyway.

So far the only thing I like about this change is the functionality in terms of how smoothly Mobb Deep reappeared in my queue!

Whether a release with Broadway cast is usable or not depends on the clarity of the credits/evidence. We shouldn't just enter any album to be completist or to force a connection with a certain individual. Same goes for classical orchestras or big bands.

Also, I understand these casts can be very loose collectives. You can have a cast of individuals credited on the album, but that doesn't guarantee they recorded or even performed together at the same time. So if they're not credited for collaboration on at least one track, it seems problematic.

I've checked that Baby album and I see all 15 people in the cast are credited for collaborating on the first and final tracks. I have an issue with the band name though, I don't see a clear credits for 'Baby' Original Broadway Cast||Original Broadway Cast. It says Original Broadway Cast Recording on the cover, but that is more comparible to a qualification like Original Soundtrack Recording than to a band name. Are they really presented as an entity or is this just a collection of individuals who happened to appear on this recording? If we decide this is an entity, should have a standard for a 'band name', or maybe even a separate release type?

And what about the orchestra on the Baby album? On this recording, they seem more like a cohesive unit to me than the cast, and you can argue they were part of the 'Original Cast Recording' as well. Is their crediting less clear than that of the cast?

I'm good with whatever band name we want to use for Baby, if we decide it can get in.

I don't think the orchestra is part of the "cast" so I didn't include them. Evidence 2 shows the actors as "Cast."

I added the cassette version (Evidence 1), which I think has a clearer "band name."