[ ] LPs with song titles on the front cover

I've come across a couple of LPs falling afoul of Swingin' Singles rules. The first wasn't a problem because it only had 1 track on each side of the record, effectively making it indistinguishable from a 12" single or a single from any other genre fond of long songs.

However, this release has 6 song titles on each cover (and no overall title):
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/New-Orleans-Ragtime-Orchestra-New-Orleans-Ragtime-Orches...

This compilation of two LPs elevates the 1st title from the above to overall title status:
[www.cduniverse.com] http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=1001582&style=music

Seems like a case where it'd be better to adjust the rules rather than apply them as written. Although the rule is called Swingin' Singles, it doesn't say anything about only applying to singles/EPs.

The first link's center label tends toward the "apparent or inferred" self-titled designation of Swingin' Singles rule 1, I think. That part of the rule comes first because it's the preferred way to address this situation.

The second link seems unambiguous about its title, as you note.

I hear what you're saying though. I'm not recalling an instance in which we applied Swingin' Singles rule 3. Maybe it should go.

I think you've forgotten what Swingin' Singles rule 3 was intended for in the first place. Namely, singles with 2+ songs on the A-side / CD:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/unwound/caterpillar
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/the-london-dirthole-company/stripshow
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/brand-new/sowing-season

This apparent/inferred thing seems ambiguous. How did you infer s/t from the centre label? The size of the band name relative to the number of songs? What distinguishes a centre label with just a band name & 6 songs versus one with just a band name & 2 songs?

Swingin' Singles rule 3 has also been applied to EPs:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/unnatural-axe/they-saved-hitlers-brain
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/molly-gun/black-widows
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/pj-proby/zing-went-the-strings-of-my-heart
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/trouble-makers/1-2-5

And a medley single where I interpreted that a medley is made up of multiple song titles:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/paul-whiteman-and-his-orchestra/just-snap-your-fi...

I had forgotten. Great points all around.

Even though I proposed s/t as the title earlier, wouldn't a normal reading of Swingin' Singles rule 3 arrive at Creole Belles at the title for the first link in your first post?

Yes. What I'm trying to say is I'm uneasy about that. Forcing an LP to take the title of the 1st song is a dumb and unintended consequence of the rule. It's bgz's entry and he'd probably agree:

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?PageField=Wiki&ActionField=var&Album...

It was fine with EPs because bands often call them after one of the songs even if they actually look untitled.

Although the word "album" appears throughout the rules, it is used mostly as a synonym for "release." Swingin' Singles is the only rule that hints at a distinction between singles and full-length releases. Maybe we need an adjustment that makes that distinction more clear. Do you have a proposal?

How about saying: releases with at least 7 songs or at least 30 mins running time are exempt from the rule? That'd separate out most LPs.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were many s/t jazz albums with less that 7 songs and less that 30 minutes running time. And many s/t ambient and prog albums with one track on each side only.

I think in most cases it's defined by the band or record company whether it's a single or an album, and this rule could be handy in case it's totally unclear, but we shouldn't follow rules just for rules' sake. And we should avoid putting ambiguous rules on top of ambiguous rules.

Using 'release' instead of 'album' in this case might be an improvement.

These are very rare cases, and that jazz, ambient and prog you speak of would already be getting caught by the rule now. I was suggesting a way to ease the rule unambiguously that works for the examples we have at hand. I don't want the rules to be ambiguous either.

If we prefer it to be defined by the band or label, then the rule can just say that.

This undeniable thing gives off an impression of being ambiguous. How might you construe from the center name. The proportion of the band name regarding the amount of tunes.