[x] Collab in different order -- different band?

We have already established as a precedent that a band whose participants are listed in a different order, the bands are different:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8589

So get this: we have "Paul Dunmall · Tony Marsh · Philip Gibbs" as a band, because their first release "It Escapes Me" (2000) was made before Tony Marsh' first previous "Stops" (2010, from what I can tell).

Then in 2012 we have a release "For The Last Time" by "Tony Marsh · Paul Dunmall · Philip Gibbs".

Now, although we have established that "Tony Marsh · Paul Dunmall · Philip Gibbs" is a *different band* from "Paul Dunmall · Tony Marsh · Philip Gibbs", does this mean that "Tony Marsh · Paul Dunmall · Philip Gibbs" needs to be entered as a collaboration?

While we're at it with Gibbs, what about the 2 collabs where he appears as Phil instead of Philip? Can those become bands given we can't find any solo appearances as 'Phil Gibbs'?

I think that the rules on collabs is that "if a bunch of people have worked together as a band, then even if they have all released solo subsequently, then that bunch of people remain a band."

I can't find the rule (and if it's not there, then it ought to be), and I'm pretty sure we have used this rule somewhere.

So basically the rule "should be": the fact of n people playing together before they have all established themselves as solo artists establishes the precedent of *those people* being a band, rather than the vagaries of the style in which they present themselves to the world on a particular occasion.

Once the artist has appeared solo, then (even if using a different name styling ("Phil" / "Philip") he is still the same solo artist for the context of collaboration.

I would hate for the spirit of this rule to be interpreted to the letter (where the letter is unclear) in a way which is IMO counter-intuitive and arbitrary.

I'm pretty sure the working rule is that it is a band unless one of the entities has previous releases under that exact name. That makes sense to me.

So (for example), if Phil Gibbs has not released anything prior, then:
"Paul Dunmall / Philip Gibbs / Paul Rogers"
is a collab but:
"Paul Dunmall / Phil Gibbs / Paul Rogers"
is a band?

It sounds a bit counter-intuitive to me.

I thought you guys would've figured this stuff out by now!

In the mean time, scott's ignored the working rule he was pretty sure about and made this live without considering whether 'Phil Gibbs' has prior solo:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/phil-gibbs/his-life-and-sayings

Perhaps it's best as is. Mix Master Mike not having any prior solo as 'MMM' was one thing, but Phil vs Philip is a much bigger leap towards silliness.

Scott identified the rule, Matt and Bloopy pointed out how absurd it can be, Bloopy found a new shamble for me, and Bloopy, in a different post, explained the problems with trying to change a decade-old rule on this site. Let's just stick with the current rule despite its absurdities.

I just took a closer look at the collab in a different order and realised Gibbs' name is bloody well spelt Phill Gibbs on the cover. So I guess it can be a band after all...

Tony Marsh · Paul Dunmall · Phill Gibbs

Ridiculous but true.

[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/Tony-Marsh-Paul-Dunmall-Phill-Gibbs-For-The-Last-Time/rel...

I seem to have come to the same conclusion as Bloopy at about the same time, and have re-entered that last Dunmall / Marsh / Gibbs offering as I now think it needs to be.