[x] Collabs with credit order changes

If three solo artists collaborate together (and at least one has no prior solo work, making them a band) under the name 'Artist A · Artist B · Artist C' and then later make another record together under the name 'Artist B · Artist A · Artist C' or 'Artist C · Artist A · Artist B' or some other combination, does this change of crediting order constitute an entirely new band or merely an alias of the original band?

To further complicate matters, all band members have solo releases inbetween times, meaning the later record would be a collaboration not a band if it's not allowed to be an alias of the first.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'll flesh out the details.

I currently have a 1989 release credited to 'Nick Cave · Mick Harvey · Blixa Bargeld' in my queue. Only Cave had prior solo releases so it can go in as a band.

The three collaborated again in 1996 but this one was credited to 'Blixa Bargeld · Nick Cave · Mick Harvey' - so the crediting order has changed.

So is Blixa · Nick · Mick || Nick · Mick · Blixa (i.e. just a band alias) or does the order change create a whole new band? Except in this case it would create a three-way collaboration of solo artists as all three had prior solo releases by 1996.

It seems logical to me that the same three artists all going by their full names should constitute the same band, no matter what order they're credited in.

But if you apply the same logic to surname-only bands it seems more likely we'd call them a separate band i.e. Crosby-Nash wouldn't seem to me to be || Nash-Crosby, if such an entity were ever to exist.

I know it's not a burning issue but I'm curious. I guess it comes down to whether we consider a reordering of artist names in a band name to be a trivial name change or not.

I have one of these in my queue as well. To complicate matters further, it is basically a re-release of the same album.

I've got an issue with another of these, as highlighted by Ruiter.

In 1996, an album was released credited to 'John Parish & Polly Jean Harvey' - Parish has no prior solo releases, so it's a band, no problems:
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=36475

In 2009 an album was released credited to 'P J Harvey & John Parish':
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/index.php?PageField=Wiki&ActionField=var&AlbumIdFi...
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/index.php?PageField=Wiki&ActionField=var&AlbumIdFi...

In between those two records both John Parish and P J Harvey have several independent releases, so I had made the 2009 release a collaboration - but Ruiter reckons it should go in as a band as an alias of the original 'John Parish & Polly Jean Harvey' band.

I'm honestly not sure either way now - any further input would be greatly appreciated.

Two main issues:
1) The order of the credits has changed i.e. Parish was first, now he's second (see also my original example from the start of this thread) - does that create a new band or is it OK to alias?

2) Is the change from Polly Jean Harvey to P J Harvey sufficiently trivial for us to make it an alias, assuming we're OK with the ordering thing? Or does the fact that she's had numerous prior releases as P J Harvey negate that?

a different, less pertinent, collab question that i've often thought about:
say, in some alternate universe, there's a band called Crosby/Stills/Nash who releases an album. none of them have previous solo material and it's a collab with connectivity. then comes along some woman called Nelly Young who has released prior solo material as Young. they record an album as Crosby/Stills/Nash/Young. obviously there is no connectivity as both parties have previous solo material. do we enter this in as one entry by 'Crosby/Stills/Nash' and another as 'Young', automatically grouping together the first 3 members as they have previous history as a group? or do we disconnect everyone and have 4 distinct entries?

Another relevant collab conundrum:

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=11395
"My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts" by Brian Eno - David Byrne
(No prior independent releases, so not a collab.)

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=29357
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=29358

"Everything That Happens Will Happen Today" by David Byrne & Brian Eno
(A collab, since there were prior independent releases and it's not considered the same entity as before -- though for some reason the entries still aren't joined.)

Discussion here:
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6169

Rowland S. Howard · Lydia Lunch
versus a later album by
Lydia Lunch · Rowland S. Howard

i think the latter could be:
Rowland S. Howard · Lydia Lunch||Lydia Lunch · Rowland S. Howard

also is
Kazuyuki K. Null · James Plotkin
the same as
Kazuyuki K. Null / James Plotkin ?
since the latter is on a compilation i think the latter should again be treated as an alias.

My view would be:

Nick Cave · Mick Harvey · Blixa Bargeld is a band.
Blixa Bargeld · Nick Cave · Mick Harvey is the same band under a trivial name change, despite their having all released solo in between. So it's not a collab and it's the same band.

Crosby, Stills & Nash is a band (as the names are merely a subset) whether or not they'd all released solo beforehand. Similarly, "Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young" is also a band, because of the "name subset" rule.

Similarly, the Plotkin & Null one (particularly as it's on a comp) is an alias of the Plotkin / Null band name.

Same ought to apply to Byrne and Eno.

I have a feeling the same thing happens with some of the British folk duos of the 70's (Hart/Prior, Kirkpatrick/whatever).

My ruling would be:
"Once a group of people collaborate as a band (without prior solo), they're a band, despite the relative name ordering."

Now, if Cliff Richard were to collaborate with Blixa Bargeld, Nick Cave and Mick Harvey, and they called themselves "Cliff Richard, Blixa Bargeld, Nick Cave and Mick Harvey", that would be a *four way collab* - I wouldn't buy this as a 3-person band and a separate collaborator.

I agree 100% with Matt W and shakinghell that B·A should be an alias of A·B rather than a new band - I'll fix the Cave/Harvey/Bargeld and Lunch/Howard examples in the queue.

I think Matt's suggested ruling is phrased well too.

For the moment I won't do anything with the PJ/Polly Jean Harvey situation as it still confuses me.

I'm posting this in several places:

[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5182
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8355
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8589

Band aliasing is supposed to be limited to just trivial name changes. We've never treated order changes as trivial. As in [www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6169 (the last post), B/A and A/B should go into the database as distinct entries. Why? Because they are distinct. A and B could have made sure to release all their albums as either A/B or B/A. But they didn't, and we should document that. Why would we try to force the two bands into one if they didn't bother to do it themselves?