[x] Felix Pappalardi & Creation

I think this actually trips up on collab rule 6b since it wasn't released until 2007:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?PageField=Wiki&ActionField=var&Album...

However, Creation could still be connected in via this release which did come out in 1976, so I've queued this up:
[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/Felix-Pappalardi-Creation-Felix-Pappalardi-And-Creation/m...

Felix's first solo effort looks to be in 1979.

If I'm reading it correctly, [rockonvinyl.blogspot.com] http://rockonvinyl.blogspot.com/2013/12/felix-pappalardi-creation-1976.html says that the first album was released in Japan as Creation With Felix Pappalardi and in the US as Felix Pappalardi & Creation.

Under Rule 5b, we would use the band name from the home market for albums by this band, but where would that be?

I'd say the US is the best choice for the studio album's home market, since that's where the writing and recording was done.

Japanese release looks to be billed as Creation · Felix Pappalardi on the cover, though the other way around on the record itself anyhow:
[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/Felix-Pappalardi-Creation-Felix-Pappalardi-And-Creation/r...

Can we get this one divided into 2 entries with part lineups, and collab ticked? I would set question, but I'm not that hopeful of a response.
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?PageField=Wiki&ActionField=var&Album...

Both await your approval. Thanks for digging into this and getting the rules (bizarre as the outcome is) right in this tricky situation.

I wonder if we got this wrong though. Rule 5b says that a band name change in a foreign market does not result in a new band name. With that in mind, it seems to me that if the Budokan live album is a Japan-only release and we have been treating the U.S. as the home market, then we could/should have credited the live album to Felix Pappalardi · Creation (but aliased to Creation With Felix Pappalardi).

So if both parties release independent material and then release a collaboration again, can it be seen as a continuation of the original collaboration? The rules just say "prior to the release of the collaborative effort", so they don't really explain what to do with a later release/2nd 'effort'. Can you think of any other bands with similar cases to compare against?

Yep. The classic example is Neil Young With/And Crazy Horse.

They got together in 1969 and we treated all releases as band releases:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/neil-young-with-crazy-horse

This is true even though Crazy Horse had some later releases:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/crazy-horse

And so did Neil Young:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/neil-young

As long as the band name stays the same, we don't split the parties.

BUT we do have some odd situations in which A & B got together as a band. Then A released independent material and B released independent material. When the two parties got back together as B & A (with the order reversed), the new band name was a collaboration without connectivity because of the prior independent releases by the two parties and the lack of a consistent band name.

In this case we have a release by A & B followed by independent releases by both A and B. Then we have a release by B & A, which initially seemed like a good reason to treat the Budokan CD as a collaboration.

But one could reasonably argue that the band name never changed and that we should not recognize a band name change that appears only on a foreign market release. (I'll admit that the foreign market analysis is stranger in this case because Creation was from Japan. But I think you're right that the band should be considered a U.S. band.)

Sounds good to me, merge them back. :D

Perhaps the rule should say "prior to the first release of the collaborative effort".