[ ] New Slash album

So the new album by Slash will be released as "Slash Featuring Myles Kennedy And The Conspirators".

How do we threat this? Is "Myles Kennedy And The Conspirators" a collaborating band? Or is this a three-way collab between Slash, Kennedy and The Conspirators? And if so, is Myles Kennedy also a member of The Conspirators?

May just be a solo album, boringly enough.

[www.classicrockmagazine.com] http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/slash-album-title-fan-pack-artwork-unvei...

I entered it once as a solo release by Slash and once as an album by Myles Kennedy And The Conspirators (released by Slash). Not sure if this is the right approach but Myles Kennedy And The Conspirators are clearly credited on the cover.

I don't think there should be a separate entry here. The "released by" option should be used sparingly to document a recording that is clearly credited to a band other than the one that released the recording. Here, the entire album was released by Slash Featuring Myles Kennedy And The Conspirators. There's no separate crediting of a single song to some other band.

That means we just have to decide whether MKATC is an equal collaborator (like Crazy Horse is for Neil Young) or a guest, like all these "Featuring" instances on this RUN DMC album: [www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=430575

It's clearly not the same situation as Run DMC. SFMKAtC is a band with four musicians and all four wrote the music together. So I wouldn't count them as guests.

Solo for me. Three reasons:

1. 'Featuring' is definitely a subsidiary word in my musical lexicon
2. I can't see how one can be a featuring within a solo artist
3. Subsidiarity of typeface and presentation.

I think reason 3 is totally irrelevant. Your second option however, convinced me of making peace with the fact that it could be a solo release.
However, in that case, I think we should come up with a new mechanism of somehow including MKatC (and other examples) in the db.

It's a strange way to name it, but it is in fact a collaboration so I think it should be treated that way. I see there is an album by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds released as 'Nick Cave featuring The Bad Seeds'. Looks just as awkward; maybe we should treat these cases as spelling mistakes?

Can we get a final ruling on this?

I liked the second sentence in Python's last post.

Does this change anyone's mind about Slash:
[www.slashparadise.com] http://www.slashparadise.com/discography/albums-slash-solo-2012-apocalyptic-love...
"After being on the road for his first solo album Slash decided to make a record with his touring band."

Defintely has the vibe of a band -
[www.slashparadise.com] http://www.slashparadise.com/discography/albums-slash-solo-2014-world-on-fire.ph...
(despite the url)

I agree with misterpomp about 'featuring', and I think it should be treated fairly strictly. To me it's normally another word that's equivalent to 'guest' or 'additional', especially in the pop and hip-hop genres.

Nick Cave featuring The Bad Seeds can be an exception because it's a variation on a strongly-established band.

This is another entry I made live recently, for which many websites give the 'vibe' of a band. Doesn't necessarily make it so:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/lowlights/s-t