[x] Albums by bands whose name does not appear

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

From Gary Margetts, one of the performers:

"HI all, Time is Spontaneous Combustion. Tris and I reformed after Tony left and Jody took over on drums.Recorded this album at Connie Planks studio in Germany over a week, it was released by BASF UK. It took a while to sort legal stuff so the name didn't appear on the record. "

So, despite the fact that the band name "Spontaneous Combustion" does not appear anywhere on the album called "Time", should this still be billed as "Time" by "Spontaneous Combustion", or a s/t album by the band "Time (UK)"?

I think it should be possible to have a name not appear on the artwork. For example:
[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/Cynthia-Dall-Untitled/release/1116097
"Original pressing in 1996 had no artist name at all on the sleeve"
I have this album and there are no names on any of the artwork including the label.

As I have understood Pink Floyd wanted to do the same thing with Dark Side of the Moon.

However, in the case of Spontaneous Combustion, this was unintentional and the legal issues might have prohibited them from using the name.

In any case I think the band name should not be Time (UK), as 'Time' was the album title. Perhaps the composer credits should be used as a band name?

While Margetts & co may have believed that they were still Spontaneous Combustion, they clearly weren't entitled to go as that and so they were a different band for this. Doesn't matter what the reason is. Centre in evidence clearly shows band and album both titled 'Time'.

If we genuinely have an album with no band name given and where there was no band name (I don't just mean it was omitted for style), I think we should, rather than making things up, have a null name. This isn't that case, but it's possible.

This discussion reminds me of the discussion we had about [www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/adam-and-the-ants-us

Shouldn't the same principles apply?

I'd still rather go with calling the group Spontaneous Combustion. GM didn't say "We called ourselves Time because we weren't allowed to use Spontaneous Combustion" -- if he had said that, then I'd be happier with misterpomp's analysis.

The "Adam and the Antz" question is not completely parallel, but I can see there are similarities in the situations.

I'll go by the majority viewpoint here, but my vote is SC.

Two things make me think Time would be the way to go. First, there's the center label in evidence which has two instances of the word "Time" in bold. Second, the album has apparently been re-released in 2012/2013 still under the name Time.
[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/Time-Time/release/4117344

In that case I have no problem with Time (UK) as the band name. I guess history has decided.

I think this one's clear but, MattW, we have a number of issues where either band were renamed due to legal / copyright issues or a player could not be a member due to legal / contractual issues.

I think we should always strive to recognise those issues as they reflect reality. Musicians may *feel* that it was still the old band and that X,Y or Z was still *really* a member but if they weren't, they weren't and I'd be loathe to revisit those.

Palace - Arise Therefore also falls in this category

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

discussion:

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5953

I'm not totally inspired by my suggestion in that conversation about Arise Therefore. I like MP's strict approach to these things.