[x] Can a DJ be a band?

Yes.

AJ: Kevin and I agree with almost all of what you wrote in the "DJ as mixer vs bandmember vs composer" post, but in the end we went with PK's distinction, which hinges entirely on the crediting.

We think that a DJ mix/remix album that is credited entirely to the mixer, as opposed to the original source, is worthy of inclusion under the DJ's name. Here, there's no doubt that the Dewaele brothers are members of 2 Many DJs, whatever 2 Many DJs might be. Their performance is audible--instead of manipulating instruments to create sounds, they're manipulating pre-recorded tracks. That's really all we need to recognize them here; they're both in the band (2 Many DJs) and on the recording (in the sense that we can hear their contribution to the final product).

The key difference between DJ-bands and producers is that the producers don't take credit for the final product. In their typical role, producers are just like guest musicians: on the recording, but not in the band.

As far as compilers are concerned (as in the "Back To Mine" series), they don't change the actual music itself, so we don't consider them to be "on the recording."

We think/hope this approach won't cause too many problems.

Examples:

Isis: "Oceanic: Remixes and Reinterpretations" is an album of Isis music remixed by other musicians. The album is credited to Isis, so b2b considers this to be an Isis album with guest remixers.

2 Many DJ's: "As Heard On Radio Soulwax Pt. 2" is an album of others' music remixed by 2 Many DJ's. The album is credited to 2 Many DJ's, so b2b considers this to be a 2 Many DJ's album with guest musicians performing the music.

Thoughts?

How does this ruling affect the remix of Mike Oldfield's "The Sentinel" by The Orb?

(a) On the sleeve it is credited to "Oldfield Vs. The Orb", suggesting that this is a "band name", the band consisting of Oldfield (who created the original) and The Orb (Patterson) who remixed it. So there's a case for treating this as a "band" consisting of these two parties.

(b) There's an argument suggesting that it should be credited entirely to Patterson, on the grounds that it was all his own work, his "instrument" being his mixing console, the noises it makes being the original "Sentinel" tune. The fact that Oldfield was responsible for the latter in this case can be considered immaterial.

My take on this would be the former. The argument that this isn't a proper "band" because they didn't both work on it at the same time doesn't wash because then you'd have to exclude the notorious Wish You Were Here where there is documented evidence that no two members of Pink Floyd were ever in the studio at the same time when they were recording it (or is this an urban myth?).

This sounds like a collaboration to me, based on the way it is credited.

Kevin stated in another forum (*AHEM*) that he believed this to be a collaboration without connectivity, based on an argument I made in part.

To restate my argument:

The single in question is part two of a two-part single representing "Sentinel" by Mike Oldfield. The contents of it are three remixes of the song "Sentinel" by Mike Oldfield, done by the Orb. In general, this site does not consider remixers to be part of a band. Further, the appellation on the cover, "Oldfield vs The Orb," indicates more of an adversarial relationship than a "band." The fact that the artwork uses a colorful description of the music doesn't change the nature of the contents, and therefore does not create a new band.

I conceded that since the remixer, in this case, is important enough to show up as part of the name of the release (in whatever fashion), that it could be considered a collaboration without connectivity. Kevin agreed with that sentiment.

I don't believe that the 2 Many DJ's ruling changes this. There is no way you can construe that it is "credited entirely to the mixer" since Oldfield appears on the cover (first, even), so the idea of crediting it entirely to the Orb doesn't enter into the picture here.

Here's the problem that I have: In general, all remixes are as you describe this one taking place, where the remixer R takes the tapes of the original song S by band B, and uses the "mixing console" as an instrument to create a new version of the song (S'). 99.9% of the time, S' is still credited to B directly, no matter how much S' is different from S. The songwriting credits don't change, and the only hint that R did anything with the song is a notation in parentheses after the title. The only place where these things differ from this Oldfield single is where R gets their credit, as a parenthetical part of the song title, or on the cover. I maintain that under neither circumstance can such a release be considered solely the work of R.

In cases where there is credit on the cover, I think "collaboration without connectivity" is as close as we can get to accurately describing the contents of the release.

I would definitely agree that "Oldfield vs. The Orb" is a collaboration (due to the crediting of both parties on the cover) without connectivity (since the two parties did not work together in any way).

As to the general case, I realize that not crediting an original band doesn't give indication of the origins of someone's remixed work... but then, we also don't credit the original songwriters, the groups who did the originals in the case of cover singles/albums, guest musicians that play important roles on an album (in some cases contributing all the music, and in other playing with a band on every release for years), etc. So there already seem to be many cases where people contribute a large portion to the final product that don't get listed here. I'm not sure I see a material difference between some of those cases and this one.

Let's continue this conversation here: [bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5888