[x] Charity Supergroups

I move that Rule 7 be re-written and that where a valid core exists (e.g. Midge Ure and Bob Geldof for Band Aid) it gets recognised. If the object of the site is to map these connections I believe a more tangible connection was made there by those two musicians coming together than, say, all 1225 one-to-one relationships made by the 50 members of Centipede (though I don't doubt Centipede's validity too). As the concept of this site has developed and more leeway and fluidity has been allowed, Rule 7's "none shall pass" stance is dated and needs replacing with something more flexible.

And we might as well also consider it in the context of bands that have no core:
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=840

If support, thanks. If disagreement: I'm absolutely of the opinion that anyone else other than Geldof/Ure was of the "I've been invited to sing a few lines at some thing or other ..." rather than "I've been invited to join Band Aid" therefore they are not members but Band Aid did have a core of Geldof/Ure. It could well be that many CSGs have no core: I just think where one exists it should be recognised.

...that there's no discrimination against other short-lived groups of little or no substance that seem to have been purely formed to display their large number of previously-unrelated members; The Dudes of Wrath and the ilk are no different to CSGs; other than not having any charitable intent...

I am open to finding ways to include charity supergroups. I tend to think that any entity that releases an album should be recognized as a band, with or without a set of core members calling the shots. That's why I am willing to treat "bands" like Green Bullfrog (no core, but all musicians participating equally) or Dudes Of Wrath (organized and defined by member/producer Desmond Child) the same way we treat any other band.

Kevin and I have come up with a proposed analysis framework for bands with non-obvious core members:

1) Jam session bands and charity super groups should be considered the same thing.
2) The JSB/CSG designation is made on a case by case basis.
3) If the JSB/CSG call is made on a band, a core membership must then be determined.
4) Only core members are considered members; everyone else is considered a guest.
5) If no core is found, in the interest of full inclusion, the full membership is listed like a collaboration of solo artists with no connectivity [with a display style currently not yet implemented].

In many ways, steps 1 through 4 are what we're doing already with normal bands. Step 5 is the new twist. This system would dissolve Green Bullfrog into a massive collaboration with no connectivity but allow bands like Probot (single core member) and Band-Aid (two core members).

Thoughts?

I think this is a good shot at encapsulating what b2b should be about. I did have one concern about 5 and wonder whether that then requires us to go back to every alum we've done so far and list guest members, but if it's phrased to be only for those bands where no core, not even one member, could be found - then I guess that's OK. Green Bullfrog seems to me to be likely to be one such.
To try and define each case (for me) the rationale runs something like: Where 2 or more people put together a musical endeavour, probably but not necessarily including writing songs, probably but not necessarily playing together for some period of time much longer than simply the recording sessions and definitely all playing on the recording - that is a band and its raison d'etre is irrelevant.
Where 1 person puts together a musical endeavour, probably but not necessarily writing songs by himself, probably controlling the name and members himself, probably but not necessarily with some members playing together for no longer than the recording sessions and even though they definitely all play on the recording - that may well be a one-member band and its raison d'etre is irrelevant.
Each facet (and doubtless some I've missed) would need to be considered: this would not make Whitesnake, Steppenwolf or Rainbow 'one-man bands' despite the degree of control that rests with an individual.

Right. I agree with all that you've said, and your concern about #5 is an important one. We'd address it exactly as you said--only for those bands that have no core. That would save us from having to add guest or session members.

If we're all in agreement here, I'm willing to shoot down Rule 7 entirely. Actually I've tried to figure out a way to re-write Rule 2 to incorporate our new Jam Band / CSG rulings and it doesn't fit easily, so I'd re-write Rule 7 our five points of membership determination listed by Mark. Are we good with this?

I think that's our concensus thus far but mrpomp is starting to throw French around and I'm getting confused already. Si la explinacion fuera en Espanol, tendria la posibilidad comprender...


Kevin