[x] Collabs ... again ... (sigh)

The band 2preciious released an album in Canada. Because 1 of its members was better known than the others to generate sales in Europe the *EXACT SAME* album was released as 'Lee Aaron & 2preciious'. As far as I can tell 2preciious has no other releases and certainly no life without Lee Aaron. Is this now a collaboration between an artist who's already in the band and the band who don't exist without her? And the band has never made any music that didn't feature here including this release as originally packaged in Canada.

This (as always IMHO) precisely defines what's .. ermmm .. 'difficult' about our current collaboration rules. Surely this is just a band? (see also John Kay & Steppenwolf, David Coverdale & Whitesnake etc etc)

I never liked the concept of separating out one special member of a band for marketing or ego principles. This epitomises the issue.

I had been meaning to pick this conversation back up (see
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1346 ).

How would you list such bands in the database? Would you completely ignore the "Important Person &" language in front of the regular band name or would you create a separate non-collaboration style occurrence of a band called "Important Person & Band"?

This specific one is easy although a different example may not be:

5b.
Band names which are cosmetically changed when an album is released in a foreign market do not result in two distinct bands. The single recognized name for the band is the name used in the band's country of origin.

Since the band is 2preciious in Canada and that's where they're from, that's the only band name we recognize.


Kevin

5b is a nice trick here. But it gets uglier with Whitesnake. One of their albums was released as Whitesnake in the foreign market, but as David Coverdale & Whitesnake in other markets. I sidestepped the ugliness of the DC & WS album by using the foreign version because it was released several months before the home market release.

I disagree (unfortunately) that the workaround suffices. '2preciious' is 2 steps removed from 'Lee Aaron & 2 preciious'. It's not close enough to be cosmetic in my view. Obviously the artist(s) are creating most of the problem here so the best solution would be to have them shot. Failing that, for me, this would need carefully stepping through but I think I'd have to accede to the album as presented and accept that there was an entity called 'Lee Aaron & 2 preciious' which had the same line-up as '2preciious'.
I await the usual list of instances where I have argued the complete contrary to suit another argument :-)

Although it's two steps one is a trivial name change, and one is a marketing ploy. I think we should alter Rule 5(b) to extend a specific geographical market name to include the featuring of an artist with the band: "DC & Whitesnake." If that only appears in a certain market and not in others it should fall under 5(b).


Kevin

Frankly, I think we ought to further extend things and say that in the case of "Artist & Band" or "Band Featuring Artist" or whatever, if we cannot clearly determine that the band and artist are separate entities collaborating on this recording (as opposed to "this is a marketing gimmick"), we will ignore the language and just enter things in the DB as "Band".

This is mildly parallel to my argument that liner notes can and do have typos, and that just because something says something on an album's notes/art/etc. does not mean it's the definitive authority on what is "really going on". I don't think a marketing drone retitling an album "Lee Aaron & 2 preciious" makes a new band any more than me miscrediting him as "Li Aron" would make him named that.

I suspect no one will agree with me here, I just wanted to share my opinion :)

You really have miscredited there pk; Lee Aaron is the 'Metal Queen' (and I don't mean Rob Halford).

We are already subject to the 'marketing drone' unfortunately in that bands who zealously guard their 'The' can end up being denied it by some person in Polydor (Paraguay Holdings) Inc. who drops it on an obscure 45...

I'm sure I'm plenty inconsistent in lots of things we discuss but I try to adhere to the 'if it's on the sleeve.. that's what it is'. Why shouldn't we create the band 'Lee Aaron & 2 preciious' ... it's a release and it's got a name that's plain as day on the sleeve... same way I'd accept 'David Coverdale & Whitesnake' is a valid entity or 'John Kay and Steppenwolf'.

Him, her, whatever :)

The "the" issue will hopefully get fixed correctly at some point, if I read the rules discussions right-- and I've never been one to buy "one wrong turn justifies another" anyway.

I think my issue is that, to me, the marketing use of "A & B" in these sorts of cases is meant to signify "A and the rest of B", i.e. the release is by B, of which A is a particularly noteworthy member. I don't think it's meant to imply that A is not a member of B, or is collaborating with B, or whatever. But in that case how are we supposed to credit it here? Are our entries supposed to reflect what _band_ released the work (B), or what string of characters was placed on the work ("A & B")? Because I think those AREN'T the same. "A & B" isn't a different band from B OR a new name for B -- it's not anything at all, it's just wording designed to sell an album or stroke someone's ego.

While there are a number of theoretical instances being postulated here, at this time I am only concerned with the specific "2preciious" instance. For me the situation revolves around the key issue:

1) There is a single album which features two different cover art variations based upon which market it was released in.
2) One instance of the artwork features a band name variation used as a marketing tool.
3) We reject the cover art featuring the band name variation and use the band's original name.

If we had an alternate covers feature on the album pages, the cover featuring the band name alteration would certainly qualify.

This implementation of the Rules is applied *before* considering the different situation where:

1) There is a single album which features one cover art variation which is a departure from the standard band name.

That is a completely different situation entirely and is not applicable to the case at hand. It certainly justifies discussion but at the moment my main concern is classifying the "2preciious" album.


Kevin