[x] Does this fall under 5c?

5c states:

"5c.
When an album is re-released under a different band name in the same market, the album is credited to both bands."

The album in question is Arise Therefore by Palace and/or Will Oldham.

The album was initially considered a Palace release, but has since become referred to as an Oldham release. The album does not have a visible band credit anywhere on it. Oldham's only credit is in the list of musicians.

While there have been several pressings of this, there doesn't appear to have been any change in the artwork except for the designation for the record label.

From the discography page on bonnieprincebilly.com:

"1996 LP/CD Arise Therefore, by Palace.
This album is now referred to as a Will Oldham release."

[users.bart.nl] http://users.bart.nl/~ljmeijer/oldham/discog.htm#96

From Wikipedia:

"The album's packaging does not include the artist's name. It has been considered both a Palace release and a Will Oldham release."

[en.wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arise_Therefore

Artwork:

[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=760742

Drag City initially lists it as a Palace release:

" First, as always, is the now-ragin’ new release from Palace, Arise Therefore."

[dragcity.com] http://dragcity.com/news/oldnews/n96-2.html

I guess I'm inclined to just list it as a Palace record.

I agree. Since there was no change in the artwork, we should enter it as it was originally released, as a Palace release. The fact that people refer to it differently now is irrelevant.

If the artist didn't assign a band name to it - why should we decide based on some second hand reviews? If the artist hasn't bothered to release it by a band - maybe it's unclassifiable for b2b and I certainly don't like giving it to a band whose name doesn't appear on the album. Who says it's not a s/t release by 'Arise Therefore'? Wouldn't we need an explanation from the artist to understand that it was or wasn't by a certain band.

this really does look like Arise Therefore - s/t to me:
[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=760742
though discogs and Oldham's main discography on wikipedia list this as by Palace Music (not Palace).

does the result of this discussion go against any since-established policies? anything else in database that looks like this?

The back cover shows that the songs are registered with ASCAP. I just searched six or seven of the songs in the ASCAP registry ( [www.ascap.com] http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?mode=search ) and they were all attributed this way:

Writers:
OLDHAM JOSEPH WILL

Performers:
PALACE
PALACE MUSIC
WILL OLDHAM

---

If I also search the database on a performer named Arise Therefore, nothing comes up.

I think that MP is right that we should be careful about assigning a band name to a seemingly band-less release. In the absence of the registry, the packaging suggests that this is s/t by Arise Therefore. The back cover and center labels point us to an off-album source, ASCAP, for further information about the album, so I think we could start there, with one of those three band names.

i agree that Arise Therefore wasn't a band. and that most at the time attributed this album to Palace or Palace Music, but that may have had more to do with Oldham's previous releases.
on the other hand, 'Will Oldham' is the only one of the three names that actually appear in text in the packaging, and i hardly think we would be being inaccurate if we had this in as an Oldham solo album...