[x] Frank Zappa & MOI situation

In order to head off any possible issues that may come up down the line, I'd like to present a hypothetical and set a standard to follow for future use.

The Mothers Of Invention started off with Frank Zappa as a member. They then turned into FZ & MOI and since FZ continued on with a solo career later on it is considered a collaboration and not a single band "FZ & MOI." That part is easy enough and since FZ had not released material as a solo artist prior to being a part of MOI then connectivity is allowed in the collaboration "FZ & MOI" as per Rule 6(c). However, take the following hypothetical situation:

1. FZ releases a solo album.
2. FZ forms MOI which releases an album under the band name "MOI."
3. MOI turns into "FZ & MOI" and is a collaboration as both FZ and MOI have released material independed of "FZ & MOI."

The question is, in this hypotheical, should connectivity be allowed for FZ & MOI if the band had formed in this manner (as opposed to their true history which automattically allows connectivity)? Under the current rules the answer would be no as both FZ and MOI had release material independently of one another (I'm talking the band entity FZ not the artist FZ) before "FZ & MOI" came into being. However since FZ was an actual member of MOI before the appearance of "FZ & MOI" one could make the argument that "FZ & MOI" is merely a name change from MOI as, let's just say, the membership did not change at all between the last MOI album and the first FZ & MOI album.

The name change clearly needs to be reflected, and it is as the collaboration is established, but for there to be continued connectivity between FZ & MOI a new Rule would have to be declared that allows connectivity between FZ & MOI although Rule 6(c) would declare otherwise. The new Rule would state something like:

Rule 6(x): If a band underwent a cosmetic name change where a current member is distinguished from the rest of the group, such as MOI -> FZ & MOI or Lou Reed & The Velvet Underground, and previously released albums would establish the cosemetic name change as a collaboration without connectivity as per Rule 6(c), since the solo artist had release material before the band's formation, we still allow connectivity as the collaborating solo artist was a member of the band before the cosmetic change.

Have fun with this one, and let's pretend this situation doesn't already exist with Wings => Paul McCartney & Wings.


Kevin

I'm definitely in favor of such a rule. Collaborations are hairy, and I think our current rules are an attempt to impose an order when in reality one doesn't exist. Since I always want accuracy, I would either seek to add additional rules such as what you propose in order to be "more accurate", or else to simply make the rule more vague and more subjective. To me a group called "FZ & MOI" is simply a single group with an "&" in their name, whereas for other goups an "&" indicates a collaboration. Our current rules don't really allow for this kind of "ambiguity", which to me is sad. Since I don't think we'll go in the direction of a less-specified set of rules, the alternative you propose is acceptable.

Rather than invoke previous applications of Rule 6(c), merely state something to the effect that:

A band whose name is in the format FZ&MOI (where the connective is an "And", "With", "Featuring", etc.) is *not* considered a collaboration if the artist singled out and billed separately was a member of a existing band on a previous release attributed to the band without his name appended.

Or something. Thus as Bob Marley was in an original Wailers release, "bob marley & the wailers" is not and never is a collaboration.

This is the rule change I've been campaigning for ... bring it on!

I think some of this is getting cloudy, which can be understandable given the subject. Anyway, here's an easier way to think about the situation:

1) Any time a band like Bob Marley & The Wailers has both parties release albums independently of one another, it's a collaboration. Period.

2) Allowing connectivity through Rule 6(c) essentially turns the collaboration back into one band on the surface: the album page contains all parts of the collaboration as a single band would, any band to band links will go through it as as single band, etc.

In other words think of a collaboration with connectivity as a single band and what I'm trying to do it to allow that to as many of these weird FZ & MOI situations to appear as a single band as I can.


Kevin

What was the outcome here? Whitesnake is another where, like Wings, the main member's name has become detached in some releases but there is no intimation of true 'separateness'.

I tend to feel like the name of Whitesnake is ALWAYS "Whitesnake" (at least in all modern albums), even where the cover art says "David Coverdale & Whitesnake". To me that seems clearly like a marketing move rather than an actual band rename. While that distinction isn't one we tend to make a lot around here, I tend to feel like we should try and draw subjective distinctions between "a real event" and "a marketing move". In that sense, cover art, spines, etc. are NOT always definitive.

Here's one instance in which we took the approach you're suggesting:
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=7627