[x] Guests with ego problems

So a band (for example, The Dorks) record an album, and on one or two tracks they employ a guest kazoo player Martin Spangle. The album gets released, bombs.

30 years later, Martin Spangle, having then been a moderately successful session musician all his life, decides to release a retrospective album including the track(s) he guested on with The Dorks, and bills this track / these tracks as by "Martin Spangle And The Dorks".

Does this count as a new band / collab? Martin Spangle has not actually released anything under his own name, so "Martin Spangle And The Dorks" would normally appear as a "new band". But he was blatantly a guest on the original recording.

The situation occurs with "Brian Hopper with Beggars' Farm":

[calyx.club.fr] http://calyx.club.fr/mus/hopper_brian.html

I enjoyed reading this.

I say it gets in. Who are we to judge whether Hopper's contribution was negligent? The band name says it all for our purposes.

[www.voiceprint.co.uk] http://www.voiceprint.co.uk/web/Release/VP145CD/ shows the album in question, I think.

I have to admit that I'm a little suspicious of this as a possible entry. The "with" language seems to preserve the "guest" aspect of the recording. On the original release, Hopper was a guest of the band. Here on the reissue, the perspective is flipped and the band seems to be his guest. I know that we sometimes recognize "with" as a joining word (for bands or collaborations), but it also sometimes distinguishes the band from obvious guests. See, for example: [farm2.static.flickr.com] http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1413/1120282633_db57d0d748.jpg