[x] Matt: Don't Give Up

After a review of the Rules, it has been determined that the Peter Gabriel / Kate Bush single is a legitimate collaboration between the two artists (see Rule 5c.). So you win on that one however since both artists have released solo material prior to this there is no connectivity so Kate Bush still isn't in the system.


Kevin

Which album was "re-released under a different band name in the same market" in order for this to qualify under this rule?

And what is the "different band name?" A collaboration (as you put this release in) is *two* bands. Peter Gabriel's name didn't change, and Kate Bush isn't being used as a modifier here (in other words, there is no new band "Peter Gabriel·Kate Bush"), but as a separate band, so I'm not following this logic.

There are many cases where an album is released by band B, and one of the songs from that album features band F, and that song is chosen as a single. Are you saying that, as long as the artwork on the front cover of the single doesn't use the word "featuring" or "guest" (even though the credits on the recording clearly do, and the recording isn't changed on the single), that qualifies as a collaboration? I don't think the rules, as currently written, allow for that.

Certainly a good question and is what Mark and I toiled over in coming to this determination. It boils down to this:

How do you classify the single? Base upon the cover art (we don't have the back to view) it clearly appears that it is credited as a collaboration between Gabriel and Bush. Without knowing anything else it should be entered into the system as such however we do know more than that, as the song was recorded for the "So" album. How then does this effect the single?

We tried approaching the situation from a number of angles, including this one: what if "Neil Young & Crazy Horse" were to release a record which then had material taken and re-released by just "Neil Young"? Two things come into play:

1) We can not ignore either release.
2) Although Neil Young was a part of the collaboration of "Neil Young & Crazy Horse", the solo artist releasing the material seperately from the collaboration clearly signifies a a change in the credited entity that originally released the material.

So then, is there a difference between the solo artist "Neil Young" and the collaboration "Neil Young & Crazy Horse"? Clearly yes, and we distinguish the two a different entities for the two releases just as we would with the "re-released under a different band name".

To extend this to the current situation, there is a certain distinction between the solo artist "Peter Gabriel" and the collaboration of "Peter Gabrial and Kate Bush". If their collaboration were relegated to simply the "So" album which is credited to only Peter Gabriel then Kate would be relegated to the status of a guest artist. However since there is a release that (to our knowledge) is credited to both artists equally we cannot ignore it and consider it a re-release by a different group.


Kevin

Sorry, but I read the title of the head posting of this thread as an exhortation not to stop the futile and thankless task of posting submissions that nobody is ever going to get round to verifying ... ;-)

But seriously folks, I'm running out of immediate inspiration of what I want to see up on the website and I'm taking time out to verify some of other people's work.

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?PageField=Wiki&ActionField=var&Album...
just wondering if we could have a little vote on this one. seems like a similar situation as Gabriel/Bush issue except that the recrediting involves a reissue:

a compilation comes out in 1980 with a track by Durutti Column which i believe at that time consisted of just Vincent Reilly. Jeremy Kerr co-writes and performs on the song but the performers are not credited.
a 1986 reissue of the comp credits the same track to Jez & Vini.
i think Jez is a guest in the first release but is credited as an equal collaborator when it gets reissued. what do we do? it's not like the song has been rereleased as a single - it's just that the crediting has changed with later editions. part of me wants to say we should just go with the first edition, but there might be precedents against this.

My objection to this was, and remains, that this exact piece of music has been released previously as being by 'The Durutti Column' on the prior releases of this same album in 1980 and 1983.
[home.wxs.nl] http://home.wxs.nl/~frankbri/crealph3.html#frombr

Although we don't have that 1980/1983 release in the dB, that recording has a line-up attached to it and I struggle to reconcile that with then re-crediting it to a different line-up. Rule 5c talks about re-crediting to a different band, and that's fine; if Dinosaur and Dinosaur Jr have the same line-ups there is consistency - but to allow members to be torn out of line-ups 6 years later at a whim opens up the possibility of all sorts of historical revisionism and deliberate introduction of inaccuracies by labels/band leaders/band members.

There's another reason we should be careful around re-crediting. UK copyright law last 50 years - already early Elvis works are out of copyright, soon early Beatles works too. These can now/soon be re-released by anyone as legitimate releases, and crediting could be messed around with too; and in fact may be deliberately re-stated to circumvent other IP (e.g. trademarks). Anybody fancy logging a legitimate set of UK releases credited to a band named 'George, John, Ringo and Paul' over the next 10 years containing all the Beatles back catalogue?

I'm perfectly OK with removing this based on misterpomp's argument. I actually agree with it, as I am not aware of any DC lineup including Kerr. But it necessitates changing the ruling on "Don't Give Up," otherwise this entry is allowed.

Unless we believe that Kerr joined Durutti Column for this track. I can't find any evidence that this happened.

maybe one way of looking at the Gabriel/Bush issue: say they collaborated equally on a song and Gabriel decides he wants it on his solo album. the album is by him but the song gives a credit to Bush. if the album explicitly said the song was 'performed by Gabriel and Bush' we would probably allow this as a 'released by' situation. however, the album most likely just has 'with Kate Bush' as Gabriel's participation on the song is implied (this being a Gabriel solo album). so i understand how, when it get's released as a stand-alone single with both parties credited equally that we can allow it into the database. it could well have been an equal collab all along but the format of it's original release favoured one artist over the other.

i still think this is separate from the Jez And Vini issue. i think if we *had* to recognise this single [ "1) We can not ignore either release."] it would be credited to Jez And Vini but Jez would actually be a guest as the song was arguably recorded by Durutti Column which was just Vini.

The dominating factor is the band name crediting, as discussed in my last post at:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7747

This is somewhat of a hybrid of the 3b and 3c examples, so if this were a separate release by Jez And Vini, I think our tendency would be to allow it.

BUT--

It's one thing to process single-band releases the way I describe in that post, but we've recently been tightening things up with respect to multi-band compilations like the one at issue here. Perhaps we should impose another restriction on them.

are we any closer to resolving the 'Jez And Vini' issue?

I'm OK with removing it. It seems like you could make a case under 5c, but I'm not going to push it, especially considering that I've often argued that crediting on multi-band comps can often be considered suspect.