[x] Potential problems with rule 8c

Suppose we have a band called "Silly Jerk and the Billy Boys", consisting of Silly Jerk, Major Rascal, Blithering Idiot and Dum-Dum, who release an album. Many years ago, Silly Jerk played in "Rocky and the Rebels", who link solidly into the database. Major Rascal, at the same time, provides an important link to another significant area of the database otherwise unlinkable, as he plays cello in The Mayflower Descendants' String Quartet recording of Ludwig van Beethoven's "Rasumovsky", Opus 59 set.

Now, in August 2005, Silly Jerk throws a hissy fit and sacks his band the Billy Boys, who then go on to record an album under the aegis of "The Billy Boys" (consisting as they do now of Major Rascal, Blithering Idiot and Dum-Dum).

Under Rule 8c, this would instantly make the entry for "Silly Jerk and the Billy Boys" ineligible, and they would have to be removed from the database. Thus the link to the entire U.S. east coast classical music scene suddenly becomes completely inaccessible again to the rest of the database and would need to be deleted.

Therefore, I make the submission that Rule 8c causes the database to become dependent upon time. A subsequent release should not make a previous release ineligible.

Besides, I'm still pining over the fact that "Neil Young and Crazy Horse" can't go into the database, not to mention "Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention", whose exclusion makes the link from The Turtles to Frank Zappa a misleading 10 albums long. That's nothing, of course - the link from Neil Young to Crazy Horse is a whopping 15 albums, which to my mind is absurd.

It appears to be on first sight but the phrase 'bands collaborating' wouldn't be used to separate a collective whole that later fragmented. At the time of the first album there are not two separate entities to collaborate. Rule 8(c) can stand (though, damn you guys Sutherland Brothers & Quiver should go in!) : it just needs careful interpretation.

I've actually been nailed by this very scenario that you describe, Matt. I can't deny the wisdom of all that you've said, but the "&" is a troublesome thing because of the false shortcuts it creates. Are you familiar with the Judgment Night soundtrack?

[images.amazon.com] http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000297O.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif

Would anyone argue that those collaborations between bands qualify as new distinct band entities?

Render ineligible all these collaborations which contribute only towards soundtrack albums, the same way as you discriminate against charity supergroups (same concept in my cynical little mind - get on a movie soundtrack *or* in a charity supergroup and you're at no. 1).

Note that we don't need to discriminate against bands who appear only on soundtrak albums, just those spurious collaborations.

Incidentally, I would favour including Sutherland Brothers and Quiver, and also Aerosmith with Run D.M.C. It may make the DB look less "pure", but it would allow the documentation of a more-or-less important piece of rock history.

To be clearer (or less clear), rule that an "&" group must have at least one full release (as opposed to a split, compilation, single, etc.) as solely that group name in order to count as a band. So if artist A and B get together for a track on a compilation, that's not a band. But if artist A and artist B release an entire album as "A & B", it's a band.

Really that doesn't satisy my philosophical side either. It's clear that in Matt's example, "Silly Jerk And The Billy Boys" is a band; it's one entity with a name that has an "and". So what if Silly Jerk is an egotist and wants his name featured separately, it's one group. "The Billy Boys" is also, later, a band. By contrast, something like "Slayer & Ice-T" is clearly not a band, but a collaboration, on one track, of two distinct artists who maintain their identity as distinct artists even as they work together to create a track.

What's not clear is how to codify this "obvious" difference into precise language that's easily applied. With many "&" bands it really is debatable whether it's "one group" (especially when they release one or more full albums, tour, etc.) or a "collaboration". My gut feeling is that I don't really care: I'd like things like "Neil Young & Crazy Horse" to be in the database anyway, because I think the database should be able to hold every release ever. I feel like I'd like to solve the problem by eliminating the requirement that an album be created by one artist (or be a set of distinct tracks, each with some artist). If A & B collaborate (a true collaboration, not a "new artist") to make an album, then put it in as an album that's by A and B: it's by two artists, who maintain their separate identities but worked together on the album. Don't demand that an album must be by "one artist" and therefore it's either in as "A & B" or not in at all.

This, to me addresses a lot of the problems we had with rule 7(c) as well if you also allow solo artists into the tree (a rule change I'm never going to stop crusading for). Then any "&" artist can definitely get in, and the only debate is over whether it gets in as "A & B" or as "A" and "B".

Thoughts?

The rap version of "Walk this way" is not by "Run DMC & Aerosmith". It's by Run DMC with Steven Tyler and Joe Perry as guest musicians.