[x] with

Did we ever decide what to do with the "with" situation? Does this get in as any more than a Noel Redding release? -
[birdcagerecords.com] http://birdcagerecords.com/?p=687

I don't think we have consistency at the moment - that looks to me like a Redding album but there are some bands with a 'with' styling already in the dB which look no different.

I'm with MP. I'm very suspicious of the word "with" because I think it usually signals guest status, although I recognize that there can be exceptions.

On the other hand, I think that I would support a blanket approach recognizing "with" as equivalent to "and" if that made sense to everyone. I understand that doing so might feel like "cheating" under our traditional stingy approach, but that alone isn't a compelling reason (in my view) not to do so.

What a change that would be. It would also impact many live releases. It would at once make much connectivity easier but also some more difficult where the 'withs' are not well-defined. I'm not against it though if our hair-shirt approach is being reviewed.

I would not support "with" always being the same as "and." It very frequently denotes guest status and not true connectivity. I'd much rather treat it with suspicion, with the assumption that it's a guest denotation unless it can be shown otherwise. (Whatever that means.)

I know we hate rules that aren't ironclad, but I think "with" is used so much more often like "featuring" than like "and." We should be very careful with it.