[mb-users] Group had to change there name - two artist entries?

[Olivier]

2008/2/26, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com>:
> I think it's one where current practice has gotten away from the
>  guideline (yes, yet another one :)
>
>  Common thing to do now is add both names, file releases as appropriate
>  and relate them with a 'performed as' AR with start and end dates to
>  the old name.
>
>  Which makes sense to the pragmatist in me, and the ones I've done that
>  way have been voted through.
>
>  Notably though, they have been cases of the band itself changing it's
>  name.  The case of a band being forced to change their name for legal
>  reasons often has the additional constraint that they had to withdraw
>  their back catalog, and if those albums are re-issued, they are often
>  reissued with no changes other than the cover name, and you can't buy
>  their old albums under the old name.
>
>  So you have precedent either way, but a couple of examples that I can think of:
>  Cases where we split and AR'ed them:
>  Teddybears
>  Panic at the Disco
>
>  Ones that aren't split, all the releases are filed under the new name
>  (band changed name for legal reasons, not just creative or marketing)
>  The Kovenant
>
>  I would vote yes to splitting the discography and a performance AR, fwiw.
>


Lauri, am I wrong or the case mentioned here concern *groups* and not
Perf Names?