Hi,
I have two special cases where it is not entirely clear whether a name should be used as artist or title.
I have added this release:
Most databases have 2 album artists, Schmetterlinge (performer) and Jura Soyfer (lyrics), and there’s only the title “Verdrängte Jahre” printed on back cover and booklet. But I think, Jura Soyfer is not a performing artist = no album artist (in popular music) and therefore part of the title.
I see it as a self-titled release. On the original Keytone release Jasper van 't Hof isn’t even mentioned on the cover.
Furthermore, on Jasper’s website it is listed with artist Pili Pili. jaspervanthof - Discografie (#29)
1\ I don’t agree. I think you have two artist called Schmetterlinge and Jura Soyfer collaborating. One is the music, the other the words. Jura Soyfer is equally an artist with Schmetterlinge as the album would not exist without words and music.
Also the styling on that second image shows the two artists in equal standing - black bold text. Title is in a slightly different font and emphasis.
If other databases are crediting the two artists, then I think MB should too.
Edit: Am reading up on who Jura is, so some ideas may change here, but in principle I think I’d stay the same due to the way the artwork has Schmetterlinge giving Jura equal prominence.
Edit2: Totally swapped my answer now See below
2\ Agree that is a Pili PIli release as credited on Jasper’s website. It is Pili Pili by Pili Pili. Self titled albums rarely put the artist name and album name twice. Random example with similar artwork: Abba - Abba
Is Jasper on the spine? I can’t see him on the cover or the inner of the album apart from his writing credit.
Jasper can be seen on his discography creating a number of different projects\bands.
2\ I notice on the other RG you have found Jasper’s name is on the cover, unlike the original Release. Both iTunes and Spotify are calling it “Jasper Van’t Hof’s Pilli Pilli” - which is therefor emphasising the group name.
BUT you can see it is not Jasper who did that or okayed the changed cover as the space has been missed in “van 't”. It is the marketing team trying to sell the album under his name.
I would respect his website for the RG, but alias it for the later releases. This is Pilli Pilli.
1\ The more I dig and read, the more I think you have it correct.
I notice Wikipedia does have a page that lists Schmetterlinge’s Discography, and I’d now lean more that way to keep as you have it. Are there any official biographies? I notice each reference link I do click is putting the album name like you have. And the more I think you are correct. I have not seen anywhere else credit Jura as equal artist. Trouble is I stumble on the language when trying to make more sense of other sites.
What is going on in the booklet? Problem is I cannot read any of the text. My schoolboy German doesn’t really go beyond ordering Beer and counting.
(I would always ignore Discogs on stuff like this as their USA based pedantry does not always fit reality.)
1\ Jura Soyfer worked as a journalist until he was imprisoned and murdered by the Nazis in 1939. The lyrics are mainly satirical poems, printed in newspapers. The booklet contains the lyrics and background information, technical and instrumental credits and thanks for the photographs, …
The title on the front of the the booklet and the back of the cover are titled “Verdrängte Jahre” with different subtitles on booklet and back.
The title in the Schmetterlinge discography (your link) is interesting: “Jura Soyfer: Verdrängte Jahre” - I thought about this for MB…
Even there we see that as the album name is “Jura Soyfer - Verdrängte Jahre”. (That Museum also has the audio, so I added a link to the RG)
Otherwise I only really see Discogs putting in two artists. Which is their stubborn way of misreading things and misunderstanding Europe as usual.
I have read up on the Journalist reference now. And it is more clear to me that “Schmetterlinge” is performing his works. I think you do have the title of the album as the artist intends it to be seen.
Edit: haha - even the museum thinks Discogs is wrong. In the hidden credits at the bottom of the page they link to Discogs, but don’t follow their title or credits.
When you said “most databases” I thought that was relevant. Now we find is it Discogs and a second hand music shop. Every site who can actually read the title in context read it like you do. I am totally with your original decision.
And as a bonus I have learnt something - just a pity I can’t understand the words being sung.
It’s partly about different rules - if it would be classical, all composers and lyricists printed should be album artists. This release has tried to be Pop (wasn’t very popular though), therefore should not, I suppose.
I suppose you refer to Amazon, the second link is the Viennese public library
I am aware of that. I also edit at Discogs and realise they are purely about written text and not artist intent. Hence my pedantry comment. On MB I stay well away from editing Classical as I have been shouted at too often there
Yes - amazon being a second hand junk shop. Worse than EBay for old releases and accuracy. I got lost on the Library due to lack of English or Beer references.
See below
