Goblin / New Goblin not sure if an alias or a separate artist should be used

MusicBrainz Style
1

These two releases are duplicates:

but I’m not sure which one we should keep. Should New Goblin be a separate artist or just an alias?

Looking at other databases, some of them (such as Discogs) consider them to be two different artists while others (for example Rate Your Music) don’t.

They released two releases as New Goblin, but their latest LP was released as just Goblin.

Thoughts?

2 Likes
2

I would merge them into one “Goblin” and set “New Goblin” as an alias.

Another place to see all the names together is Wikipedia.

Also on their own site they consider “Goblin” and “New Gobln” to be the same thing. Look at the Discography and you’ll see that 2013 Tour EP listed in with everything else
http://www.goblinofficial.com/discography.php

4 Likes
3

I would merge releases into the New Goblin release because they are both linked to same New Goblin cover art https://www.discogs.com/release/4977136-Tour-2013-EP/images where New is small and easy to miss. Maybe it’s why there is a Goblin release.

Artists and release groups should also be merged, keeping artist credits.

4 Likes
4

It’s one of those bands that change the name “with almost every release” but otherwise stay more or less the same.

Compare Silver Mt. Zion and the multitude of aliases they used throughout the years:

3 Likes
5

Yeah, here’s another one like that:

He changes his name with most every release; sometimes even from track to track. Near as I can tell, it’s all the same guy. I tried to merge artists, but got voted down.

1 Like
6

Thanks guys. It seems to me that New Goblin is not a different artist per se but rather a name variation. I have therefore:

Note: Goblin already had a New Goblin alias before I started looking into this.

2 Likes