the 2 albums seem to be the same in every way other then the times and artists
both are by the Label Maranatha! Music and both may have came out on the same day.
it seams like one is digital only and the other is analog
i think thay need to be separate due to times doues any one agree or disagree i would love to hear what you think
Classical Praise Piano by Maranatha! Instrumental
Praise Piano by Tom Keene
Yes, you do have separate releases there.
The first two are for a Digital Release. Then the next three point to a CD version.
You make two Releases here in the same Release Group, but you can link them to the same Recordings. In this case I expect the few second of difference are just silence between the tracks.
If you are using scripts, it is possible to Import the Discogs CD in to MB. That avoids lots of typing. And then it can be cloned with another script to be the digital version. Just a bit of clean-up then of correcting the different track times.
should i call the cd version to Classical Praise Piano as only discogs has it as Praise Piano. what artist should i use for both should it be Maranatha! Instrumental or Tom Keene all digital shops use Maranatha! Instrumental and alll shops that sell physical media have it as Tom Keene and placeless like Spotify only have Maranatha! Instrumental, Tom Keene is the Aranger on all the cover arts Maranatha! Instrumental is never mentioned on the cover art as far as i can see on the web. and how douse the Label: Colours fit in?
https://christianmusicarchive.com/album/classical-praise-piano
Here at MB we look at what is on the cover of a CD. After the cover, we use the spine.
It looks like in both cases this should be:
Title: Classical Praise Piano
Artist: Marantha! Instrumental
I am especially looking at the CD cover for the full title, and the spine for the artist. Tom Keene is only the arranger and Discogs is incorrect. his only credit appears on the rear and the CD as arranger. In the book as the performer. (Even to Discogs own rules that entry is wrong). On the cover and the spine it is Marantha! Music getting the credits.
I think it would be correct to put Tom Keene as the track artist as he performed these tracks.
The label is also Marantha! Music.
I can see that the digital sales are now calling the artist “Marantha! Instumental”. So for digital you can use that different name, but I assume this is just an alias of the same “artist” as Marantha! Music
I would look at other examples for guidance: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/f46e25cf-78b7-4ffd-91c5-aee66cc4e32d
thanks that clears it up a lot i was thinking that thay should be like this i was not shure tho,
Title: Classical Praise Piano
Artist: Marantha! Instrumental
thanks for the help ill make a link to this in both as others may also see the same problem and go and change it
There is no artist at MB called Marantha! Instrumental. So I would use Marantha! Music as the artist, but set a “artist credited as” of Marantha! Instrumental.
Select Marantha! Music as the artist and then hit the EDIT button to change it as follows:
will do
should i add theses composers to both?
To add the composers, you will need to do that by adding Works. Have you created many Works yet?
Put the Releases in first with just the plain track titles. Once you have the releases, you can then use the Edit Relationships tab to add the Works and set the Composers in there.
What makes these releases confusing is we know that Tom Keene is the actual performer here. But Marantha! Music using their name on all their release to take the artist credits for themselves. Just a quick look at the notes on their MB artist and label it can be seen that this is a common practice of theirs. It will simplify the way they can then keep the earnings for themselves.
In MB eyes Marantha! Music \ Instrumental becomes the artist throughout. And we can get Tom Keene onto the Recording as performer credits via the Edit Relationships page.
isn’t that wrong as Marantha! Music is a label should i not add a new orchestra or group called Marantha! Instrumental.
Yes, you are technically correct. They are a label. But if you follow this link to an ARTIST you will see that they have many releases already as an “ARTIST” here at MB.
As I was writing above, I expect in the eyes of the money people in the industry they are credited as an ARTIST. This way they keep more of the earnings for themselves and can pay the real artist a lot less. Tom Keene probably got a small one off payment for his performance and earns nothing in royalties.
BTW - it is 00:30hrs here in the UK. I’ll disappear soon and return tomorrow to help out more. Good to see you again @st3v3p and I hope you are well.
yer i think ill still put it as Marantha! Instrumental as they still use it as a way to get the money same as all there other groups.
iv been well just busy with life even if iv not been here in a while all any one needs to do is mention me and ill pop up may take a few hours sometimes tho. hope you have a good sleep
Staying consistent is the key here I think. They have made many many releases as an artist. Lots of them already listed here at MB
When looking on Amazon it is easy to see them using both names interchangeably in such a way that Amazon just lists them as the same artist. Notice this list: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Maranatha!+Instrumental&i=digital-music You can see the same series of releases swapping between the two names.
Good to hear you are doing well. I’ve also taken a few big breaks from this place. Life often gets busy.
i will put it as Maranatha! Music to follow what it is saying on the spine. but if i was to keep it consistent i would have to change the words of worship sires from the Maranatha! singers to Maranatha! Music even tho on the spine it has Maranatha! singers and on the spine and front it has Maranatha!. if we wont to ty and keep it simple then you could say if there are singers you put Maranatha! singes and if it is Instrumental you put Maranatha! Instrumental
even there website has different artist for different albums https://maranathamusic.christianbook.com/
Please paste links as links next time. I didn’t take the time to copy/paste each link in address bar. 
I would not say only the arranger.
On most instrumental cover albums (is it the case here?), the arranger can be considered the artist.
By using the label as an artist, I think it is more redundant than useful.
sorry about the links it has been a while ill fix it up now for others can someone have a look at the albums and see if i did the right thing
I fixed English title case and added some relationships to explain who Tom Keene is (arranged and performed grand piano).
See the release edit history. 
ok do you add english even if it is instrumental?
If it is the Release, the “English” bit is about the language the booklet is written in. So in this case it is English.
If you are asking about the Work, then that is “No Lyrics” as the language.
I was trying to keep things simple. Have a look at the rest of the quote and I do add that he is the performer as well. Look at the booklet and the other MB entries (as well as my other waffle) and you will see we are following the pattern of this Label and the way they put themselves as the Artist. 
I had a quick look at the release, and it looks good to me. We can look at adding the Works to get the composers in to place.
Language and script stand for the tracklist written language and script, not the sung lyrics, not the booklet (sorry Ivan 
).
For example, there is a Japanese artist who has many releases consisting of full English/Latin tracklists, yet her lyrics and booklets are full Japanese.
