How to display differences of writer names - work vs. release?

We often have different artist names on releases than the ones displayed in the works: e.g.

The writers in the work for track A are Becht + Neukirchner. On many releases these two are credited as Adolf von Kleebsattel.
I think this should be reflected by adding the joint pseudonym to the release.
Unfortunately I can’t find a method to relate the writer to the correct track and that makes it useless.

Any idea how to solve this problem?

It doesn’t look like there’s a way to do what you’re asking. Unless someone knows of a way, your best option may be to add a note to the Annotation.

I don’t know this example but, if a work has to be credited to an artist that is a collaboration of two artists, then:

  • create that collaboration artist (type: group),
  • link it to the work (wrote, composed, …) and
  • link it to the two collaborator artists (collaborated to)

Hey, it already exists this way!

Yes , I know (I added this pseudonym on the pic above for the release). But of course I can’t just change the credits for the work to the joint pseudonym because I don’t know how they are credited on the majorities of releases. I just want to show how the writers are credited on the release, when they are different from the work credits.
I think it’s quite important do display the credits as they are printed on a release.

I think we need something like this:

Vollbildaufzeichnung 30.05.2022 192245

Aren’t you going to run into the classic problem that some releases will name them as a pair, other releases will use the pseudonym? You may end up having to credit all three to cover all cases.

could just credit it to both the group and the individuals. I see this fairly often in my collection, even on the same release, where the tracks are credited to members of a band, and later in the same booklet it says “All tracks written by (the group)”

No, it’s just about what you find on the release in hand. I just want to show what is printed on the release in my hand, without changing the credits elsewhere.

It always will be difficult to decide which credit is the correct one used for the work. This is not about changing work credits.

But what happens when that recording is reused on a compilation? And they use the “other” credits on that release?

yes exactly, same problem. Both ways are acceptable for the work. But we should be able to display the credit “as on release” on the release.

It doesn’t matter. If the credits are the same as in the work, great. If not, add it to the release relations.

1 Like

Okay. Gotcha.

(needs to be 20 chars for a reply)

1 Like

I think if they created a kind of collaborative pen name to credit their works, it’s an indication of artist intent.
If you can confirm this pen name used for this work on some serious releases, I think it means the releases where they appear under both their real names may be quite wrong.


That might be correct indeed. This would solve the problem for MY release. But there might be releases that have credited the split artists. Same problem. I want to display the credits as they are stated on the release.The only place for this are the release relations. And this can’t be done properly at the moment.

But I think it’s good that it will never happen.
We can have some follow what’s printed approach for each release for some things (tracklist titles and artists, release credits), and that’s good.

But works and recordings are shared entities, so they have only one definition.
And that’s good too, IMO.
Or it’s better than otherwise, at least. :wink: