Trouble with the Trouble entry

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f756a477a20>

Wow. Your entry for Trouble is troubling to say the least and has caused complete confusion over at the site. Every time I try and fix or edit it your site will not let me. Here’s the issue. Trouble’s first release is called Psalm 9. You have it entered as Trouble in one spot under it’s releases as a 7 inch. That has thrown everything off because song titles keep getting mistakenly attributed to it that are on Trouble’s self titled 1990 Def American release called Trouble. Song titles are flying all over the place and being attributed to the wrong lp as well as ‘other.’ This needs to be fixed.

Which Trouble? There are quite a few :slight_smile:

Presumably we’re talking about the doom metal Trouble and the confusion here is between their debut album and their self-titled fourth album. (I don’t see any reference to a 7", though.)

Wikipedia says of that debut:

Psalm 9 is the debut studio album by the American doom metal band Trouble, released in 1984. The album was originally released eponymously and was renamed to Psalm 9 after the release of their fourth album, which was their 1990 self-titled release.

If that’s correct, then there’s nothing wrong with the MB listing for the debut, as the release group is named after the first release. However, I don’t see anything in the style guidelines saying that the release group title couldn’t follow the most common release title rather than the first, in which case the RG (but not the initial vinyl release) could conceivably be renamed “Psalm 9”.

If has trouble with two albums by Trouble both called Trouble, I wonder how they cope with Weezer or Peter Gabriel.


I would be in favor regarding renaming the RG. But the releases themselves seem to be correct, but actually seem to need some cleanup.

The first one we have seems to have wrong cover art from a later release (see edit #54929324). And the release on the German label Steamhammer also needs to be renamed to “Trouble” (see edit #54929279) and has wrong cover art edit #54929279).

1 Like

Indeed. In general if has trouble with same name albums this should be fixed on I don’t know how works, but if you e.g. try to assign this song from their 1990 album to an album, you don’t have the 1990 album in the selection. @strangeways747 Is this the problem you mean?

If this data is directly sourced from MusicBrainz renaming the release group could “fix” that. But this really is just a coincidence here as we usually don’t rename things just because other sites using the data mess up. In the end you should also report this to, as there are definitely many cases of artist’s releasing multiple albums under the same name.


I have added disambiguation comments on our side.


Why don’t make more use of the MB Release IDs to point to the actual album they are referring to? You can’t expect unique results from a artist+album name search.

As noted above, there are many bands who have changed album names once they get famous. Or just name them all the same. Seal ( ) is another one with three albums released using his own name.

Also surely this causes more confusions with re-releases when extra tracks are added?


I’ve submitted an edit to change the RG name to “Psalm 9”.

1 Like

I prefer the original name as this album has been originally known as and has been known for six years as Trouble between 84 and 90.
Only three albums later that the name changes on newer editions, according to WP.


That means it was known as “Trouble” for six years and as “Psalm 9” for the last 28 years. :slightly_smiling_face:

I don’t feel strongly either way myself, but in the absence of clear guidelines, would you advocate that we should always use the original release title as the RG title?


Just because they re-released it under a new name doesn’t mean everybody who already knew the album forgot the old name. So it was known as “Psalm 9” for 28 years and as “Trouble” for 34. :wink:


I’ll do some clean up and add cover art when I’m at home next time (as I own some of their releases as vinyl and CD).


Our guidelines for artist intent don’t say that artist can’t change their mind, so if they intended to change the name of the album and not just do a common re-release under a different name (e.g. to trick people to buy it again) then I guess we should follow their intent.

On a side-note: What if the artist intended a certain name for their album, but they were forced to change the official title? (Example - “the people will always know what the real title of this album is and what to call it.”)

Well, the first print of this released album still keeps printed as is… Re-releases should be named whatever artist intend is. But I would prefer that the release group name keeps as the earliest release.

When “Prince” decided to become “Ƭ̵̬̊” his formerly released albums still existed as Prince albums.

1 Like

An album that has the name of the artist has a very special and strong meaning.
« This is me. »
For convenience, it is renamed but the original intent was IMO more important and stronger than a later chosen track titles.
But Psalm 9 should definitely release or complete the current comment like for the second DAVID BOWIE album.

Actually, unless it is known that the original title was not artist intent, to me, original title is more important than later titles.
Later titles may be more famous than official title (BOWIE’s case) that I still think it is more interesting to keep original for RG.


It seems to me like you’re inferring a lot with statements like “for convenience”. Isn’t it just as possible that the band decided “This new album is more ‘us’ than the first album that we put out”? And why should “original intent” trump a later “reconsidered intent”?


Exactly, I feel that when there is a try to rewrite history, we should not follow.
The intent at the time of release is indeed more important for me.
Any later changes are like a remix.
But anyway since NGS we can now always keep all titles with each release title.