Remodel by Bernhard Eder

Are "Tonight, Tonight" and "I Feel You" the submissions you're talking about? If so, who submitted those two songs and when?

As for the "Why..." paragraph: I didn't add them because they had been previously included on Remake. The artist's own Remodel pages don't credit any joint performer. She is only mentioned on an iTunes page you linked yourself after the release and the tracks had been added, so not known to me. Also in that respect, the way asked, the 2nd question is imputing and insulting.

The two referenced performances have not been submitted. I was considering it, but knew that you had to have seen them and decided against adding for some reason. Those reasons could include insufficient evidence of a co-performer or you just weren't interested. (The autogens also have co-performer credits.)

Editors are all over the place on what is sufficient evidence of a co-performer, hence my request for guidance on some objective standard. While you may not skip adding known covers on a release (I can't say from experience), other editors do skip. Not the rule, but not rare either. Since some editors do skip, I asked if you did so here for whatever reason.

If I read you correctly, the then known evidence of a joint-performer wasn't strong enough. I'm rather confident that other editors would disagree. I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong, I just need some guidance.

At a minimum, these grey area cases suggest a comment on the release noting the two recordings and that some sources co-credit..... If such a comment was there, I would still want guidance but would not have filed this report.

Sorry, you still didn't read me correctly... I repeat: There was no evidence of a joint-performer known to me when adding this release (otherwise I would have researched and proceded accordingly).

The question "Did you not accept the joint performer credits or just skipped due to lack of interest?" doesn't ask 'if', it only alleges that I was aware of and willfully ignored a co-performer credit for one 'bad' reason or the other.

Asking if I was aware of your in the afterhand added link mentioning a co-performer, and to what extend it c/should be considered, would have been an entirely different approach.

Providing clips like (the actual recording on "Remodel")

and "Tonight, Tonight" from "Remake"

resp. live would have been really helpful. Both feat. Frl Hona tracks now added, but that procedure could have been much easier, quicker and less stressful.

Status: open processed

As always, your English is better than my [fill in the blank] would ever be, but just to clarify and hopefully foster better understanding here. What I wrote: "If I read you correctly, the then known evidence of a joint-performer wasn't strong enough." (Emphasis added.)

In short, "then known" refers to what you knew at the time you added the release. It does not include what you discovered after adding.

Furthermore, since I will always look for an iTunes link for a release, I will tend to assume (right or wrong) that others will search/find if I can. Perhaps you're a victim of the high standards I have come to expect from you and some other editors. In other words, I will assume that you found what I found (plus more), and intentionally made an informed decision. (This reads a bit ackward, but it's intended to be a compliment.)

Thanks for the "...English better than...", but you know that's not true, you're the native speaker, aren't you?

Sorry for over-reading the "then known..." In fact, there was none known, but that doesn't matter, anymore.

I will not search for iTunes links in the first place, at least not if there are other sources closer to the roots of releases (like artist or label sites etc.). If you find iTunes/Apple Music links causing doubts, feel free to inform. In this case it paid off (but, as said, the procedure could have been lots smoother).

Sure, my English is likely better than your English, but that isn't what I wrote. I wrote that your English is better than my [fill in the blank], referring to my any non-English.

With so many more recent releases being only digital with no back cover art, liner notes, and disc labels, it would seem that the traditional guidelines and preferences have become less definitive. Given this, I would suggest looking for different entries on different standard sources to determine conflicting titles, credits, etc. (if any). I will look to provide as many of these standard sources as I readily find during the submission process. In fact, it was these very efforts during my research phases that resulted in my finding the missing co-credit.

Spiderwebs:

a) I found Death to the 90s by various artists, which led me to filing that earlier release error;

b) While researching if that was an earlier release, I found the recording of "Tonight" on Remodel by Bernhard Eder and putting in research queue;

c) Before I researched and listened to that recording, I noticed that you also found "Remodel" while reviewing that report, but didn't add those two possible duplicates; and

d) Upon my researching and listening, I found the likely/possible co-credit and you know the rest.

While I had no hesitation on filing the earlier release report, because that would be easy to miss no matter the due diligence. Since you are a thorough editor, I was hesitant to file a missing co-performer credit report but I didn't want to just ignore my findings. Sometimes one is damned if you do, damned if you don't.