livinginthepast

Nazareth (2) livinginthepast

April 17, 2014
Should be Nazareth not Nazareth (2). As if some shitty trance music project [with only 4 releases to its name] is more important?
judgexp

Nazareth (2) judgexp

September 24, 2018
Happens frequently, the idiosincratic discogs criteria does not help as usual.
musiclraider

Nazareth (2) musiclraider

March 14, 2018
Discogs started out as a database for 'electronic' music, so trance stuff got added first. Only later was Discogs expanded to include all types of music and other releases. You may not like trance, but it is not appropriate to say it is shitty, just for that reason.
rickbernal

Nazareth (2) rickbernal

January 22, 2018
Absolutely agree. How DG comes with the priority and there others out there that will qualify for same comment.
Jarren

Nazareth (2) Jarren

July 7, 2014
First come, first served. The dance producer was added to Discogs before the rock band, so he gets 1st Nazareth placeholder.

Discogs does not change these placeholders, no matter how important the artists involved are (or perceived to be).
Freeceland

Nazareth (2) Freeceland

April 27, 2014
I agree - but must confess I do not know why "our" favourite is (2) - have a look on UFO (5)
similar