BBC Music Magazine release names

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fef66c19d48>

I just changed a few of these to include “BBC Music, Volume x, Number y” to be consistent with the vast majority of these, but I note that @wcw1966 deliberately removed this prefix from one a few months ago ( with the explanation “Label/magazine/series number not part of title. Labels and series are now shown separately.This title appears nowhere on the product.”
I have some sympathy with this (except that the last sentence is not really true - the components of it do appear) as it does make the titles rather clunky. Including it, however, has the advantage of the members in the series being easily identified when viewing the label’s releases ( The explanation given would also make more sense if indeed the release was linked to a series, but only 9 releases are ( I also note that another (more completely listed series), namely hyperion’s “The Romantic Piano Concerto” ( has releases which invariably include the series name and volume number in their titles and I recall (but can’t fine) some discussion relating to that.
To pursue this I added this release: to the series (so 10* now!) with the Volume and Number in the “number” attribute, which works quite well although the number column is a bit narrow for it. Maybe this is a good idea, although it would be better if the series relationship could be seen from the label page so that it is obvious which ones have not been added to the series.
Lastly, there is some inconsistency in the catalog numbers. Would it be better if they were all in the BBCMMnnn format (no spaces).
Whatever, I think a consistent approach would be good. Views?

*EDIT - continuing to add more

1 Like

I found the previous discussion re the Hyperion series here: Community Cleanup #4: Hyperion
The gist of the discussion there (but not explicitly decided) was that “The Romantic Piano Concerto nn” is ok because it is prominent on the cover. This is not the case with the BBC Music Magazine series. That would point to removing the additional text, but my issue with then being able to readily see the series number in the label listing remains.
Previous contributors (@reosarevok, @obtext, ) to that discussion might care to post their views re the BBCMM series? At the moment I feel it is down to individual taste.
Also, is there any way of seeing the series number in the release listing for a label?

1 Like

I agree with you that it makes life much easier when a magazine title is kept in the title of the release. Like you I see it there on the cover. And it is usually how it is referred to on other sites.

I have many other magazine cover disks like this too. And have often suffered when someone randomly jumps on one item in a series and deletes the magazine name from the front whilst misquoting a guideline.

I did a lot of work on this series a while ago, but have rather lost heart recently. The work was done before series existed, IIRC, so naturally I put the mag title in the name.

See my annotation and link against the label:


My penny’s worth.
Consistency is great, if only release providers would adhere to it!
But they don’t.
MB should reflect the release title (generally from the front cover) as accurately as possible at first view.
Behind the scenes, generally on recordings or works, accuracy to the truth should prevail.
Alternate catalogue numbers should be set up for any catalogue numbers that don’t confirm to any particular consistent view.
Alternate titles should be set up for any titles that don’t conform to any particular consistent view.
The release date should be the most reliable guide, where we can ascertain it.
It may be er… pretty to see the list under the BBC Music magazine lable but the only useful aspect I can think of is that it makes it easier to identify those releases not given away freely with the magazine, if in fact there are any.
Meanwhile any user unfamiliar with MB’s pecadillos has a double take when trying to reconcile their cd with MB’s eg. nowhere has BBC Music on it’s cover (except as part of the series name).
Changing the roman numeralled initial releases in the series?
There are many errors and omissions in the MB database that can be worked on. Too much time is spent by those indulging their views of consistency instead of adding to and improving the quality of the data (me too probably).

Did you look at the cover? The text is clearly there. “The BBC Music Magazine Collection”

The data needs to be usable. It should not be hacked and forced to fit a single cookie cutter guideline.

When someone owns a collection like this it will be on the shelf side by side issue by issue.

1 Like

Hi ID,

sorry, just read your comments “…When someone owns a collection like this it will be on the shelf side by side issue by issue…”

but eg. for me it’s under Weir, for others under Poulenc & for others still under Various Artists which is why MB should be careful the data “…should not be hacked and forced to fit
a single cookie cutter guideline.”


Over the years, the magazine varied whether it put Vol./No. on the cover. However, they consistently put it on the spine. Since the cat # is not on the spine, only on the medium, it is extremely useful to have the Vol/No. in the release title.


@wcw1966 I’ve been rereading your comment here, and I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your argument. You admit that people have their own standards regarding classical (which is true, I have my own that does not align with MusicBrainz standards), but I don’t follow how that means that MusicBrainz should not have a standard. Classical standards arose because without them, classical release titles were unpredictable. What specific problems do you see with following the current de facto standard for the BBC Music Magazine releases?