Big difference in release date

MusicBrainz
,
1

Example:

Atomic Rooster - “Atomic Rooster”

The year 1991 is printed on the back cover.

a2
a21254×947 151 KB

However, in MB the date is 2011.

a1
a11254×947 156 KB

How to treat it?

There are more such examples.

2

The © indicates the copyright date, not the release date.

7 Likes
3

It also says (p) 1970 on that rear paperwork. (p) and (c) are never any use at dating something. It is why dating a CD release can be a headache. Especially when something is a reissue.

Another good hint your CD is not from 1991 are those SID codes.

6 Likes
4

1970 is probably the year of the first release on vinyl.

5

It can be but not necessarily.

The (p) and (c) years can usually be either same year as original release year, or the year before.

1 Like
6

Japanese releases do print their release date on the back cover.

But sometimes it’s wrong, for example the non-CCCD versions do still show the release date of the original CCCD versions.

There was a website to keep track of these non-CCCD real release dates (exceptions to the rule), but that site is now down.

Update

Yes! that very useful nocccd.noihjp.com is back online!!

2 Likes
7

Big in Japan … 𝄞 :wink:

1 Like
8

Also about Japanese release dates, one thing that I keep looking for and find it, and search again, aqnd find again, but with difficulty.
I would like to have it at least in this forum, for more convenience:

Japanese Collectibles -JAPAN CDs-: a bit knowledge about JAPANESE CDs the date of release (it’s well archived, hopefully)

It is super complete but here is the part that is harder to remember:

CD released from 84 (first CD) to 91 have the year printed in letter instead of numbers.

Although some labels started to indicate the actual year around 1989〜1991, this style was kept until 1991.

  • NIHON
    • N: 84
    • I: 85
    • H: 86
    • O: 87
    • N: skipped — N is already 84
  • RECORD
    • R: 88
    • E: 89
    • C: 90
    • O: skipped — O is already 87
    • R: skipped — R is already 88
    • D: 91

So it’s NIHORECD from 84 to 91.

After 1992, ALL CDs are showing the releasing (re-issuing) year by figures.

3 Likes
9

Coming back to the Atomic Rooster album.

Why here

https://www.discogs.com/master/30553-Atomic-Rooster-Atomic-Roooster

no date 2011?

10

Please link the MB release you’re trailing about, so we can check its edit history.

PS. Discogs does not necessarily have everything. Just like MB.

1 Like
11

Additionally
Label Code: LC 8065
in hand.

And extra ‘o’ in the title, so Roooster.

12

The original 2011-03-25 edit says back cover. :thinking:
But we know back covers (except Japanese releases) don’t show release dates.
And it links to https://amazon.de/dp/B000006Z62 but the back cover, there, will not say 2011.

So I would say, this edit is not referenced.
It’s up to you to fix the date as you see fit, with some arguments in the edit note.
But it’s maybe not 1991, either.

In these cases, I just set no dates. :wink:

2 Likes
13

Details. :wink:

Weird editor. :wink:

Where did this year come from?

Maybe someone else can look up the SID and connect it to the year of release.

14

Differences between countries

"

UK/Ireland Downloads (some labels) Sunday
most European countries, Australia & New Zealand Monday
US Tuesday
Japan Wednesday
Germany Friday (was Monday before summer 2005)
"

I guess only March 25, 2011 as Friday is correct. :wink:

15

But now it’s Friday for all, I guess you know.
Ah no, I thought so, but not completely!

I didn’t notice but now in Japan, instead of only Wednesday, this Friday only policy in fact led to Japanese artists keep releasing on Wednesday and foreign artists release on Friday, in Japan.
The unique day, led to 2 days instead of 1. :upside_down_face:

16

@jesus2099 do you know how many Fridays there were in 1991? :wink:

17

AllMusic can. :wink:

https://www.allmusic.com/album/mw0002071459#releases

am
am1089×1060 178 KB

18

That release on allmusic has a different cat. no. Matching cat. no. and barcode would be https://www.discogs.com/de/release/9673386-Atomic-Rooster-Atomic-Rooster , which also has no indication of 2011

Maybe this really was just a typo because it was 2011 when this was added. There are more indications that 1991 would be correct.

Also Atomic Roooster | CD (1991, Re-Release) von Atomic Rooster

1 Like
19

We need to organize a vote. :wink:

20

I wonder how many percent of the entire MB are incorrect data regarding the year of release.

Is 10% acceptable?

If not, is it possible to come up with a batch to automatically repair these fields?