Community Cleanup #1: Debussy

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f0508c2aab0> #<Tag:0x00007f0508c2a970>


2 possibilities come to mind:
A. (the most likely) the track consists of a selection of Debussy Preludes, in line with a common practice when performing Debussy.
B. There is a Debussy work called “4 Preludes”.
However nothing with that title appears on

If A. is the situation and the exact constituents are undiscoverable then might creating a “series of works” for Debussy’s Preludes, and have the track be “part of” that series, be a way forward?


Cross-referencing your release with this compilation suggests that the 4 preludes are: 9, 8, 6, 12; arranged by Robert G. Hughes for 5 trombones.


That looks quite, likely. Awesome work.


Is that the right approach, rather than to call it a medley of the 4 preludes?


If we know the four preludes, I’d just link to all four (or to catch-all works for them) and be done with it (not as medley either). If we don’t, I’d link this as a partial recording of the preludes main work(s).


Oh, one thing. If you add all the details to a release, please also set it as high quality! :slight_smile: I know we don’t display that much at the moment, but still. I’ll add that to the top post.

Process to mark a release as high quality?

I just came across of this release.

It contains only the work “Children’s corner” which should be about 15 minutes in length only (no timings given). Medium type is not specified ant there is no discid. It has been entered as type “Other”. My feeling is that it might be an inofficial compilation. The recordings have been merged into ones with recording year 2008, which is clearly not ok as the release was submitted already in 2005. The submitting editor dicy was active only till 2006.

My personal opinion is: Lets just delete this release. I don’t see any value in it. Things are inconsistent, and I don’t see how we should ever have a chance to track down what this was supposed to be, originally.


Agreed. Cases where there’s just no way of figuring out what something is should be removed - if someone has a hunch, they can always vote No and ask for more research time.


I agree, see that it is marked for deletion now anyway. Probably an editor error based on the fact the same editor did


Maybe the next cleanup target should be the release additions of editor dicy…

EDIT: doesn’t look that bad to me. It is disc 3 of this release. Also, from skimming though the edit list, the other release additions of dicy look ok too me.


Yea they seem to have mainly done recording edits. I think the above one was just an error at the time.


I noticed your “Low Quality” edit and made an edit to remove this before reading your posts on this topic. I’m usually removing similar releases which are impossible to identify. For example another Debussy release being removed:


I have a strange problem:
I took the cover art from this discogs release and uploaded it here.

However, the upload of the 5th image (booklet, track list of CD 1) always results in an error at the point where normally “creating edit” should appear. I tried it yesterday several times and also now.

Could you try this: Download the corresponding image at discogs (full size) and try to upload it to the musicbrainz release (should go to position 5).

Any explanation why this particular image gives trouble?


Didn’t work for me either. I guess there’s something wrong with the file. For text picture quality (because of compression) isn’t that important so I just opened it to Photoshop and saved again. It’s now added to the release.


Thank you! Agreed, compression artifacts is not an issue in this case.


I may be missing something but I understand each single Prelude to be a main work. As in they stand alone and are preludes to nothing.


I meant the two books of preludes, 1 and 2 :slight_smile:


Next dubious “Musically Speaking” release. I took the performers from the disc (found on amazon). The combination is a bit weired. A combination of Brussels and Cleveland personnel.

Now I found:

This Naxos release on discogs. Same pieces in the same order, same performers BRT Philharmonic Orchestra / Alexander Rahbari, but different performers for solo flute (Jeffrey Khaner vs. Jan Van Reeth) / women’s choir (Cleveland Orchestra chorus vs. BRT Choir ) and chorus master (Robert Page vs. Vic Nees). So performers look more consistent, all seem reasonably Brussels related.

So far this looks quite Scholz’ish.

Then I came across of
This London Records release. The medium looks completely the same as the “Musically speaking” one: Same pieces in the same order, very close timings. This time complete Cleveland personell.

London Records is considered a “serious” label, right? Might it be the case that the London Records recordings were just “borrowed” by Naxos, replacing the Cleveland personnel by Brussels one to obscure it a bit? And then this “Musically Speaking” release somehow managed to make a mixture of the original and the fake personnel?

Should the recordings be merged? Should the “Musically Speaking” release go to the same release group as the “London Records” one?


According to Discogs “Musically Speaking” has phonographic copyright “PolyGram Records, Inc.”. London Classics (often used in US for Decca Classics releases) was a label owned by Polygram (Polygram was later merged with Universal Music Group). “Musically Speaking” just has a licence to use their recordings so recordings should be the same. Should be merged.

There’s one more medium so basically 50% of the stuff is different. I wouldn’t merge release groups.

That Naxos release does have nothing to do with Decca/London recordings. Just compare track durations which have huge difference.


ok, I entered the merges.You are right, the release groups should not be merged, I forgot about the second disc.

So the situation is: There is the “London Records” release (performed by Cleveland Orchestra / Vladimir Ashkenazy) and the “Naxos” release (performed by BRT Philharmonic Orchestra Brussels / Alexander Rahbari). The releases are completely independent, but they contain the same pieces in the same order.

But is there any explanation how it could happen that the “Musically Speaking” release credits a mixture of the performers of the above releases? I find this quite strange.