Community Cleanup #1: Debussy

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.

1 Like

There could be 2 similar releases having different performers or there’s a typo on the cover. I was able to find some pictures from Ebay which I believe would be correct pictures for the release we got in MB.

1 Like

Indeed, i just found that out, too. There exist front covers for both set of performers. The mixture came from the two images, front cover and disc.
On discogs, the release has the same problem: The performer info does not match the front cover image.

I created a second release, see the common release group, and sorted the info/cover art images over those two releases.

I wonder why they produced these two versions. Maybe the licensing of the Naxos recordings was cheaper such that they switched at some point.

1 Like

Now when we know that there’s 2 releases having different performers there’s no reason to keep these releases in the same release group.

Thanks for fixing it! Have to admit I first though there’s just a typo on the cover until I noticed that picture of CD was having durations which were matching with the Naxos release.

My feeling is they should be in the same release group, since it is “the same” release from the identical cover art already.

For me, it was that at some point I realized that the mixture of the performers was introduced by the two images we had at that time. So I did more google and ended up at a similar ebay item.

I checked over the week-end and I think both catalogues are complete (only missing are the works that were unfinished/unpublished — do we want those too? e.g. Le Diable dans le beffroi CD 106, L. 101 or La Saulaie CD 96, L. 89). I think all links to IMSLP are here too, I will try to check for wikidata/BNF links later.

Search for “release:Debussy AND NOT artist:Debussy” could bring releases where Debussy is in the title instead of release artists, but there’s probably not much left there.

There are a lot of pending edits to merge recordings. Vote if you can check the information! Especially on merges using acoustID as evidence, wrong acoustID can be very difficult to detect. and if you have a doubt, say so before it’s too late.

Search for CD stubs. I added a few of them where it was not too difficult to find barcode/performers. Others are probably too vague to be usable.


I’d say yes - it’s still relevant IMO :slight_smile:

Somebody good with French have a look at this one, please. don’t believe the release title is right based on

Also the release artist Mr. Caplet seems to be a transcriber and, maybe, belongs on the other side of the “;” ???

Here’s my translation for the cover you linked:

Claude Debussy
transcribed for two pianos by André Caplet

La Mer. Iberia. Gigues. Rondes de Printemps
Françoise Thinat - Jacques Bernier

Françoise Thinat and Jacques Bernier are classical piano players. (She is noted on her page as having performed this recording.)

Less interesting, but for completeness, the top-right triangle says:

Booklet in French, English, German


I imported that from Discogs, and that looks like the title to me. I don’t know french, though.

Caplet should be to the left of the semicolon.

Since Debussy and Caplet are artists, wouldn’t the title fall into this category?

A list of works: Use the works as credited and separate them with a slash.

That is what I thought should be done, but the language had me… I will change it now. Thanks all for the help.

1 Like

I don’t think so. It’s an album title that happens to include the artist’s name.

Made them votable.

I disagree with stupidname << the title is the works performed (and is in a larger script than the one used currently)

I added a disambig to show that it is a transcription of the works, which I think is appropriate. But, like I said, the language is not familiar to me so if you want to vote no I won’t lose any sleep.

Oops looks like they got approved, should have put a better note on the edit.!!!

Kinda my fault too. Sorry about that!

I don’t have a strong opinion about the title either. If title is edited again I wouldn’t vote against alternative.