Contradictory information about the same record from different releases

MusicBrainz Classical
1

When checking meta-info already available for a Chopin release (https://musicbrainz.org/release/e08256f5-8783-437d-9493-cbc7acbf8c4b) against a CD box I own, I found that some records in the MusicBrainz DB have 2 links to the same performer and 2 links to the same work with different recording dates, for example https://musicbrainz.org/recording/e16a5f0c-eaad-4e3f-8339-2bbdc9445f31. This looked wrong to me, so I investigated a bit further.

It appears that affected records appears on different releases, where different information about recording date and place is given. For example, the first record appears on release https://musicbrainz.org/release/b1fd0d5e-d35b-4f82-8013-3696327d3542 and https://musicbrainz.org/release/6e3cb2ae-1ea1-43df-9e21-47e902a89d5c. The first release points on a discogs entry stating that the recording was done in London in December 1981. The second release points on a discogs entry stating the the recording was done in Germany in April 1982. The CD box I own states that the recording was done in Germany in 1982 (without mentioning the month), which agrees with the second discogs release. Theoretically it is possible that these are two different recordings done in different places on different times, but duration of all affected tracks is absolutely identical, so the probability of such explanation is quite low. I am inclined to believe that one of the releases on discogs gives wrong recording place and time, although I can’t prove it.

What is the right approach in such case? Currently MusicBrainz DB links a record to the same work and performer twice with different dates, but somehow it looks wrong to me. Maybe it would be more appropriate to keep only links with dates mentioned by majority of sources, and add an annotation that one source gives a different date?

1 Like
2

I’ve got nothing helpful to contribute on the general case.
Specifically for Zoltán Kocsis, from the qualities mentioned in obits that appear in a google search, I suspect that he will have a detailed fan website that may well list his recording dates and locales.

3

Maybe they are in fact simply not the same recording and they were just victims of a bad merge.

4

Two discogs releases contain records with exactly the same duration, but with different dates. The same duration of different records may have been possible (although unlikely) for a single record, but for 19 records it is all but impossible. Since the information is contradictory not only in MusicBrainz, but also on discogs, this is definitely not a wrong merge on MusicBrainz.

5

Your two releases you link to don’t even have the same durations for that track.
PS: I mean, your second link points to a discogs page where the track has a different length.

6

I mean these disgogs entries: https://www.discogs.com/release/11349406 and https://www.discogs.com/release/3292687. Durations are the same, release place and dates different.

7

I’m still certain that “Germany, 4/1982” and “London, 12/1981” are different recordings and not one recording with different info.
Info on discogs and musicbrainz both can be wrong and if the two are inconsistent (D: 4:52 MB: 4:57 for the same track on the same release) then (at least) one has to be wrong.

8

The two Releases listed in the OP


&

share the same Disc ID
CB11AQ6agfdUrrXtRtih37SxKS8-

The example Recording (track 1 on both Releases) has multiple AcousticIDs

The Discogs page Notes, with the same barcode, CA etc, for Release as
The 19 Waltzes
being


reads
Recorded: London, 12/81

Also Amazon page for The 19 Waltzes


shows rear CA that reads
Recorded … : London, 12/81

The rear CA for
The Complete Waltzes
at


reads
Recorded … Germany, 4/82

An expert pianist performing the same classical pieces in 12/81 and then in ?4/82 is very possibly going to play them such that the time for each piece is within 0.5 seconds.

From this I conclude that if there is an error it was made by Phillips when they printed the CA.

I’d be inclined to go with info on the available CA until we have firm evidence that the (respectable?) label had made an error.

If the label has made an error then we do not know which date is an error.
Or if both dates are errors.

And that line of thinking soon has all of the db suspect.
Humour: Indeed solipsism, that most impregnable of philosophies, can be found just a little further down that path.

EDIT: Further thought: Would be best to separate the differently dated Recordings.

4 Likes