Different ISRC or masters (not) sharing the same recordings

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fd5e1e5cef0> #<Tag:0x00007fd5e1e5cd10> #<Tag:0x00007fd5e1e5cba8>


I have seen some where if you buy CD there, you will get it personally signed, and they are often offered as limited editions. The last one I looked at was a 200 limited edition CD, hand signed and written to the person stated in the order. Very nice stuff if you care about that kind of thing. This CD is not only a limited edition, but there are no other CDs available as a regular edition.


I never said it can’t be used, it just can’t be used on recordings :slight_smile: A mastered for iTunes release would have a “mastered by” relationship on the release.


I see. I think I misinterpreted. I checked again and it will not allow it to be used on recordings, as you stated, but it does allow on the release. Thanks for clearing that up.

EDIT: I made the correcting edits and it looks good now. It appears I was just trying to do the recording when it told me it cannot be used.


I want to bring this back with an example relating to this issue. Please see:


Based on this one release alone and the conversations that followed, there were three (3) recordings that had more than one ISRC on this release. All three, ALL THREE, of them were wrong, meaning the ISRCs in excess of one were/are wrong and should not have been there. This results in having all recordings with one and only one ISRC. The details that are getting missed are things like radio edit, album version, original version, etc. All things that are not allowed in the title of a recording and may only be placed in disambiguation and most times are not.

My intent of this post is not to debate, but to support the point that ISRCs are often one-to-one. There are times that yes, there are more than one ISRC. But a smart auto-editor once told me that it is better to keep separate and not merge unless you are absolutely sure. A duplicate is bad, yes, but incorrect data is worse. Unless that has changed, I believe it better to create a few duplicates than to make a combination of ISRC that can do nothing but replicate and cause more issue as recordings get reused.

All I would ask is that an admin might consider looking at my edits and those for ISRCs. All of them are unique, there are none that have more than one. This may have been more common on older recordings, but not so much anymore. There could even be something creative like a checkbox like there is on barcodes … I certify that I have checked to be sure this recording does in fact have more than one ISRC, as that should not be the case… something like that.

So point made, and sorry if I sound rude. I will not debate or argue though, I just get frustrated when I see this over and over, while at the same time, seeing how useful proper ISRCs identify recordings so accurately. It would be great to have that here. As much as I complain, I am only trying to help make this a good database that I myself would be proud of as one to have helped a little to get there.


There aren’t really any such things as “admins” on MusicBrainz when it comes to edits/editing, just other editors. I’m also not sure what it is you want your fellow editors to look at specifically. This topic is rather long (more than 100 messages!) and many of its contained messages are also long winded, so I’d suggest if you have specific questions or comments about one of more of your (or someone else’s) edits, that you make a new topic for that specific question or comment.


However, remasters aren’t considered different recordings, therefore, it’s common for a recordings to have more than one ISRC. This is because a remaster typically gets a new ISRC. Of course, I personally wish that remasters were separate recordings, but that’s a whole other discussion.


Yes, in many cases a remaster does in fact deserve a separate recording, but not all. There seems to be an issue here in MB of not fully understanding of what exactly happens vs the “dictionary” version.


It is not an error, post-NGS we used to keep a recording per master but it was not sustainable to manage so we chose to use bigger granularity, and loose the mastering detailed data, yes. For better and for worse. :sweat_smile:


Kindly, what does this mean “post-NGS”?


There was a huge refactoring of MusicBrainz known as Next Generation Schema (NGS) that was released in 2011.

It was a massive change to the database schema, introducing among other things works and recordings.


pre‐NGS, all editions sharing an identical tracklist were only one release in MB and each track was a track entity IIRC.
I’m not sure of the last part of my sentence but post‐NGS, all release events were taken from those big aggregated releases to create individual releases.
BTW, this explains why many releases have many Disc IDs (because they were submitted for various editions that shared same tracklist but not necessarily exact same TOC).

After that recordings multiplied because now each new edition is a release and the recording amount increased drastically, artist recording list was becoming too long to some criteria.
It was decided that mastering differences were not as important as having a sustainable amount of recordings.
It’s that, more or less, I can’t remember every details but I think editing life became a little less burden once we decided this. :thinking:


Thank you both for explaining.


IIRC, another reason that was cited for defining recordings as particular mixes was the fact that different media formats require different masters. Therefore, if we took mastering into account, we’d be unable to share recordings among LP’s, cassettes, CD’s etc.


That is a very good point. Do you happen to know how one would locate the ISRC for cassette and others? I have not yet tried the online resources for such things, so I am not sure if it would be applicable or not. Are the recordings on a LP and CD for the same release assigned different ISRCs?


I’ve never looked into ISRC’s, so I have no idea.