For this release, track 12 is titled on the release as “Saturday Night Divas”. However, as also pointed out on Discogs, it is actually not that on the CD, but a second playing of “Too Much”.
I understand that MB wants to document what is on the release, including errors. However, in this case, I See this as problematic. If I look at the AcoustIDs for example, I will be assigning an AcoustID to a wrong recording due to this, since I would actually be linking the printed recording vs what is actually there… if that makes any sense.
How should this be handled? I have this release and can confirm that the recording is the same, a repeat, and not what the artwork states.
Yes, it’s best do document everything what’s on the release, including errors.
… but not a wrong track title in the track list, and more important, do not associate the wrong recording! As you said: You would submit a wrong fingerprint.
You should make an annotation comment, explaining what is wrong.
Ok, I did not add this release, I just looked at it as I had artwork. I noticed that this issue was not really addressed in the release. So, maybe it is best to associate the correct recording, then change the name of the recording on the release? That can also seem confusing and seen as an error on input, but that seems the best way?
I would not do that. It would be confusing. If it’s another track, write the correct title, even if another track is listed. As long as it is associated to the correct recording, it would do no further damage, but it’s not useful. And the track length should also reflect, what’s actually played.
Ok. I will edit the release, associating the duplicate track on the release, with the actual title of the track. Then in annotation, I will note that the artwork is wrong, and that the release shows here what is actually on the CD.
This is also what Discogs did, they listed the track as the recording it actually is. So their typed track listing does not match the artwork either.
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the responses from people. As I think through the issues I find myself, I like asking as others have likely seen similar things, and thus have likely addressed them. I like the idea of the edit being a “group” edit. I think that best, as all learn at the same time, vs editor 1 adding, editor 2 changing, etc. There is a loss of sharing of ideas.
you could enter the track list as it appears on the release, but link track 12 to the “Too Much” recording.
a couple similar examples:
whichever way you choose, be sure to link the correct recording, and note any oddities in the annotation, as ernstlx said. you may even add the fact that it’s a misprint in the disambiguation, especially if it’s not common in the release group. I frankly think both answers are right though, for different reasons~
So I guess I have to edit the tracklist of the following two misspressed (different misspressings) releases to whats physically on the vinyl mediums and document the misspress information in the annotation ?
To pile on: another example where a track was accidentally replaced by a truncated duplicate recording from the same release:
Here I corrected the tracklist, made an annotation and created a new recording for the truncated track. Now, if you compare the acoustIDs from track 3 and 10 of this release, you can see they match up nicely.
