Help: Confusing mess of Toto IV releases

I have a copy of Toto IV but I can’t figure out what is going on. Disc ID “pbu995ck.4EJ_v_pT7BjqRi8AYo-” - MusicBrainz

Ostensibly it is this release, but the annotation, cover art, and discogs link don’t match. The discogs cover art shows a “Now Made In The U.S.A.” label while the MB release cover art that was scanned from the actual case does not. Media images show the same discrepancy.

My copy seems to be this. https://www.discogs.com/release/1878642-Toto-Toto-IV MB has this entry linked to that discog but the MB cover art doesn’t match. https://musicbrainz.org/release/6502529d-565e-34c6-be37-83b7c073767c

Looking through the edit histories makes things even more confusing. I’m happy to answer any questions about my copy but I don’t feel comfortable making any edits regarding it.

4 Likes

When you have chaos to that level it is often simpler to just make a fresh release.

It is not unknown for one release to then get hijacked with artwork for a different release. Some people can upload artwork without looking closely.

Starting from a DiscID can also be misleading. There was a time before 2012 when discIDs were handled in a different way. After 2012 discIDs got bulk added to what is now known to be the wrong release.

Better to start from the artwork. I’ll start looking with you by going from the Discogs page you link… be back soon.

2 Likes

From reading that edit history I see a mess. I guess this may also have been part of a merge at some point.

Artwork is from an earlier release of the album. Before it was “Made in USA”

I can’t see when the Discogs link was added.

If this was me I would add a NEW release and just move the discogs link to it.

Then cleanly add your DiscID and either some nice new scans or “borrow” the artwork from Discogs.

I’m gonna now see if I can work out where that artwork is from… but there are 263 versions at Discogs!

2 Likes

That artwork without “made in the USA” matches this: https://www.discogs.com/release/13727010-Toto-Toto-IV

It has a shorter barcode. 7464-37728-2 The leading zero and the check digit 2 are missing. This was also mentioned in an old edit note in the history.

I would add yours as a new release (allowing you to add your actual discID) and we’ll update the Discogs link on the other one.

(This post has been heavily edited… 'cos forum told me off for putting in three replies :joy:)

Edit 2: I have now fixed the error at Discogs. Some numpty has a typo and had missed the check digit from the “scanned” barcode. Clearly they had not actually scanned it…

Edit 3: Once you work out what you are doing, I’ll come back and move the discogs links around. If you do add your release as a new one I’ll then tweak that older one to match the artwork and the 13727010 discogs link.

2 Likes

Australian, European and Japanese releases have the track lengths set from this disc ID - the usual mess - you could remove your disc ID from releases certainly made by other manufacturers (glass master) - they will certainly have a different disc ID.

We have no image of the disc on MB, but I think this Discogs release should replace the one currently linked.

I have experienced this too - now I’ve put one between, so you may continue :smiley:

3 Likes

The trouble is when I go on a research blast I want to keep updating. LOL. :rofl:

I think I have now settled my search. And fixed the Discogs error as a bonus.

@Pelvic_Sorcery some of us get used to seeing the odd chaotic release like this one. A few will be around that have organically evolved with little snippets of clashing data being added at different times.

As this release has edits from 2001(!) and edit number 16038 it is pretty old. And never really had any TLC to clean it up.

You can spot the Artists where a real fan has dived in and fixed the mess. They stand out.

Add your release as a new one by cloning that release. It is needed as artwork is different to what MB currently has listed.

We can then update the Discogs link to this older one to better match artwork over there.

Oh - and “Hi” and “Welcome to MusicBrainz” and your new addiction…

4 Likes

DiscID gets me into the ballpark. I still compare things to make sure the release matches what I have.

I generally don’t remove disc ids from releases as I don’t know enough to say that wasn’t correct.

This isn’t my first chaotic mess, although I think it’s probably the worst I’ve seen so far. But the mess is why I didn’t want to do any edits. It’s too unclear as to what is and isn’t correct.

Guilty as charged. :slight_smile: I’m friends with multiple artists and so I create a lot of their pages.

I would just use the discogs import script as well as the cover art script if I made a new release. The scripts do a much better job than I can.

I’m not new to MB, just the first time posting in the forum. I’m not sure when the forum was added, but I just stumbled across it.

1 Like

Okay… then Hi and Welcome to the forum.

Often a good start point.

General rule is lean towards the older edits as legit. Though this one is so old that none of the edits that follow are consistent. Hence why I go for the "I’ll add mine as a new release, then tweak the other one to best match what I see fits. The end game to being improving the overall database.

The best of edits. Edits with knowledge and passion.

3 Likes

Disc IDs could be very helpful for identifying releases. However, this would require that they are assigned correctly, which is rarely the case. In practice, I identify my release by other means and use my verified disc ID to clean up other releases.

If you are unsure, it is probably better not to remove anything, but you can help by writing down the matrix code of your disc to the edit note whenever you Add disc ID or Set track lengths from it. Knowing which matrix generates a particular disc ID helps other editors to do some clean up. “CD in hands” or “from my copy” does not help very much.

1 Like

When I say in the ballpark, I mean that my ripper uses the discid to pull up the related release(s) and I can easily go from there to the release group to compare the other pieces of data.

I’ll keep that in mind about the matrix code, although I’m unclear as to the exact specifics of one.

Is DIDP-050012 the matrix code or should the 13 be included? What about the stars? My disc looks like this but has a 9 instead of the 13.

2 Likes

DIDP-050012 9 and 13 are different glass master versions of the same manufacturer.
They will very likely generate the same disc ID, but it’s best to write down the complete code, including the 11 “crosshair symbols” (you don’t have to use the Unicode character 🝊, a + will do) - they tell that it was glass mastered by DADC Terre Haute (or Springfield, but in this case Terre Haute) between 1988 (6-digit number) and 1994 (without mastering SID IFPI L32x or L33x). :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I went in and have removed a lot of pre-NGS DiscID’s that were assigned to all the releases in the group (but not all, I ran out of time).

Since you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist, leaving the DiscIDs means that we will never know what exact releases they belong to/will never have good data.

This is the only way that the DiscID’s can be re-added to the correct releases, and users can use them with confidence.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to downvote, no hard feelings :slight_smile:

4 Likes

I’m not against removing disc id’s, I just don’t feel qualified to do it. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Why not? You can use the rules of thumb outlined below to guide you.

1 Like

One last question before I create a new release using the discogs import script. My case has this sticker on it while the discogs doesn’t show it.

The discogs the image comes from matches some of mine but my copy doesn’t have Columbia anywhere on it. https://www.discogs.com/release/12462318-Toto-Toto-IV

Then it’s a different release. You can use the import script, but you should remove the Discogs-Link before you submit it. (and the Columbia label and whatelse is different)

But you could also copy a MB release as a starting point. (probably better)

1 Like

As I mentioned in the OP, I’m pretty sure this is what I have. https://www.discogs.com/release/1878642-Toto-Toto-IV

I’m just trying to figure out if the sticker on the case makes a difference and how I should handle it.

The Discogs release has a Columbia logo on the disc. The sticker makes no difference (it could be mentioned, but a sticker is usually not a mandatory part of a release) - if everything else matches, it is considered to be the same release.

3 Likes

Isn’t that sticker just a shop offer? Not really part of the actual release.

It’s a release series: THE NICE PRICE (orange “sticker”). :slight_smile:

The fact that “sticker” is between quotes, may mean that it looks like a sticker but it is in fact hard-printed on the cover.

Edit: No, it really looks like it is a sticker. Maybe those quotes should be removed.

2 Likes