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.
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.
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.
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 )
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.
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
The trouble is when I go on a research blast I want to keep updating. LOL.
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…
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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)
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.
)
I’m friends with multiple artists and so I create a lot of their pages.
