Is it possible to force the creators of new releases to add label and number?

Why this one and not one of the other 10+ editions/pressings with same label and catalogue numbers?
None of which are released the same date.
The dates are unknown or not proven, including for the page you link to (no release date, apparently, which is the safest bet).

And no, © and ℗ dates are not release dates, they are earlier (sometimes, the original edition can be released same year but it’s not guaranteed)


Just added, with full scans:

Anyone please have a go.
a) “CD Remastered by Daniel Groussman, March, 2004” = release date later than that.
b) Matrix/runout: “CTEXINC.COM/CA/886-501 15060”

Discogs has 2 separate releases:
Both without release groups, so I cannot link to the just added one’s.

Recordings are obviously the same as here
but in a different cut.

I found it to be released in 2000 (although one places did say 1984, which I don’t believe to be correct)?

But those aren’t necessarily good sources.

Anyway, if you followed the thread I did relax a little and said that it’s the label and catalog number that are essential, and if you don’t have those, then you don’t have an official album. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Guessing it’s an unofficial copy. was (is?) an indie company. Personally I would have entered it as the original, if the titles match. No use cluttering the database with unlawful copies?

I agree about 2000, which is why that’s what I put in my edit. Amazon’s date is always a little suspect, but at least confirms the year. Allmusic has April of the same year. eBay as a source for anything except scans isn’t great, but more confirmation of the year doesn’t hurt.

It’s entirely possible that there was a version of this released in 1984, but it’s not this one.

Probably, but you might have a bootleg. :smiley: I came into possession of a few of those in some big lots of CDs I acquired recently.

This is pretty much the opposite of MusicBrainz philosophy. If there’s anything different about it, it’s a new release.


In that case it could be a box to tick for bootleg/unofficial/pirate releases?

Yes, when adding a release you can select bootleg instead of official.


Ok. Personally I don’t have much interest in that part. A friend of mine has a bunch of Beatles and Zeppelin, maybe even Hendrix, bootlegs. But they sound awful and don’t interest me much. Of course, they might have monetary value, but then I’d stash them in a frame and hang them on the wall (I have a copy of an album by AH-A pre A-ha, but it isn’t much to listen to. I keep it since it’s a gift from the producer). :slight_smile:

I have added a number of official releases with no label and no catalog number - not because I couldn’t find them, but because they’re self-released products that don’t have a label or catalog number. We have “[no label]” for this purpose.


If you force people to add something they will add anything even if it’s obviously wrong. E.g. most digital distributors should be added as distributor, not release label:

Bandcamp is not a release label either yet people still add it.
There are many more examples if you search for voted down release label edits.

For certain types of edits a note is mandatory. Even when not some editors don’t bother and just write crap. I’ve seen some typing random characters. Others were just repeating what the edit type already says, like: merge, edit, update.


I’d rather see MB move in the opposite direction - make it easier for Picard users to get what they want (Artist - Release - Trackname - Label etc) without errors being introduced into the db.

Incorrect Artists/Labels with the name desired by editors are being incorrectly attributed.
This sort of thing

  • Edit #48045367 - Add release annotation
    Text: This release has the problem of apparently being released in the UK in 1989 by a Cincinnati, USA record label that was in business from 1943 to 1968.
    Additionally artist Reid appears to be currently aged around 23 years old. And 1989 is some 28 years ago.

If in doubt, leave it out was counter-intuitive to me - but slowly the great power of it became apparent - by staying firmly within the limit of what is well evidenced an editor makes it easy for future edits to add constructively to the information.

Whereas incorrect or unreliable information opens the gate to confusing and conflicted entries in the db.


If anyone wants an example of a Release that apparently has no catalogue number available on the internet, here is one I found today.

It features famous songs like, “Sweathart my Darling”, and that WWII classic, “The Rocks of Dover”.
Quick editing might just stop Gert en Jaap Ekkelboom from being made the performers or the writers.

As well as its clear cultural magnificence, the other benefit of having it in the database with Artist Relationships filled in is that it stops it being entered with incorrect ARs.

1 Like

I often borrow CDs from the library and add those to MusicBrainz. These will sometimes not include the backcover—and sometimes not even the booklet. This can leave only the medium itself, which will have a huge library microchip and/or barcode sticker on it, covering a lot of the print of the disc. At this point, the ability to read label information, cat. no., etc. off the release are highly diminished. I still have a 100% valid and official release, but there will be huge gaps in what I’m able to add.

Additionally, there are digital releases (e.g., on Bandcamp) where it’s unclear whether it’s released under a label or self-published, and even where it’s clear that it’s under a label, it might not be possible to say if there is a cat. no. or not.

As I write on : “Missing data is better than wrong data, or “if in doubt, leave it out””. It is always preferable to leave out data to entering data based on wild guesses.