Need a little guidance

Okay, I purchased this CD- Ran it through EAC, changed it to flac and started Picard. Placed the cd in my drive to “look up cd”. Picard chose the above release. It looked good so I added some additional cover art prior to tagging…

I went to my “EAC Edit” folder and selected it to begin the tagging process. Clicked “cluster” and drug the cluster to the rt side pane. Everything matched except for track 11 & 15. Hmmm. The script I use is complex and sometimes it can’t handle a medley or a tag with too many characters so I worked around it.

Today I was refreshing my Four Seasons folder and still could not get the 2 above tracks to finalize. I went to edit history and found it was first submitted in 2008. A couple of months later, someone had submitted this disk id ( It is the same as my disk. However, there are 2 disk id’s attached to this release. I can’t see a date of the 2nd id. Would it have been submitted automatically during the initial submission?

Further investigation (Discogs) , shows a re-release date of 2007. Discogs also shows several other releases of this album with “Curb” label.The back cover art submitted previously shows the last issue is 1990. My cd back cover art shows the last issue to be 2007 although my medium and “cardboard” outer cover show 1990. Finally my question. Do I remove the disk id and the cover art I provided from this listing and enter a new release or just add a note and leave it alone? Track times are really close. Whew, sorry about the treatise but I wanted to furnish info. I’m learning to get very picky.

If yours is a 2007 re-release of the 1990 disc then you should be making a clone of the release. Then attach your discID and images to that release. Though EVERYTHING else will be identical. There is just going to be that slightly different artwork. (I would add notes in the annotation pointing at the differences)

I also guess that when they did this re-issue there was some slight fractional differences in the recordings, hence the slight time differences.

Over at Discogs they have 33 different versions of this release…


Unless I misunderstood this is not really a Picard question but rather a general MusicBrainz question how to handle this release and whether it should be entered as two or one releases, right?

@outsidecontext assume it becomes a Picard Related question when we are using Picard to try and locate a release and possibly upload it.

Almost every new Release I have added has started from Picard uploading the data and CD details. When I fail to get a good match I use Picard to upload a new release.

For many of us it is Picard that introduces us to the MusicBrainz database.

1 Like

As @IvanDobsky stated, I only use Picard ergo… Should I assume that the person who submitted after the initial release was entered may have had the 2007 re-release in hand but because everything seemed to point to said initial release he erroneously slapped his disk id on it? If so, should I remove the 2007 id and cover art and enter a new release? Also with your comment, should I start using just MusicBrainz to enter my releases?

1 Like

Why? Of course you can use Picard to help with that. For submitting disc IDs you need a tool anyway, and Picard can be used for that.

1 Like

That’s certainly a possibility but I don’t think we can assume it. From what I understand of the vagaries of disc IDs, I believe it’s possible that both IDs are valid for the 1990 release. It’s definitely also possible for the same ID to be valid for both the 1990 release and the 2007 release.

So my inclination would be to create a new release for the 2007 version and add your disc ID to it, but leave the 1990 release alone.

1 Like

I agree with @highstrung’s comment. We have no idea who uploaded it and if they care… so it is better to make a new release and then fill it in as far as you can. With “greatest hits” like this they get printed and reprinted forever… so both discIDs can be valid. We don’t know enough to remove any invalid ones in this case.

Picard is ideal for creating the initial release. Especially can be time saving at making new copies of old releases and avoiding all that re-typing. Then adding the times, disc details, etc. MASSIVE time saver.

I then usually follow up with manual edits via MusicBrainz website. Like adding scans of the artwork, or other details like catalogue number, barcodes, etc.

I would also add an annotation note about the very subtle difference to stop someone merging it later.

Once your version has been uploaded it means the next person who comes along with the disk has more chance of picking the correct edition and therefore reinforcing the quality of your data.

Also make sure your release points at the exact same recording files of the original. These will be the same recordings, even if there is an odd second difference here or there.

Remember - you only learn something by making mistakes.


Thanks @highstrung & @IvanDobsky & @outsidecontext . So as I understand your responses, I should leave the disk id on the old release and also attach it to the one I am about to create. I wasn’t sure if it was proper to have the same disk id# on 2 releases especially if they are 17 years apart (1990 & 2007).

1 Like

If you’re really interested in checking it out I would look for the edit that added the discid, and ask the editor which version it is.
If there’s no reply after a week or two I would check to see if there are other discids that differ time wise, and if so, remove it.
That way someone can resubmit it if it was correct - the alternative is to forever have a potentially wrong discid attached with no way to substantiate it.

I’m always a bit more heavy handed than others with discids though! They’re just really messy, and I would like them un-messy if possible :sweat_smile:

But it’s not the end of the world to just leave it.