Pseudo-release title question

I was looking at this release:

I’m a little confused at the title, as the phrase “111 Years of Deutsche Grammophon” does not appear on the artwork (I also noticed that the catalog number on the artwork doesn’t match what’s entered for the release). The release is apparently part of a 55-disc box set by that title, but this release is entered as a stand-alone release, and it is available as a 1-disc item on Amazon, so it isn’t exclusively part of the box set. The CD image added to the MB record has a big ‘55’ on it, which is the disc’s position in the box set.

It’s marked as a Pseudo-release, and this is my first experience with pseudo-releases. Reading the documentation page, it doesn’t seem like this release qualifies as a pseudo, but I’d like some input/education from those who know better.

I’m inclined to:

  • change the release type to Official
  • change the cat. no. to match the cover art
  • remove “111 years of Deutsche Gramophone” from the title

Am I justified in all that?


I think the title at least is correct, as you can see on the front cover: 111 Years Of Deutsche Grammophon | The Collector's Edition (2009, CD) - Discogs

The current front cover on MB should not be marked as Front, it is the inner cover for disc 55 (last CD).

You can remove Front from the cover art, add the team front cover, add the Medium title (add a dummy medium to enable medium title then remove the dummy medium).
The correct catalogue number seems to be 00289 477 8167 GB 55, and barcode 0 28947 78167 7.

I don’t know why it’s marked as pseudo-release, @marlonob.

The reason of this pseudo-release is maybe because a full 55 CD release makes it impossible to tag in MusicBrainz Picard Tagger?


Indeed this pseudo is inside a release group that contains the correct full 55 CD official release, where inner cover arts should not have been marked as Front and Back.

I don’t know the purpose of additionally having each CD individually separated in its own pseudo-release.

The pseudo-release was created presumably because Picard and/or MB struggles with releases as big as the original 55-CD set. The catalogue number and cover art were later added by other editors and might not be accurate.


Is that a separate Release?
Does it have its own barcode?
If a separate CSG (classical style guidelines) Release then the name would be better taken from the front coverart. Which as you say lacks “111 Years of Deutsche Grammophon”.
Having done no careful analysis - I’d consider leaving the pseudo and, if warranted, add a separate single CD official Release.

That’s not the Discogs release that this MB release is linked to.
Franz Liszt - Krystian Zimerman / Boston Symphony Orchestra · Seiji Ozawa – Klavierkonzerte Nos. 1 & 2 = Piano Concertos = Concertos Pour Piano · Totentanz (2009, Card Sleeve, CD) - Discogs

It is also available as a single-disc release from Amazon: : Liszt: Klavierkonzerte nos. 1

The single disc edition is the album itself outside of the 55 anthology.

1 Like

If the artwork, and the linked Discogs record are to be believed, it is a carboard sleeve-packaged disc with no barcode.

Then again, the catalog number that the Discogs release has doesn’t match the artwork either. It looks like both sites have bad data for this disc.



There is currently an ebay auction for the single CD Release (I think) which has image of front, and back with a barcode.

You could use those images as the “type specimen” (to borrow a biological collection term) and prune away any deadwood from the associated Coverart.
(I have downloaded image in case it disappears.)

I’ve elected to leave it alone. After looking at the box set that this disc comes from, it’s a little clearer (emphasis on little). It looks like the editor created them in this case to get around the “Various Artists” designation for the box. On the surface, that doesn’t seem like the correct use for the pseudo-release type, but it’s much too vague in my mind to contradict.

This particular box set comprises 55 discs that were previously released individually, and they are included in this set with their original release titles, artwork, and catalog numbers. It occurred to me that I have a box set in my own collection that mirrors that schema, and now that I’ve realized that, I think I would have done this box set differently. To do it correctly, though, it would require the ability to add the “included in” relationship to releases (it currently is only available for RGs, which seems the wrong place for it).

In my mind, it would make more sense to add each of the 55 discs as releases under their individual RGs, and add a relationship wherein the release is “included in” the box set release. This makes more sense in my mind than using pseudo-releases.

As mentioned, to do this properly, the “included in…” relationship would have to be available for releases. Currently it is only available for RGs. This didn’t bother me when I was entering the Dvorak box set, because the artwork and details for the individual releases were identical to those included in the box set. But in this case, the releases included in the box don’t have their original barcodes, and the CDs don’t look the same, so it wouldn’t be correct to include the individual RGs in the box set.

Am I thinking clearly on this?


Yes, you are thinking clearly.

Pseudo-release is very specifically for translated releases. But sometimes it’s hijacked for other ‘technical’ workarounds (which is fine imo).

But if you were to do this correctly and they were released individually, each individual release should be its own rg. And then the rg-only relationships start making more sense :+1: