After reading this long discussion, it seems really safer, @ernstlx, if you are not sure of the country, please leave it blank and write some info on the annotation like where you bought it, first hand or second hand, etc.
Also, if you find some manufacturer name on the CD matrix or CD label surface, add a relationship.
Usually, the back cover says where (area) it was made/printed/manufactured, it is another relationship.
These have nothing. But I’m pretty sure that they were all made/printed/manufactured in England. It’s more a general question how to handle this kind of releases.
Most of these releases have a country added by now. It would be to remove it. Other users have chosen to set it to the country of the event, some to GB, some worldwide. I’ve set it to worldwide so far.
I haven’t touched them now, but if you strongly suggest GB I’ll do so. In fact it doesn’t matter if it’s a worldwide release or a British release shipped worldwide.
I’ve added a release of an English band (IDER - Emotional Education) now, which releases on an US label and Discogs has release country US too, although my copy was shipped from the UK and I doubt that they have many sales in North America. Like HVOB (they toured North America too) I would tend to say it’s UK, but if it’s the rule, lets look at where the label is located. It goes along with Discogs.
As I said above - flip a coin. Personally I would put GB, but if you have put Worldwide I think you are also correct. This was so much easier when you had to physically ship disks to a store to be sold. This is the artist doing their own releases so is not restricted to regions like the labels are.
That is much easier when you have a US Label handling the US sales then it is a US release. Back in the day each area was sliced up with different legal agreements as to who can sell there. This is where the whole “Release Country” is coming from.
The thing to look at with older releases like this is a UK arm of EMI would have a contract for the UK. That UK arm is also likely to be able to supply Europe. BUT different lawyers then shout and the American market is supplied from the USA. Usually they’ll also sell in to Canada. But then Asia will have a different region again. EMI Japan often have their own editions and different packaging. The poor old Aussies used to get the short end of the straw and rarely had proper distribution deals - so a local record store would buy CDs in Japan and ship them over. Or maybe a batch from Europe and supply them as “imports”.
This is the core of when the “Release Country” is defined around. That old fashioned idea of cutting up territory.
So in this case, you have a English band but selling a CD in the USA using a USA label to print and distribute. You can pretty well trust that as the label has a USA address, then this is being released into the USA Market. This Release would be USA.
As both MB and Discogs are made by geeks for geeks then the little details on a cover are really important. Go look at something like Billie Eilish’s album ( Release group “WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO?” by Billie Eilish - MusicBrainz ). Notice how different regions have different versions? “Target edition” in the USA, a Japanese version with more tracks added, later issues as a Deluxe edition. Different areas have different release packages. And usually the catno and barcode also change.
Someone like Peter Gabriel setting up his own label and flogging CDs to anyone who wants them confuses the whole of the above “old” method which MB and Discogs build their “countries” around.
… though if you buy it in the US, it’s an import, while in the UK it is not: 
https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Education-IDER/dp/B07RTGB8BZ
(I probably should change this to UK, because of availability)
… that’s the point. In an interconnected world the release country will become an obsolete parameter.
… no idea, why Billie Eilish is that popular. She really sells worldwide. Most of the bands I add have only one release of an album (once!) and very limited sales, even locally.
Don’t trust Amazon to get anything correct. It could well be that they are selling UK sourced discs in the US market. Or have again mislabelled it. I see that happening a lot. What you have described very much sounds like a US released CD.
I wasn’t commenting on the artist, I was picking a quick example of different editions appearing in different markets. This is a common thing with the more popular artists.
(If you want me to comment on Billie Eilish - I am always open to something new. She is certainly better than some of the pop-junk churned out in the modern day. I’ve always had quite a wide selection of female solos in my collection. She’s warbling on my HiFi at the moment actually… An interesting voice and production. )
This does usually make it easier… but if I point back up the mile long thread to my French printed Levellers CDs I have often seen them in both MB and Discogs marked as a “French” release because of the confusion of where they were printed.
It already has in MB for Digital Music. They have replaced the “country of release” with “the countries a specific shop can sell to” making it a meaningless field now. The whole “Release Country” concept is due a redesign really. Markets have changed massively. And Digital Music doesn’t have shipping costs so can be sent anywhere at the click of a button. Also there is no packaging to compare differences in different countries, making it far less interesting to the old skool geeks. But there are clearly a massive number of people who now want to know where Spotify sell a track to.
I tried to avoid an Amazon link, but no major US shop has listed this album. But I have to apologize! If I would have taken a closer look on Glassnote I would have noticed that they have a British brunch too (NYC, L.A., London, Toronto). That explains why several British artists have releases on Glassnote. So Discogs is wrong and this is clearly a British release.
I know, but I was impressed by the number of releases from one album… 
(though some of them are doublets, 2 have the same Disc ID)
Really?! I have’ve got lots of female singers in my collection too. Up until now Billie Eilish isn’t part of it. I know some of her songs from her music videos (the radio station I listen to avoids everything too popular). I collect music videos and she has some great videos. Recently Rich Lee directed a nice video for “All the Good Girls Go to Hell” - simple concept, bit VFX and quite fitting.
Mostly I listen to far less popular artists, but that’s no rule. Maybe I should try out Billie Eilish. My last purchases were not very impressive.
I had another look on WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO? releases:
There are not only 2 doublets…
3 of the CDs have the same Disc ID, one has none.
Probably all 14 track releases are identical, only the release country is different. Probably that’s where they were bought. It’s Universial Music. Mine will be shipped from Germany, but I will not be surprised to find that it was “made in the Netherlands” (probably like the others),
Both 17 track releases are identical in the same way. One of the catalogue numbers is clearly a barcode.
But it’s still impressive. Vinyl, CD, Japanese release, Deluxe release (I wonder if I bought this one)
… and it seems she’s got the attention of music journalists.
→ but there appears a serious question: would it be a different release if Universal puts a different sticker on the otherwise packaged CDs? Personally I wouldn’t think so.
No, a sticker is not enough of a different for MB. It is what is printed during manufacturing.
Fairly normal to see. Some labels use part of the barcode, some use a whole barcode for both.
Almost certainly the tracks are identical on the releases - but that is not the discussion here. It is about the packaging of releases. As the packaging changes for different markets, then MB is interested in which geographical areas they are.
Yes, I expect the discIDs are the same for many of these. Sometimes this is due to errors in the MB database as many people don’t really care when they get a match. Or maybe they got a match and uploaded a Europe edition CD before someone had added a European version to the database. As their tracks matched the USA edition then they just tagged with that.
It is only when we get full artwork for all editions can we really tell which is which.
When you look at the CD you receive it is likely to be identical to the copy I am about to buy from UK Amazon. Yes, they will both be made at the Dutch pressing plant. And I expect the artwork on the CD Package is identical. This is a true “European Release”. The copyrights will point to the USA origin, but there will be a European distribution deal that will lead to a different company being named when compared to the USA edition.
Haha - just you wait until you dig out an old common CD in your collection like trying to make sense of something like REM’s Murmur As the ownership of the actual LABEL changes as well as the geographic market. Reprints and represses. Getting down to the level of reading the matrix details to see which manufacturing process dealt with it. The music is always the same on here… but to many it is very important exactly which version one owns.
Whoops - reading your messages backwards 
It is a British band, but when they use a USA label to release their work to the USA market then that USA label will get a cut of the profits for the USA. The USA label is also in charge of promotion, sending copies to USA radio, putting up posters, and so on. This is also part of that USA release.
So a British band may well record in the UK, and first release to the UK, but a CD sold made and promoted in the USA by a USA label is a US release. The LABEL releases that edition of the album, not the band.
You haven’t looked around the database much then. LOL. Try some old Pink Floyd like Dark Side of the Moon (Discogs has about 900+ editions…) or Floyd’s Animals. Go look at the Beatles. Popular OLD albums get more and more daft variations on the artwork. Pink Floyd’s The Wall is a massive headache as they changed how some of the tracks were cut up in later releases. It was originally on vinyl as a constant mix between tracks… so the first Japanese CD made mistakes in naming tracks when they sliced it up. (Look at tracks like Young Lust and the tracks near it). This is when release versions get important as they can be very different. (Yes, I am also a massive Pink Floyd head)
If you look at OLD albums that came out on vinyl, and are still famous today, the number of editions can be enormous. Rolling Stones, Beatles, anything in a “top 50 albums of all time” list. reprints, remasters, reissues, repackaged… Even Peter Gabriel is at it - look at “So” and the 25th anniversary version.
Now this is more like it… random tangents talking about music. Too much of MB is about stupid databases and rules. (We will probally get told off for going on this tangent now… No one else is reading this thread, but we’ll be split here as “off topic” and thrown into a new thread 
) I want to talk more about music. My tastes can be weird… literally changing on mood. Pink Floyd is at the heart of my collection, but that leads me to other tangents.
Today I had Billy Eilish on because of a good friend going on about her. I have heard less that you, but impressed already by her voice. Tori Amos, Björk, Kate Bush being just a start of some of those names. But then I am still going to the gigs. REALLY looking forward to Skunk Anansie at the end of this year.
I want music to stir me up in some way. Skin is one hell of a presence when singing… but I had never got to one of her gigs. I expect to be blown away with the power of it all
Last gigs included New Order, Plan B, Paul Weller, The Specials, Manic Street Preachers, Skinny Lister, Primal Scream, Hawkwind… and many other random gigs like that. This year has already started with the Kaiser Chiefs.
Give me loads of energy like the Pixies or the Levellers. I can’t stand still at a gig. though I guess I’ll have to sit down to Nick Mason
Yeah… my music goes all over the shop… but more older than new. Usually. Which is why something like Billie Eilish can catch me out as I rarely like the current pop charts. They don’t seem to have lived enough of a life to have anything to sing about.
When I get a break in next few days I’ll be putting on some of the IDER - Emotional Education - CD you mentioned above. Assuming I can find some on YouTube to sample it first. MB has already accidentally introduced me to some new artists and tunes.
In this case it’s obviously in error as the it’s the same as the barcode and even if printed elsewhere on the CD there will be a normal cat no on this Darkroom/Interscope Records release too, but it’s actually different barcode on these two, sorry, they are not to merge. In case of the others…
I haven’t looked on details but I would expect that some of them are doublets too. Some of them lack crucial information, but the country field is something nearly everybody sets. On my first edits I didn’t really know what I was doing, adding very incomplete releases and I really wouldn’t rely on the information given by me. 
… but not for an album of a relatively new artist. If Billie Eilish is lucky, she will have some reprints and represses in the future, but not by now. I suppose they are all produced at once.
It’s not important to me, but it’s kind of scientific interest now. 
Disc IDs are not unique. They are calculated from the CD in hand. They come from track offsets and lengths. Nothing to do with manufacturing.
If you have an EAC log, then this is all the data used.
TOC of the extracted CD
Track | Start | Length | Start sector | End sector --------------------------------------------------------- 1 | 0:00.00 | 1:08.26 | 0 | 5125 2 | 1:08.26 | 2:48.54 | 5126 | 17779 3 | 3:57.05 | 3:50.45 | 17780 | 35074 4 | 7:47.50 | 6:49.45 | 35075 | 65794 5 | 14:37.20 | 4:44.10 | 65795 | 87104 6 | 19:21.30 | 6:22.56 | 87105 | 115810 7 | 25:44.11 | 7:49.64 | 115811 | 151049 8 | 33:34.00 | 3:26.16 | 151050 | 166515 9 | 37:00.16 | 3:46.70 | 166516 | 183535 10 | 40:47.11 | 2:11.41 | 183536 | 193401
That is all that is needed to make a DiscID. nothing to do with actual manufacturing, more to do with the layout on the actual CD.
Look at the small details on the rear. If these details change, then MB needs new Release added. it is nothing to do with the music. Just to do with what the actual image looks like.
After a while you will learn more about the subtle differences. Normal people focus on the MUSIC. But mad collectors go for the silly little details. Those CDs really are different… the music is identical to the ear, but a slight different layout on the rear means New Release. Slight rearranging of the text, slight difference of a price code… seriously OCD madness, but very important to many.
MB and Discogs are not about differences in music. It is about differences in subtle printing changes. And bigger bands get more eyes on so less errors happen. There are not as many doublets there as you think. It needs a serious level of checking the rear covers for deails. And yes - it is important to many to get it exact.
I pick Billie Eilish as she is still a simple case of different areas. See my other post pointing to Pink Floyd, Beatles etc and you will start to understand where the real madness lies.
Be careful, it can get addictive… I used to not care… but now I do. the HOURS I spent trying to nail down the exact copy of REM’s Murmur I had was mental. And I don’t even like the band. See - I gave the album the wrong name earlier!! What idiot calls it Rumours!!! LOL!!! But it is on my shelf and now I have to exactly match it 
So every repress will have the same ID too? Interesting. So you only have a quick match of the track times.
Unfortunately very often there are no details as there are no or only downloaded images added. So you really can’t tell if it’s the same.
Lets see if something like that will happen. Although I spent more time doing research on some randomly picked artists, than I’ve done on my longer term favorites ever! And addiction comes unnoticed … 
I’m not so sure. Here’s a US release with the catalog number printed on the disc: https://www.discogs.com/release/13422938#images/40353969
Here’s the disc image from the European edition, has the barcode number in the same place on the disc as the catalog number was on the US edition: https://ia801404.us.archive.org/11/items/mbid-5ad8e964-5d1a-4c10-be08-865ed9809dc2/mbid-5ad8e964-5d1a-4c10-be08-865ed9809dc2-25384536751.jpg .
There’s no other catalog number on the back cover or spine, so I would say that’s the catalog number.
Well, it is about the music too! I know of at least one or two cases where there are identical packages with different music - for instance, a manufacturing error puts tracks in the wrong order on some pressings.
I have nothing to hold against. And furthermore it proves that there at least 2 different releases. So it’s possible that there are more. So we will have to live with this zoo.
Not necessarily. Disc IDs are calculated based on the sector offsets of the individual tracks. If the sectors match exactly the disc ID will be the same. It’s very well possible that different CDs of the same album but manufactured separately share the disc ID. Likewise it is very rare but even possible that a disc ID matches unrelated albums.
If you use Picard’s disc lookup it will also consider the barcode if it is present on the disc to select the best match in case of multiple results.
Just for the record, in this case, we can trust the Disc ID of the three 14 track editions, as they were added by the original editor from their well defined MB release, right from the beginning:
The 16 track edition (Japanese) Disc ID was added without edit note by another editor.
The two 17 track editions have no Disc ID.
First thanks for that …
Question: What’s the offset? The starting point of the track in the data stream? Do I notice the offset playing a CD?
I’ve changed my mind. But thanks for documenting the current status. I will NOT merge anything in this release group. I was mistaken with the DiscID at first. There are probably lots of releases. And in former days, it was much “worse”
@IvanDobsky forced me to pick one of my really old ones: Laurie Anderson - Mister Heartbreak. That was fun! 
I changed the release country afterwards from European to Germany+Austria as there was no separate Austrian release…
Strange things are to be found:
4 Disc IDs? Is this possible? (one of them matches my release)
And Discogs offers a REALLY impressive list of releases! Laurie Anderson is no international superstar. I don’t want to look at Michael Jackson releases or something like that. 
But the most important thing I’ve learned is the value of rich photographic documentation, means scan images.
The starting positions of each track in sectors (one sector is 1/75 second). See @IvanDobsky 's post above, he explained this in much more detail. The CD contains a TOC (table of contents) at the beginning, which lists all these sector positions on a CD (for up to 99 tracks). That’s how the player can jump to a specific track on the disc.
Have a look at any disc ID, e.g. Disc ID “.NuacwbOx3aLUNo6FqdGBbt9JYI-” - MusicBrainz . At the top you see the full toc, here e.g. “1 10 231551 150 38504 64769 81415 101831 130493 149700 167137 192729 210718”. That is all the relevant info taken from the TOC that is used for calculating the disc ID (number of first track, total number of tracks, position of the leadout track and the sector offsets for each track).
