Hi, I think there’s a general problem creating a release group series. It’s not only about later releases which may appear. Sometimes reissues are included, but you do not know about such things if you do not own all of them.
For example: Éditions Atlas released several series Les Génies du Rock/Jazz/Blues/…
As you can see, 2 of them are RG series, the others release series. Most items are in fact new releases in their own RG, but not all of them. I don’t think RG is the correct level for these (and Les Génies du Blues is certainly not a subseries of Les Génies du Jazz).
Some series are clearly RG series (like The Jazz Masters), but I think, in most cases they should be moved to the release level (like Olympia Concert is not entirely part of Jazz in Paris)
And a related question: Should the album/release title include the series title?
(I don’t think so if it already has a real title)
I’m surprised this didn’t spark much conversation, but I am just now struggling with the same issue. There is a classical series by CBS/Sony called “Great Performances.” Most of the MB releases that are part of this series have the series name in the release title, and I think that is incorrect. Unfortunately, I have found some lengthy discussions, like this one, where that opinion didn’t prevail.
For example:
I think, following the CSG, the title of this release should be:
Grieg: Peer Gynt Suites nos. 1 & 2 / Sibelius: Finlandia / Valse Triste / Swan of Tuonela. The MB Series is already created.
Most of the series I have found in a brief search of MB are fairly consistent in having the series name in the release/RG title. It baffles me, especially when some of those releases were previously released, not as part of a series, and, of course, the series name is not prepended to the release title.
Discogs and AllMusic treat the series names as labels, which is closer to the truth, and much more logical. I see the same at LeonardBernstein.org and Presto Music. MB’s apparent policy confuses the issue, IMO.
I would reply like I did in the older discussion you quote:
If the artist wants a long title, then MB should show that. Even if it looks stupid to us.
The “Artist intent” here is the intent of the people making the CD packages. These are nothing to do with the musicians. This is a label created product. This is the label choosing what they think is “the best” and I doubt they have even talked to the bands involved. They are choosing the series name and promote it as part of the release different to other Best Of compilations.
This may upset us neat freaks, but that is what Picard is for. We can name our albums any way we choose once they are on the hard drive. But a database needs to stick to the written cover.
If anything, by using these daft titles as printed it makes it more clear that this is nothing to do with the musician on the release and all to do with packaging them up for sale. Our own opinions of Marketing based promotions should not leak into how titles are formatted.
This is why I believe we should stick to the guidelines as MB has them written and use what is on the cover.
Also, in this example, I would put those CDs on my shelf side by side in numerical order of that series. The series is presented as a “thing”. It is like a boxset without a box.
As would (and do) I. The series is presented as a series, not a “boxset without a box.” That’s an assumption not in evidence. They weren’t sold as a set – they were released as individual releases over time, connected by a series name. By the “what is on the cover” logic, any release with the Deutsche Grammophon logo on the cover should have “Deutsche Grammophon” in the release title. The MB guidelines don’t read that way, and I don’t believe they support it in the cases we are discussing. I believe the accuracy of the database would be better served without the series names in the release titles.
