According to the edit history, this release was added from this discogs. Except the track list doesn’t match that release (notably track 5 - that misnaming is characteristic of Trace releases like this one, as is the rephrased title of track 6).
Country, year and cat # match the stated Discogs source, but the label differs - and in adding the artwork, the original editor started to add the cover from that release, then canceled it and specifically said “this is the St. Clair cover” and added a different one, one which matches this release, which has the same cat # but different year and label (which is the label that was entered in MB). I would guess it’s the one that the editor meant to add in the first place. However, it still has the differing track list.
So… what to do with it? Match the stated discogs source? Match the discogs with the same cover, cat # and label? Something else?
3 Likes
Which release is it closest to matching? I notice there are 11 in the Release Group, I’d clean it up to be one that isn’t already in that 11 based on as much of the data we have here now.
I’d agree, I’d change the Discogs link to https://www.discogs.com/release/10840161-BB-King-Swing-Low-Sweet-Chariot as that matches the details as entered by the original editor.
And then fix the track list as per Discogs? The Discogs artwork matches their track list.
It seems to be the intent of the original editor.
If I was editing this, I’d probably solve part of the potential confusion by also importing a new release for the St Clair version from https://www.discogs.com/release/971474-BB-King-Swing-Low-Sweet-Chariot and then we end up with both options at MB
4 Likes
I’m inclined to agree with you on all points. It seems like the artwork would be the biggest PITA to change, so follow that release. It was just such a mix of details that there was no one clear choice. And adding the other one would clarify things.
It looks to me like someone just imported the wrong discogs item. The fact they typed in their own cat no, and their artwork matched that cat no, is the main detail I’d home in on.
Also note their artwork is not from Discogs.
I just can get over tidy on questions like that - hence the adding both releases to keep all camps happy. 
1 Like
Ok, I initiated the changes for that release, which you can find here.
I started to add the other release, then realized it already exists. It also has some issues, and 2 disc IDs. One is notably shorter and seems like it should belong to the other release that has a different track 5.
Its history explains why Track 5 is wrong, though. It was initially a generic FreeDB import, and details were built around it over time, starting with the mismatched allmusic link 10 years ago.
2 Likes
Nice tidy up. The discIDs are a bit messy, and no trace of when they were added. AcoustIDs seem to backup lengths on tracks as they are now. So not sure if it could be moved to the other release. It would add five or six seconds per track.
The fact this started from an AllMusic error is not unique. I’ve seen that quite often. I had one a couple of weeks back that had so many obvious errors it included 1980s tracks on a 1990s compilation CD. 
1 Like
I started trying to hunt down the shorter version of I Am Willing to Run All the Way. The original (which is the version I have) is over 3:30, but there’s reported to be another version that makes some appearances in this release group at under 2:30.
Well, so far I’ve found two that are actually Ole Time Religion, just as Track 5 on these problem releases should have been Ole Time Religion. There they are, in the digital flesh, with the wrong title.
There are releases that appear to have both tracks, though, so I’m going to keep investigating.
2 Likes
I recognise that puzzle. Been down that route before. Many times a release can get tagged by someone who never actually listens to it. Or copies a track list across from somewhere else without reading and comparing with what they have in their hands. Lengths and AcoustIDs can point out many puzzles like this.
I also own a few cheap compilations where the track list you listen to just plain doesn’t not match the printed document.
I find it a satisfying mess to untangle. I like the fact that MusicBrainz allows us to correct mistakes like this according to what we hear
4 Likes