Releases with multiple DiscIDs

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe314829bb0>

I know, this issue was discussed in previous threads, but conclusions were not satisfying for me.

Now I’ve got the second release in a row, where I cannot seriously add a new release only because there are two DiscIDs from earlier merged releases.


I’ve got this release, it was set to match the linked Discogs release which is exactly my release, down to the Mould SID. If I would add a new release, I would create a 100% doublet. The second DiscID might belong to a US release, listed on Discogs, but currently not in MB (and there’s no guarantee that there’s no third release, not on Discogs, were this ID is from).

There’s no real damage from that, but my perfectionist heart cries! :wink:
And even if I set track times from my DiscID, someone else could set it back to the other one. But, as I said, I do not add a doublet knowingly. I only want to find another solution to handle this kind of releases without hurting anyone’s interests.

4 Likes

You can not untangle the past unless you go and talk to Mr HG Wells about borrowing his time machine. Or maybe the Doc will lend you that DeLorian as that seems to be comfier to drive?

It is impossible to really fix. Even if you got your hands on a USA version and added it, there is no way to know if they ever shipped USA disks over to Europe for sale.

I have numerous OCD hassles in my head and sometimes we just have to accept that perfection is impossible. :crazy_face:

Add an annotation with the notes of “European CD has discID xxxxxxxx”. I have often seen editors do that.

Maybe even import that USA edition from Discogs. Now the next time someone is using Picard to tag they may select the USA version and then upload their discID.

Personally I first came into MB via Picard. I am fairly sure that early on I did make errors and submit discIDs via Picard to the wrong editions. Many people who are tagging music really don’t have the eye for details and just want to tag music and get on with playing it.

3 Likes

An annotation seems to be always the option of choice…

I thought of something like this:

  • adding a new release (with one DiscID)
  • removing this DiscID from the first release
  • removing everything from this release, that would point to the new release and might have been added with the other release - cat#, barcode, release country
    If details are not removed, no one with a matching DiscID (e.g., the US release) would use this release, because of the differences shown.

But probably it’s too complicated and it would leave a very empty release. Seems to be better to add an annotation.

The Attach CD TOC dialog is really dangerous, as you get a list of CDs with matching track numbers, but no detailed information. If you don’t take a closer look on the listed releases, you can easily add to the wrong one.

2 Likes

And now I’ve got a really interesting one:


2 DiscIDs, set to Digipak and has a jewel case back image. I’ve got the Digipak.
Discogs has the same problem:
Digipak, but images from jewel case and Digipak!

1 Like

If you suspect it’s not correct, and there’s no way to find out if it is (e.g. no edit notes where you can leave comments), then it is low quality information.

I remove things like this (edit: if I can replace it/have reason to believe it should go) because:

  • It means it may eventually be added to the correct release/the next person who adds it can be asked for details (after going to this much effort you subscribe to the artist, of course!)
  • You can have a release with 100% confidence that everything is correct
  • It will sit there literally forever otherwise, a digital “shrug” of data

I’m sure some people would rather leave it, but that’s my angle!

3 Likes

There is a comment, but it shows that it was extended to match the linked Discogs release. So both the information that it’s “Digipak” and the jewel case back image were imported from Discogs.

Of course, I’ll do.

1 Like

I have thought of doing that too, but it is that “if in doubt…” rule that stops this. You cannot be sure that there was never a discID like that in the other country.

Example: CD first mastered in the UK and initial copies printed. Glass master sent to USA for initial print run of CDs in new factory, but gets new back cover to show new USA distributor. We now have identical discIDs in UK and USA but unique artwork. Later the USA plant makes a new master and prints more CDs but still using their different artwork.

I have read of numerous situations where this has happened. Especially with some early Japanese pressings of CDs being sent to other countries. Also seen examples of CD matrixes that the name of an original pressing plant in them, even though they are now being pressed elsewhere. Some EMI SWINDON \ EMI UDEN CDs were printed in Italy when a plant was initially getting up to speed.

Yes, make a new release with your discID, but it is impossible to show that the discID should never have been attached to the other release.

That is not that unusual. I have seen releases that came out initially with a full CD jewel case get re-issued later as a cheaper digipak with identical artwork. I agree with @aerozol, that is an example of something that can get corrected. Two separate releases, one Digipak and one Jewel Case.

I’d assume the original release is the jewel case edition, so would update the original MB Release to fully show the jewel case as the artwork is already there. Then add your known digipak version as a separate release. The main problem you have is that you now don’t know when production swapped to the cheaper packaging making it hard to add a release date to the digipak copy.

1 Like

Warning: Reading sites like the SteveHoffman.tv forums will start sending you slowly insane with the details of manufacturing… :crazy_face: The worst being those artists who sell CDs by the millions and keep getting re-pressed over the decades…

1 Like

That’s probably best. I change this release to jewel case (to match the image), create my own release and leave the problem with multiple IDs to the guy with the jewel case release. :wink:

That’s interesting, because on the back (lower right corner) a printed label states that it shows the place of manufacturing. I think, that would mean manufactured in France, but the hub information points clearly to Uden, NL. (it’s not readable on the low res Discogs image, but I will upload mine)

1 Like

Even more confusing, but very common. Blame the huge manufacturers and popular artists.
What you have there that means paperwork printed in France, CD in UK. That is very common. I would not be surprised if the CDs are coming from multiple plants across Europe, but the paperwork all coming off the one French press.

Dig around in the Pink Floyd sections (especially at Discogs) and you’ll see many examples like this pop-up. Huge European demand means having to spread the disc manufacture across Europe.

Though it is rare for the EMI SWINDON \ UDEN stamps to appear on other presses so it is easiest to assume they are printed when they say they are unless you find proof otherwise.

1 Like

Be glad you are looking at a smaller artist without a huge world wide following. The “impossible to fix mess” can also come from the older years of MB. I just tried to locate a Garbage CD that I copied from a mate years ago, complete with EAC log so I can lookup the discID. This is the Release I have: https://musicbrainz.org/release/51691472-cad1-3aaa-9f23-005de42e4b42

Notice the SEVENTEEN discIDs attached? This then goes beyond madness when you look at the Release Group. Twenty Five “different” releases. Notice a few odd ones in there listed as just (medium) instead of CD? This includes three Belgian “releases” which don’t make sense for a American band as they would have released Europe wide.

Click on any of those four items with “medium” instead of CD. Eeek!! The same SEVENTEEN discIDs again. :scream: But nothing else. Not even barcodes or catalogue numbers. Now compare their edit histories. Yep - identical edit histories. Clones of each other. I assume from a previous era of the MB database.

The big headache is that unluckily Picard picks these naff choices out first from a lookup for some reason.

To keep some level of sanity, I have marked these four as bad and run away… I don’t have a clue where to start in cleaning that up. Where do those three different Belgian dates from from? Or was that just a Belgian editor adding details?

All I can do is make sure that the release I have is as well documented as possible.

1 Like

Garbage was (is) very popular in Europe too, at least in Austria, and, of course, Shirley Manson is no American.

But there’s probably a big mess. It’s getting worse the older the releases are and I’ve done only newer CDs right now (mainly cardboard covers), because I tried to rescue those still in good shape. I haven’t touched my older CDs in jewel cases right now. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

I notice a bit of a pattern that the popular bands in the early days of MB clearly had a lot of data uploaded and added via various sources.

As MB matured and changed the database schemes to allow more detail it seems to have left a lot of confusion like this in place. It then relies on that rare combination of a truly geeky fan who loves the tiny details to go pouring back over these details to clear it up, but that can be an impossible mission in some situations.

1 Like

Now that it is possible, I prefer subscribing to my releases only (through my collection), it is far less spammy, you receive only edit notifications of direct interest and that you can truly review. :wink:

6 Likes

If I would be responsible for this database I would try to get rid of these data garbage even if it hurts some users :wink:
But in reality I will learn to handle it.

But to monitor further edits on this releases, I think I should subscribe at least the release groups, I think.

I’ve added new releases and annotation for The Dawn and the following album (6 DiscIDs) for not matching exactly the linked Discogs release (mainly images) and an annotation for Paint It Blue (Edit #69250653) and another album with only one additional DiscID and a 100% match on Discogs.

If you know your DiscID is correct, and you want to, remove the rest. We are all responsible for the database, and nobody in this thread has said not to as far as I can tell?

Go wild and tidy those DiscID’s!

I’ve done it for some artists (removed a lot of DiscID’s when they were grouped together as you described). Just requires time and I think you should leave comments where possible before removing/so that you can move them, e.g. https://musicbrainz.org/edit/9974056

3 Likes

I would love to do so. But if it’s the last release with these surplus IDs, the CDs they are from would have no longer a matching DiscID. I think, I can’t remove these other IDs only because the linked Discogs release has a good match on mine. The link was added by one user, there are other owners of the once merged releases.

But there are still releases with 5 and 6 DiscIDs (?)
(these releases were cleansed of membranophones :grin:)

Sorry I don’t really follow you!

If you think it’s likely the discID is wrong/can’t get a source, and want to, then get rid of it. If it’s sitting on a incorrect release it will never be added to the correct one.

There can be multiple discIDs on one release but no way to know if it’s correct if the edit history is gone.

2 Likes

That’s probably true, and because of that I would like to get rid of it. But other releases merged into this one are valid releases and CDs with DiscIDs from these releases would no longer be represented in MB.

I thought about containig these IDs in a stripped-down release without special identifiers. I like to give an example where this could be easily done.

The first 2 are distinct releases with only one DiscID (the second was added by me).

The other 2 releases hold 6 IDs resulting from separating releases. The third could be merged into the fourth, with all identifiers removed. The features from the third (French) release are mainly represented in my release. I added a new one because of a different back image on Discogs, but the Discogs image contradicts the textual information given (eg. there is no barcode) and the MB image of this release was retrieved from Discogs.

DiscIDs used for the first two releases could be removed.

This would cause:

  • A US released disc could be identified as a French or European release
  • The TOC of a disc found in the “DiscID container release” would have no release identifiers

In both cases, someone who once attached a valid DiscId for his release, would have to edit MB again, but at least all recording and work information would still be available for all discIDs.

Correct me if I’ve got something wrong! I’m still not sure of what I’m talking about. :wink:
Personally I use the content of my CDs only from files, so once tagged correctly, there’s no need of a matching DiscID anymore.

1 Like

I’ve submitted an edit for removing the extra/unknown Disc ID:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/69295489

(My reasoning/thoughts is given in the edit note.)

3 Likes