Trying to figure out an [Arthur] Rubinstein Collection disc


I’m pretty sure I have this release, as the cover art, bar code, label, and catalog number match the disc I’m holding. But I’m confused by the annotation and by the title. Trying to go through the edit history… did not help much.

The annotation … is not useful. Beyond telling me that I got the wrong release (which, of course, there is no way to know without knowing what I’m holding), It seems to be saying there is both a Rubinstein Collection and an Arthur Rubinstein collection, and those are different (because of a different mastering). And then something about the edit history being wrong (uh?) Further, I open the album booklet (the one I’m holding) and it has a title page, which says “The Rubinstein Collection Frédéric Chopin (1810 – 1849) 19 Nocturnes”. So this is a RC disc. Then I look through, turn to the back page, and it tells me “(big bold small caps)The Arthur Rubinstein Collection(newline)(normal font)brings together all of his approved,…” So it appears Sony considers putting the “the” or not a typographic choice.

It looks like maybe part of this is @jalexstark (who unfortunately doesn’t seem to be around anymore, so hard to ask) being confused by one MB recording representing multiple masterings. Or maybe by the optional “the”.

So… it looks like I should:

  • change the annotation to something along the lines of “This release is the 1999 mastering; there is a 2010 as well, see [link] (if I can find it).”
  • change the release & release group title to “19 Nocturnes” per the CSG (though the current release group title is, errr, a good reflection of my feelings :slight_smile:)
  • fix some of the track titles (e.g., lowercase “op.”)
  • possibly, add another release to the release group for the US release (which I think I probably have since the back says its distributed by Sony in New York). But I can’t find any actual differences, so this seems pointless.

Ping @loujin as you’re in the edit history.


Personally, if there’s confusion I would add as many releases as possible, even if I don’t own them, with proper disambiguations etc.
It seems like Discogs might make things easy, presumably in here are all versions referenced in the edit history/your post:

Adding all these would hopefully mean you can get rid of the confusing annotation?
I’m also confused by the ‘Arthur Rubenstein’ text, but as long as you’re putting down as much information from your in hand copy as possible, there’s no need to speculate on other versions floating around, as long as this one can be easily identified.

Not sure if that helps?
But basically:

If you can add the other version/ find a source, ideally we wouldn’t have this kind of information in the annotation.

Since it matches the spine and cover (according to the scans), I would change it, perhaps the ‘Arthur Rubenstein’ text belongs in a series relationship, or a disambiguation.

Always good :slight_smile:

This is the only place where I really disagree - if your copy has any different text on it (eg 'distributed by Sony in New York) than the scans on the existing version, then that’s an “actual difference”, and you should make a new release. Besides, it’s pretty quick to do, and you’re in a great situation, being able to reference the EU scans and your in hand copy and note down what the differences are! (or add scans too)

edit: in any case thank the lord for scans and @SURIV for providing them :innocent:


2006 copyright year on cover art is also confusing when we got 1999 & 2000-01-17 release events for the release. Is this really correct art for this release?


The cover art seems to be from a 2006 reissue of the 1999/2000 remaster.

This release was imported from FreeDB way back in 2004. An ASIN of a 1990 release was added in 2005. The 2000 release event was added in 2011. It also looks like the release was split into US and EU releases in 2013, and then merged back together in 2015.

Basically, it is a huge mess and trying to discover what release this really is is a hopeless endeavor, because it was edited over the years, pre- and post-NGS, by many different people who had different releases.

Since you have a US release, you should add it and start with a clean history.


If you do this, feel free to remove any conflicting/unverifiably information from the other release, and “match” it to a release that you have information on (eg change it to your release, and move any other data to the release it belongs to (eg scans if they’re for another release), otherwise remove it)
There’s no point having releases that are a mix of data that even all together we can’t untangle.


There’s at least a Rubinstein collection from ~1999 (it seems I created this series) and an earlier one with completely different covers (I think the series does not exist in musicbrainz — the covers are mainly white, e.g.

Regarding the particular release I don’t remember in detail, for sure I did some cleanup, maybe the recording date was not set or doubtful at the time. I’m sure the recordings are the right ones now (1965), but of course the acoustID are most probably useless. There are some acousticbrainz submissions though, I don’t remember if I submitted my data already (from my FLACs I digitized from the european release). BTW my cover is the one on discogs, not the one in musicbrainz, so probably the original one. I’ll have a look if I kept somewhere the precise date when I bought it.

Absolutely agree, that’s why I never tried to distinguish between remasterings… Rubinstein/Chopin is a mess between the different recording dates of the same works and layers of edits

if you want to create new recordings for a US release, don’t hesitate, just make sure that you have clear disambiguation comments


[no idea why this is showing as a reply to—I clicked the reply link at the bottom, not on his post. And of course its a reply to everyone.]

You’ve all convinced me that the appropriate course of action is to add a new release for mine, very clearly labeling it with a disambiguation comment and probably an annotation of how to identify it.

I should probably just re-use the recordings, at least unless I have different dates (etc.) for them credited. AFAIK, all remasterings are supposed to share a MB recording. Unless @loujin you’re suggesting that so we can have known-good AcousticIDs and AcousticBrainz submissions?

it seems like the best way to clean up that existing release is probably to declare that it is the 1999 European release, create another new release for the 2006 re-issue, and then move the cover art (except for the front, which I’m pretty sure is the same for all the releases).

I think there must be the following releases, at least:

  1. 1999 US (the one I have)
  2. 1999 Europe (what it claims to be)
  3. 2006 Europe (what we have cover art for)
  4. 2006 US, different label (According to Discogs)
  5. 2010 US/Europe (don’t know) (according to comments, needs some research).

Replies to specific things below:

I think of annotations like that mainly to aid in navigation when it’s not entirely clear from the disambiguation comments, etc. Or (for example) to point people to different release groups (if disc ID searches often give the wrong one). But yeah, ideally it wouldn’t be needed.

Unfortunately not. The cover art uploaded there shows a 2006 RCA Victor Red Seal release, probably Europe, that isn’t on the Discogs page. And the comments talk about a 2010 release as well.

Of course you’re right there. Even though it’s the wrong art there (see next bit), mine is also going to be wrong.

I’m pretty sure it’s not actually the right cover art. Probably mo one cared because it’s pretty close (comparing it to mine). Well, at least the front is (probably identical), the back is fairly different. (Given, mine is US not Europe, but I have the 1999 date printed).

I have a 1999 disc, so presumably the 1999 series. Sounds like the series need disambiguation comments. Guess Rubinstein must sell!


I’ve created a new release for the 2006 cover art:


I’m thinking that continuing this thread here will help keep this info accessible.

Looking at
They speak of a 1999 release of this series (and boxed set).
This corresponds well with

And they speak of a later series that has neither volume numbers nor “Collection” on the CA.
Which would seem to be exampled by


(Please don’t be fooled like I was by the number of Mazurkas given in the title on the CA.)

Questions: Is creating a Arthur Rubinstein (neither worded as “Collection” nor numbered) series a good idea?
Is a series defined by common CA? Or are the “no Collection” releases best left in the existing series?
I would relate the 2 series as a “group of series”, right?

I propose also a The Rubinstein Collection (CA has bas relief on white background) series.

Very open to not proceeding.


@loujin and @InvisibleMan78 did all the work on the series, making them aware of this

I don’t think we are that strict on series (yet?) so I have the feeling that having 3 (one with all of them, and two with them split, all annotated appropriately) would be just fine…
But I really have no opinion :wink:


We already have a serie: called “The Rubinstein Collection (1999 collection from RCA, 94 CDs)” numbered from #1 to #82 (some releases include more then 1 CD).

Sorry, but I don’t understand your question, @mmirG.
Do you ask for an additional serie like “The (other) Rubinstein Collection” without any year, format and disc numbers)?


Oh dear.
I am not clear at all what you refer to by “The (other) Rubinstein Collection” without any year, format and disc numbers)
Do you mean the reissue of the series described at

as beginning in 2003?
That is what I was proposing to treat as a separate series on the basis that it has different CA.

Though I am now thinking that if RGs can contain releases with both different CA and even slightly different tracks then my proposal is not a good one.
Let’s strike that idea out.

Does a series The Rubinstein Collection (CA has bas relief on white background) seem like a good idea?