[78-L] Discographic question

[Michael Biel]

On 12/13/2010 11:23 AM, goldenbough at arcor.de wrote:
> .
> The recording as such, 'as it is in the grooves', is what it's about.
> Therefore this is what has to be listed.
>
> Anything else, like inversed labels, inversed masters or wrong titles printed on the labels
> are to be dealt with in comments or footnotes.
>

I certainly agree.  Remember, there are records out there with no 
labels, such as the Edison Diamond Discs where the paper labels fall off.
> So, list the correct information, and make annotations. This is what I suggest.
>
> I have the same problem with my upcoming discography 'Cajun Music on Records 1925-2007'.

While the rules are the same -- list what is actually on the record -- 
there is a difference between a catalog of a collection where you are 
listing specific copies of a record, and a discography where you might 
not even haave any copies of the record at hand.  In this case any 
peculiarities of the copy you have or one of the copies you have seen 
might not need to be noted.  On the other hand:

> For example
> - when all copies of re-issue have labels reversed

If ALL or many of the copies are mislabelled, that SHOULD be noted, as 
should the other things Benno mentioned here..

> - when the issue has correct matrix number on label, but masters are reversed
> - when all copies of an issue have wrong master used (another issued song by same artist)
> - when 3 consecutive issues of the same record (same number) have 3 different spellings of the
> titles PLUS 3 different artist credits.
> - when there were records with different couplings on later issues
> - when the same record number was used twice (or in one case THREE times) for
> different artists and songs
> - when the same title was used for a completely different song
> etc. etc.
>
Let me add that there are cases where performers -- especially 
conductors -- are misidentified, sometime accidentally and sometimes 
purposefully to create a "newly found' lost recording, sometimes with 
speed and pitch modifications to some other recording.

There also are pseudonyms, and sometimes the fake name is on all copies, 
sometimes the names are different on different issues, and sometimes the 
correct name is later used such as with Camden.

The goal should be to be able to look up the recording under both the 
label id and the correct information..

The case I often mention is that of the Gregorian Chant discography 
compiled by my friend, Father Jerome Weber.  Jerry had noticed over the 
years that MANY chant recordings were not really of the chants on the 
label.  There really was a crisis of misidentification of these thousand 
year old works on records and on published scores.  He traveled around 
the world listening to every recording of a chant ever made and compared 
them to the original manuscripts or earliest publications.  The 
incorrect identification also had to be listed so it could be corrected 
if the user has a copy at hand.

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com  .

> My solution seems to be a viable one, because there cannot be any misunderstanding:
> Only the recording counts (the master number of the recording).
>
> Averything else can then be handled easily:
>
> 'I Scream, You Scream'   - see   'ICE CREAM'
> 'Opelousas Waltz' (mislabelled on Starday 789 -  see (actual track on record) 'LOUISIANA'
> Coates, Harry  (misprint on DeLuxe 1234) - see  CHOATES, HARRY
> etc.
>
> Any opinions most welcome.
>
> Benno