There's a load of releases that Complete Sibelius that don't show any series branding...
Seems iffy to me, at least without any proper justification.
Just adding "The "Complete Sibelius" does not appears on the sleeve, but the CD belongs to this series." to the notes doesn't cut it IMO
If the Complete Sibelius series would start with No. 1 on the first release with the series branded on the sleeve http://discogs.versitio.com/release/1511560 than all would be okay, but it started with No. 30 ! So, 29 CDs also belongs to this series. Robert von Bahr, the manager and founder from BIS, confirmed me that the releases (not showing the Complete Sibelius on sleeve or disc) also belonging to the series and gave me also the order of CD 1 to 29, but I only added the series. So why not make public which CDs are part on this series?
I think that you should've discussed the issue in the forums beforehand. If there is a reliable source for the information, it can be added, but it needs to be stated in the submission notes. You can't expect to get away with adding something that isn't printed on the release just by saying "update".
RSG §1.1.2. Sources of information external to the release itself may be added, but the physical release must always be the main source. External sources of the information (for example websites, word of mouth, books etc) must be declared in the submission notes, explained in the release notes, and be verifiable as far as possible.
RSG §14.1.2. If you want to do the same type of edit over many releases, post a message in the Database forum stating your intentions. This will ensure your updates are acceptable before you do them, and may help you get votes faster. Link to the discussion on each of your edits, so other voters can read what is discussed.
RSG §14.1.3. Even if it seems obvious, always try to explain your update fully using the submission notes. This will always be appreciated by other s, and is vital when we need to look back over the submission data's history.
Yes, you're right. These "update" was not the way it should be. Sorry for that. But I asked member Internaut http://discogs.versitio.com//Internaut before I added the Complete Sibelius series and he agreed to do so. But yes, the way in the forum would be the best way. I can give afterwards a full declaration in the submission note for all the records I added the series, if the not branded CDs of this series will be kept.
I still think BIS came up with the idea for a series in 1991. Then probably due to marketing reasons they started with 30 and back-numbered the existing releases. If it was intended as a series all along then why is there no reference to it on any of the earlier releases. And why would a complete Sibelius have 2 versions of symphony 5 (see my comment in the release history).
Waldwichtel
gave me also the order of CD 1 to 29, but I only added the series.
Why didn't you add the order for 1 to 29. If we add the series because the information is valid then we should also add the series numbers.
Strange people out there at BIS with their Sibelius child. From the beginning I think it was planned to release a complete Sibelius edition (see below). Beside the CDs, from 1980 to 1984 there are 6 records pressed on Vinyl (LP) titled "The Complete Piano Music, Volume 1-6" and up to 1986 11 LPs titled: "The Complete Orchestral Music, Volume 1-12/13" (the BIS numbers of the LPs are the same as on the CDs). Than BIS pressed the following releases only on CD. Therefore you can see, that BIS always planning a complete edition.
Robert von Bahr from BIS wrote in a foreword to the Sibelius Edition: "Ever since founding BIS in 1973, I have had a dream to record 'every-note-he-ever-wrote' by Sibelius". BIS quit to print the complete Sibelius on the sleeve with no. 59 from 2006 because they already started on working of the Complete Sibelius Edition (Vol. 1-13), which came out between 2007-11. http://www.bis.se/bis_pages/bis_sibelius-edition.php On this edition, every single note Sibelius wrote are presented as far as it has survived. But this edition has nothing to do with the Complete Sibelius CDs. BIS wrote: "We have released more than seventy titles devoted to Sibelius's music... and appear in parallel versions in the BIS catalogue" (the Complete Sibelius series and the Sibelius Edition). So the CDs from the complete Sibelius no. 1-29 & 60-67 (without printed the series on the sleeve) and no. 30-59 branded on the sleeve, belongs to one of the parallel version and the Sibelius Edition in 13 boxes is the other ("complete") version. There are some other BIS Sibelius CDs (compilations and new recordings) not belonging to these two editions, because it's old stuff and nothing new.
Yes, there are two versions of symphony no. 5. But on BIS-CD-222 you will find only the final version (1917-18) and on BIS-CD-800 (Complete Sibelius 38) you find the "Original 1915 Version".
I only added the series and not the numbers because (although v. Bahr wrote: "the catalogue no. gives the order") this was not so in the nos. 31-59, mainly yes but there are numbers not following this order. That was the reason I added not the numbers.
I would wrote in the Submission note to all the CDs I added the series, which are not branded, the following: "I added the series "Complete Sibelius" although it is not branded on the sleeve or disc. BIS Records started in 1980 with the series. But first in 1991 they decided to print the series on the sleeve (until 2006 with number 59). That first CD from 1991 (BIS-CD-500) had the number 30. Robert von Bahr, the founder and manager from BIS, told me, that all the CDs before no. 30 (and some after no. 59) also belonging to the series."
Is this ok? I wrote in the Release note to this CDs: »The "Complete Sibelius" does not appears on the sleeve, but the CD belongs to this series.« Should I delete this sentence or keep it? What is your opinion?
My view is that, if there's no evidence that a release was intended to be part of an official series at the time of release, then it should not be made part of that series in the database. A marketing decision made at a later date is irrelevant to the release in hand.
You can, as has been suggested above, add a note to the release notes about the series, something like 'This album was retrospectively made number [X] of the Complete Sibelius series.'
On the other hand, reissues of this album made at dates after the series was created, and especially those which mention the series on the release, can be added officially to the series in the database.
On the Complete Sibelius page, you can add a list of the volumes in the series in the profile notes, with a note that the series was created with the release of volume 30, and that volumes 1 to 29 were not part of the series when released but were given numbers in the series retrospectively.
That sounds good what you wrote. But I'm not quite sure how you mean it. Do you mean I should delete the series not explicit appears on the release, but add in the release note of the CD concerned something like this (you wrote): 'This album was retrospectively made number [X] of the series Complete Sibelius.' ? And that I go to the Complete Sibelius side, edit label and list in the profile all the CDs out of no. 30-59 which were not part of the named series when released?
Yes, I think, that seems to be a good alternative solution.
Yes, you've understood my suggestion perfectly. Although I emphasise that it's just my opinion, you should wait for ing views before deciding you *should* do it.
On reflection I would alter the sentence for the release notes to: 'This album was retrospectively made part of the Complete Sibelius series and given number [X].' That seems a little more clear. You may want to substitute 'release' for 'album'.
The guidelines are clear on this. the guidelines demand for a series to be branded on the release, which it is clearly not on most of these. They have to be removed on those on which no branding can be found.
External sources do not come into play here, as "external" directly contradicts the guidelines in this case
syke
The guidelines are clear on this. the guidelines demand for a series to be branded on the release, which it is clearly not on most of these. They have to be removed on those on which no branding can be found.
External sources do not come into play here, as "external" directly contradicts the guidelines in this case
Completely agree with this. It's not really a grey situation here as the RSG requires branding.
Just for the record, we also had this discussion when we created the NIN series for the Halo numbers. Even if externally confirmed they should be assigned a Halo number, they cannot be entered so similar would apply here.
So folks! Just to inform you that I have removed the series on those releases on which no branding can be found. But add a note in the releases notes that the album concerned was retrospectively made part of the series. I also gave some information in the profile note about the series and add finally a list of these albums of the Complete Sibelius series. Hope to keep you now all satisfied.
Thank you too "thescarletpronster" for your suggestion you gave. And thank you "earshot" for your information about DADC Austria & Polygram. It was always a problem for me not to know if the CDs original or repressed. Now I'm a little bit wiser.
earshot
One small adaptation Robert von Bahr could be linked in the profile.
Done it.
Symphony Nr. 1 E Minor Op. 39 / Finlandia Op. 26:7 is by DADC Austria so it must have been released in 1986 or later.
Than would be that a repress. My copy is Made in by PolyGram.
Could you add the matrix for the other early release(s)?
Yeah, that could I do. Just give me some minutes :-)
