16 October 2012

An "error" on a record album

For several weeks I've been saving my favorite music digitally in order to finally get rid of old vinyl.  This album is one I bought when I was in college in about 1970.  The Vox label was as I remember a budget label, and I probably pulled this out of a bin of $1 records.

It wasn't until this week that I realized the significant error on the cover (I wasn't a music major).  The same error occurs on the record label as well.  I wonder if something like this is collectible, or whether it should go to Goodwill.

Addendum:  Reader Stella explains in her comment that it's not exactly an error...


  1. I had to look it up to check that the error was what I thought it was, but as it turns out, Wikipedia explains it:

    "The sequential numbering of his symphonies has also been confused: (a) they were initially numbered by order of publication, not composition; (b) the first four symphonies to be composed were published after the last five; and (c) the last five symphonies were not published in order of composition. This explains why, for example, the New World Symphony was originally published as No. 5, was later known as No. 8, and definitively renumbered as No. 9 in the critical editions published in the 1950s." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%C3%ADn_Dvořák

    So it seems this numbering is common for early recordings.

    1. AHA! Thank you, Stella. That explains it. :.)

    2. I knew it as No. 5 and couldn't figure out what was wrong with the cover. So it's No. 9 now. Who knew? Guess I'm just too old.....

  2. OK, I had to look it up. Symphony No.5 was in F major, opus 96 and symphony No.9 was in E minor, opus 95.

  3. Ah, I thought this was about the blatant neglect of diacritics in the composer's name.

  4. I wooda thunk it was the use of Van Gogh's "Road with Cypress and Star"
    (1890), painted in St. Remy, FRANCE, as the cover art for a work entitled "From The NEW WORLD."


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...