Release/Catalog Number: Difference between revisions

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
((Imported from MoinMoin))
 
(Tidying up into card structure; separating discussion (Imported from MoinMoin))
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DocumentationHeader|Release|Terminology}}
==Basic definition==


==Definition==
Nearly all tangible releases (as opposed to digital media files) have a quasi-unique catalogue number, assigned to them by the record label releasing them. Generally, this number will include alphanumeric characters, often letters followed by numbers, perhaps separated by a dash, space or other punctuation. The catalogue number is most often printed on the spine of CDs and on the back of sleeves, often near the barcode if one exists, and can indicate both the format of a release (CD, LP etc) and often the label. The catalogue number to be entered on Musicbrainz should match the one printed on the sleeve as closely as possible.


Nearly all tangible releases (as opposed to digital media files) have a quasi-unique catalo number, assigned to them by the record label releasing them. Generally, this number will include alphanumeric characters, often letters followed by numbers, perhaps separated by a dash, space or other punctuation. The catalog number is most often printed on the spine of CDs and on the back of sleeves, often near the barcode if one exists, and can indicate both the format of a release (CD, LP etc) and often the label. The catalog number to be entered on Musicbrainz should match the one printed on the sleeve as closely as possible.
==Notes==


==Additional Notes==
1. Catalogue numbers supplied by Discogs should be treated with care, as Discogs advises its editors to alter catalogue numbers to fit an arbitrary style for some labels. If an image of the sleeve is available, use the catalogue number shown on that, rather than the text version listed by Discogs.


1. Catalog numbers supplied by Discogs should be treated with care, as Discogs advises its editors to alter catalog numbers to fit an arbitrary style for some labels. If an image of the sleeve is available, use the catalog number shown on that, rather than the text version listed by Discogs.
2. Many major label imprints use numbers that are similar or exactly the same as the barcode. Often the only apparent difference is the lack of a check digit, but note that punctuation can be included in the catalogue number field on MBz, whereas the barcode must be made of numbers only.


2. Many major label imprints use numbers that are similar or exactly the same as the [[Barcode|BarCode]]. Often the only apparent difference is the lack of a check digit, but note that punctuation can be included in the catalog number field on MBz, whereas the [[Barcode|BarCode]] must be made of numbers only.
3. Many releases feature two or more catalogue numbers. This is especially true for international releases on imprints controlled by major companies. In cases like this, there are several options.
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">a) Create two release events (same date, country, label and barcode) and provide the two cat #s separately. b) Choose the "friendly" cat # for a single release event and list the supplemental cat # in the annotation. c) Recognise that the different catalogue numbers relate to releases in different countries, and submit release events accordingly. For example, a CD-single released by Warner Music might specify "W 999CD" for the UK, "W999-2CD" for Germany, and "999-2 CD" for Australia. EMI commonly uses a "friendly" cat number for UK releases, and an unfriendly number (based on the barcode) for other territories. Use the number that matches the release country.
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I'm in two minds about this one. If the same pressing is released in multiple countries it should have a 'region' release country (eg 'Europe'). I think by specifying particular countries as per the supplied cat#s we are 'creating' releases when in fact it's just the one? Not sure! --[[User:Gecks|Gecks]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I'll try and find a real world example at some point, as this was written quickly and off the top of my head. I'm not particularly keen on "region" releases, as different countries release things on different dates. Warner now tends to use the same cat for UK *and* Germany, but EMI definitely used "friendly" cat #s for the UK, particularly for releases on imprints like Food, while also listing CDP codes for other countries. --[[Arty Smokes|ArtySmokes]]
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>


3. Many releases feature two or more catalog numbers. This is especially true for international releases on imprints controlled by major companies. In cases like this, there are several options.
4. Some box sets will have a separate cat number for each disc, and then an overall number that appears on the outer packaging. It is recommended that the catalogue number to be entered on MBz matches each individual disc. The number for the overall package can be noted in the release annotation if desired.
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">a) Create two release events (same date, country, label and barcode) and provide the two cat #s separately. b) Choose the "friendly" cat # for a single release event and list the supplemental cat # in the annotation. c) Recognise that the different catalog numbers relate to releases in different countries, and submit release events accordingly. For example, a CD-single released by Warner Music might specify "W 999CD" for the UK, "W999-2CD" for Germany, and "999-2 CD" for Australia. EMI commonly uses a "friendly" cat number for UK releases, and an unfriendly number (based on the barcode) for other territories. Use the number that matches the release country.
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I would say that we should always log the 'box' cat#, with the disc-specific cat# being an additional cat# for each disc (annotation..). IMO the box cat# is the most 'useful' because that's what people will be looking for most often. --[[User:Gecks|Gecks]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I do it the other way round because we list discs individually on MBz. In many cases the first disc matches the overall cat number anyway, as the second disc is a bonus disc, and the first disc may be sold separately. For the bonus discs, I think it is relatively important to list the specific cat number if it exists, as such discs are not always included in the package. This idea has not gained an overall consensus as yet and is discussed below. --[[Arty Smokes|ArtySmokes]]
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>


5. Some labels include the name of the imprint (or a shortened version) as part of the catalogue number. In cases like these, the imprint name will be printed in the same typeface as the rest of the catalogue number, and it should be included on MBz. (Without the name, a number like 01-01 lacks information that is useful for identifying the imprint.) -- [[Arty Smokes|ArtySmokes]]
4. Some box sets will have a separate cat number for each disc, and then an overall number that appears on the outer packaging. It is recommended that the catalog number to be entered on MBz matches each individual disc. The number for the overall package can be noted in the release annotation if desired.


5. Some labels include the name of the imprint (or a shortened version) as part of the catalogue number. In cases like these, the imprint name will be printed in the same typeface as the rest of the catalog number, and it should be included on MBz. (Without the name, a number like 01-01 lacks information that is useful for identifying the imprint.)
==Discussion==

[[User:ClutchEr2|ClutchEr2]] [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-June/021163.html reports] that very recent CDs do not have a ReleaseCatalogNumber. Instead they use the [[Barcode|BarCode]] without the trailing zero and 13th check digit number.
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">This is only partly true as far as I can tell. A lot of (small) labels still use internal catalog numbering, and I've also seen some labels using a smaller part of the barcode. Anyhow, this should be moved out from this page, as it pertains to ReleaseCatalogNumber, not to [[Label Code|LabelCode]]. -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
</ul>

I have a double CD release where each CD has a catalogue number, and the digipak has one. What to enter as catalogue number? --[[User:Zout|Zout]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">There has been some heated discussion about that earlier, and no consensus as far as I can tell. I would suggest, if the set catalog # and discs catalog # are really completely unrelated: use the *set* catalog # (eg: the unique catalog # for the box), and possibly mention in the annotation that the discs themselves have a different cat #. Although, I've seen cases where: CATALOG# for the set and CATALOG#-1 for disc 1, CATALOG#-2 for disc 2 etcetera. In this later case, I think using the *disc* catalog # makes sense. -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
</ul>

Was 3a ever decided anywhere in a RFV? luks and I went round and round on that very point for a long time on a 500 or so sized batch of releases for Varese Sarabande, as he didn't like the 3a approach. Additionally, 3a assumes it is for separate markets, whereas the dual cat #'s we ran into were for the same releases to the same market, with the same sole cat # on the liners (nearly impossible, for many, to determine which, without actual scans of each liner), just one cat # the internal company cat #, and the other the distribution company cat #. (VSD-5999 vs 302 065 999 2, for example, with the 5999 part being the same in each variant of the cat #). -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">AFAIK, none of this was decided by a vote. It's just what I've noted as common/good practice from numerous release event edits. For the cases you've mentioned, I think it is best to use the "friendly" VSD codes, particularly if scans can be sourced, as the longer numerical version looks fairly similar to what I imagine is the barcode. In other words, choose option (b). --[[Arty Smokes|ArtySmokes]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Well, more info :) Varese began using the MCA distribution system, and started using the 302 numbers. At the same time, they switched to using VSD- as their own prefix, rather than the other prefixes they had been using. (Lots more cat # breakdown in their listing's annotation here). So, beginning with VSD-5201 (the first VSD # used), all releases had both #'s. However, up through around VSD-6200, the liners almost always showed the VSD- number. Beginning around VSD-6000, they switched to using the 302 number on the liner, and around VSD-6200, they stopped always assigning 302 numbers, so for 6200-6500, all have 302 numbers, but not all had VSD- numbers. At 6500, they stopped using the VSD cat number system, and went solely to 302 numbers. (All of this, as well as the "we aren't sure which in that range did or didn't have both numbers" I confirmed by speaking to their archivist on the phone.) So, the compromise luks and I agreed on was to use VSD numbers for 5200-5999, and 302 numbers for 6000+. As it is now, the system just isn't built for dual cat #'s for a single event. If that is ever added, we agreed to go back and re-asses/research for the 6200-6500 range, to add in the secondary cat #s where needed. All of this, though, is a long winded way to say I don't think 3a is really the best solution. If there's a secondary cat #, until the system can support multiple cat #s for the same event, rather than making it appear as if there were 2 events, I would simply use one, and note the secondary cat # in the release annotation. Perhaps it even would be worth making a "Release events with multiple cat #'s" wikipage, like the other lists (Releases with pre-gap tracks, etc) for future follow up when the system can support the needed edits. -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 11:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
</ul>
</ul>


----{{DocumentationFooter|1.0|voiceinsideyou}}
----


[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Release]] [[Category:Terminology]] [[Category:Identifier]]
[[Stub]]
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Identifier]]

Revision as of 03:32, 30 July 2008

Template:DocumentationHeader

Definition

Nearly all tangible releases (as opposed to digital media files) have a quasi-unique catalo number, assigned to them by the record label releasing them. Generally, this number will include alphanumeric characters, often letters followed by numbers, perhaps separated by a dash, space or other punctuation. The catalog number is most often printed on the spine of CDs and on the back of sleeves, often near the barcode if one exists, and can indicate both the format of a release (CD, LP etc) and often the label. The catalog number to be entered on Musicbrainz should match the one printed on the sleeve as closely as possible.

Additional Notes

1. Catalog numbers supplied by Discogs should be treated with care, as Discogs advises its editors to alter catalog numbers to fit an arbitrary style for some labels. If an image of the sleeve is available, use the catalog number shown on that, rather than the text version listed by Discogs.

2. Many major label imprints use numbers that are similar or exactly the same as the BarCode. Often the only apparent difference is the lack of a check digit, but note that punctuation can be included in the catalog number field on MBz, whereas the BarCode must be made of numbers only.

3. Many releases feature two or more catalog numbers. This is especially true for international releases on imprints controlled by major companies. In cases like this, there are several options.

  • a) Create two release events (same date, country, label and barcode) and provide the two cat #s separately. b) Choose the "friendly" cat # for a single release event and list the supplemental cat # in the annotation. c) Recognise that the different catalog numbers relate to releases in different countries, and submit release events accordingly. For example, a CD-single released by Warner Music might specify "W 999CD" for the UK, "W999-2CD" for Germany, and "999-2 CD" for Australia. EMI commonly uses a "friendly" cat number for UK releases, and an unfriendly number (based on the barcode) for other territories. Use the number that matches the release country.

4. Some box sets will have a separate cat number for each disc, and then an overall number that appears on the outer packaging. It is recommended that the catalog number to be entered on MBz matches each individual disc. The number for the overall package can be noted in the release annotation if desired.

5. Some labels include the name of the imprint (or a shortened version) as part of the catalogue number. In cases like these, the imprint name will be printed in the same typeface as the rest of the catalog number, and it should be included on MBz. (Without the name, a number like 01-01 lacks information that is useful for identifying the imprint.)


Template:DocumentationFooter