Release/Catalog Number

Basic 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.

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.

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.

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.

• 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.
  • 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! --Gecks
    • 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. --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 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.

• 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. --Gecks
  • 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. --ArtySmokes

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.) -- ArtySmokes

Discussion

ClutchEr2 reports that very recent CDs do not have a ReleaseCatalogNumber. Instead they use the BarCode without the trailing zero and 13th check digit number.

• 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 LabelCode. -- dmppanda 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a double CD release where each CD has a catalogue number, and the digipak has one. What to enter as catalogue number? --Zout

• 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. -- dmppanda 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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 #). -- BrianSchweitzer 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Stub