For consideration, I propose an update to RSG 1.4.4 (proposed changes in bold):
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release.
For manufacturing variations, a description in the release notes will be sufficient to describe the qualities of the item. The FTF should not be used for this purpose.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
It's apparent some s been having problems with the interpretation of this rule where unintentional "colored" or translucent vinyl is being claimed as unique; the result is a lot of invalid duplicate entries being added.
I'd like to see some community and consensus for this change to be added into the guidelines. Please voice your opinions/votes here and lets get this clear once and for all.
EDIT: removed the proposed subheading of the above text to bring it in line with suggestions posted here.
I agree with the idea of modifying RSG §1.4.4 to include that. However, I fixed a typo in the text below:
eri9
Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper ̶o̶r̶, ink color, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release.
However, I disagree with the "RSG §1.4.4.1" for two reasons. First and foremost, any FTF rules/standards belong in RSG §6.1, not RSG §1.4, which is about what qualifies as a unique submission, not how to enter a unique format/etc. But I do think it would be a good idea to perhaps format the text in RSG §1.4 so that it includes a hyperlink to RSG §6.1.5 and/or elsewhere.
Second, I generally disagree with the RSG §1.4.4.1 idea because it's too vague and generally unhelpful. For example, we've found that it's really helpful on some releases to use the FTF to identify pressing plant variations, e.g., 'Monarch Pressing'. Likewise, on some of the larger master releases, e.g., Sex Pistols - Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols, etc., the FTF is critical for differentiation. Thus, such a restriction would be harmful to those types of releases (which are often a disaster anyway). Similarly, I actually think the FTF is one area that we actually do a pretty good job self-regulating. There are some things that are overused, e.g., 'Gatefold', but generally, I don't encounter a lot of disagreement in what belongs vs. what does not.
eri9
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, ̶o̶r̶, unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, or different deep grooves/pressing rings etc. would not constitute a unique release. A description in the release notes will be sufficient to distinguish the item from others.
chauncy1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, ̶o̶r̶, unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, or different deep grooves/pressing rings etc. would not constitute a unique release. A description in the release notes will be sufficient to distinguish the item from others.
I agree with this. i appreciate the help in coming up with accurate text, sebfact. I only worry a little over your addition of press rings, inasmuch that some people may only go by label art rather than making sure the runouts match the pressing run. i may be overthinking it though.
berothbr
I actually think the FTF is one area that we actually do a pretty good job self-regulating. There are some things that are overused, e.g., 'Gatefold', but generally, I don't encounter a lot of disagreement in what belongs vs. what does not.
I can see your point, but you haven't run into the vinyl tint/translucency mob that many of us have! We can do away with the 1.4.4.1 idea if we proceed with sebfact's revised copy.
eri9
I only worry a little over your addition of press rings, inasmuch that some people may only go by label art rather than making sure the runouts match the pressing run.
There were repetitive discussions about press rings for a few Chicago House labels and also for some high volume 12"s such as Blue Monday. They were all turned down being unique so I thought we should place a lid on such discussions for good.
eri9
I can see your point, but you haven't run into the vinyl tint/translucency mob that many of us have!
Don't worry —I've run into that too. I actually have been meaning to start a thread about one that I'm not sure about (I have a couple of copies of this one and a few of the standard version, but can't figure out if it's really 'clear purple' because it's super dark or if it's just that some copies came out that way).
I don't know if I agree with the pressing rings text. This is usually a controversial area and should really be determined on a case by case basis. For example, Peter Brown disco 12"s). On the other hand, I know with some Blue Note pressings, the only difference is a groove on one label, which sometimes is true, sometimes is not, so IDK. I get your point, but think this requires a soft touch instead of a guideline.
eri9
Also, anyone know how we can get some attention from management on this subject?
berothbr
For example, here is a release where I believe the only difference is the pressing rings, however, I believe it's been confirmed that there were two pressings
Again, it has been proven that smaller plants often had several different presses operating at the same time. So for the same release batch you would have different press rings because 1 was from a Finebilt press and the other from a SMT press. A different press ring just tells you it was pressed on a different press. That, however does not tell you when or why or where. It does not constitute a unique release, unless there is other evidence in the runouts or in general.
Personally, I agree with you sebfact. However, I've found that whenever I've tried to initiate a merge request where the sole difference is the ring impression, it's almost always rejected with strong comments posted to the history. So the reason I objected to the inclusion of the pressing ring text is is simply because there does not yet appear to be a clear consensus on that.
I agree that pressing rings alone shouldn't be used to denote a unique release, however, they are often secondary characteristics of unique releases that might denote something that makes it unique, such as a different plant in the runouts.
Combined with some of the resistance to merging as noted above, perhaps this could be expanded upon?
Diognes_The_Fox
I agree that pressing rings alone shouldn't be used to denote a unique release, however, they are often secondary characteristics of unique releases that might denote something that makes it unique, such as a different plant in the runouts.
Agreed. May just say "different runout characteristics" though...
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, or different deep grooves/pressing rings, etc. that cannot be tied to a specific plant or manufacturer would not constitute a unique release. A description in the release notes will be sufficient to distinguish the item from others.
I added a small section in bold as a possible addition, let me know if it sounds good or not. I think it might help clarify, but I am open to any suggestions.
I would like to see an exception for Deep Groove center labels, like the kind pressed in the 50's into the early 60's. I think Deep Groove pressings should be considered unique subs.
And how will this affect the recent decisions about cassette shell mfg. variations?
Simce the original point of this change was to address vinyl coloration, i feel were getting a bit off topic with the press ring debate. Lets focus on the main point here, as press rings seem to need further separate discussion.
eri9
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release.
Okay, let's go with the initial proposed one for now and we can cross the deep groove bridge separately.
You may want to explain for uninitiated what "deep grove bridge"/"deep groove centre labels"/"deep grooves/pressing rings" are... not everyone who has a piece of vinyl in their hands will understand those specialist , unless one explains it to them, perhaps with a link to the formats page or something.
Diognes_The_Fox
chauncy
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release.
Okay, let's go with the initial proposed one for now and we can cross the deep groove bridge separately.
How does this sound?
Great! though I think we lost line at the end that would greatly solidify this rule:
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc. would not constitute a unique release. For manufacturing variations, a description in the release notes will be sufficient to describe the qualities of the item. The FTF should not be used for this purpose.
I think this may be in conflict with some existing forum decisions, like for allowing different pressing plants to be entered so that they can be differentiated.
I do, however, think we should be documenting the differences in the release notes. I think some differences can be more clearly explained via BaOI fields as well and don't require duplication in the notes section if it's not subtle.
I see your point, but what we're talking about here is manufacturing variations within a single plants' output. FTF use to diffrentiate different pressing plants' output is the way I've seen it logically used. It gets illogical when its used to describe things that are outlined as off limits by this giudeline itself. At least that's my take on it.
eri9
For manufacturing variations, a description in the release notes will be sufficient to describe the qualities of the item. The FTF should not be used for this purpose.
I disagree with this part and agree with Diognes_The_Fox — this is too inflexible and would restrict the use of the FTF in ways that are helpful and have been accepted in other discussions. Likewise, the text of the larger guideline would be rendered contradictory because the first sentence says that manufacturing variations are not unique releases, but then this last sentence will now redefine manufacturing variations as discrepant 'qualities of the item'.
As I wrote before, if we want to further refine the use of the FTF, then RSG §6.1.5 and RSG §6.1.6 are the most effective areas to accomplish that because it will ensure that the regulation of the FTF flows from one place and is not scattered across different sections. However, I also think that this sort of restriction would unhelpful as the FTF should be flexible.
berothbr
I disagree with this part and agree with Diognes_The_Fox — this is too inflexible and would restrict the use of the FTF in ways that are helpful and have been accepted in other discussions.
The FTF indeed has proven to be very helpful to determine differences without deep-diving into dozens of MR releases. And if eri9.
Diognes_The_Fox
I do, however, think we should be documenting the differences in the release notes. I think some differences can be more clearly explained via BaOI fields as well and don't require duplication in the notes section if it's not subtle.
eri9
I see your point, but what we're talking about here is manufacturing variations within a single plants' output. FTF use to diffrentiate different pressing plants' output is the way I've seen it logically used. It gets illogical when its used to describe things that are outlined as off limits by this giudeline itself. At least that's my take on it.
Interesting! Can a few examples be provided so I can get a better idea of the exact situation?
Diognes_The_Fox
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, or different deep grooves/pressing rings, etc. that cannot be tied to a specific plant or manufacturer would not constitute a unique release. A description in the release notes will be sufficient to distinguish the item from others.
sebfact
The Notes should only expand the information found in the other main fields.
I don't quite agree. Notes should be used for the above reason, of course. But I think also adding information to help point out non-obvious details is OK too, to help clearly define a version among similar issues.
Diognes_The_Fox
Interesting! Can a few examples be provided so I can get a better idea of the exact situation?
Like how the FTF has been used to define non-obvious details? Polydor's US versions of Jam albums is a good place to start. They all look very similar until you notice the only difference is the plant code on the labels, and by extension the runouts.
For instance The Jam - Setting Sons
The only easily visible and easily definable difference here is the addition of a small plant code to the labels.
Calling out those plant numbers and describing them in the notes helps s define what version they have. And hopefully helps prevent duplicate entries from being added.
In general describing details in the notes and telling people what to look for is good policy, and using the FTF to describe those (sometimes not obvious) details only helps when scanning master releases.
Now on the other hand, calling out unintentional variations in the FTF within the same press run (as defined by the runouts and artwork) like vinyl translucency or tint for example, is pointless and confusing and definitely leads to multiple unjustified entries.
for example, Go-Go's - Talk Show called out as "translucent vinyl" with notes stating blue or violet.
These are arguably all the same pressing, and the last two are definitely so, sharing the same runouts.
So how is calling out "translucent gray" and "translucent vinyl" justifiable use of the FTF, or justifiable as a unique release at all?
These are not colored vinyl versions, and are not meant to be perceived this way. This is unintentional vinyl stock coloration; the last two "translucent" versions, one gray, one blue/violet, with the same runouts proves this. using the FTF is this way (and the resulting false duplicates) is what im trying to clear up.
eri9
These are arguably all the same pressing, and the last two are definitely so, sharing the same runouts.
So how is calling out "translucent gray" and "translucent vinyl" justifiable use of the FTF, or justifiable as a unique release at all?
These are not colored vinyl versions, and are not meant to be perceived this way. This is unintentional vinyl stock coloration; the last two "translucent" versions, one gray, one blue/violet, with the same runouts proves this. using the FTF is this way (and the resulting false duplicates) is what im trying to clear up.
Black is black is black and those should be merged. On those submissions, there was no evidence provided that the "black" vinyl version that was drafted from isn't also translucent/transparent due to the thinness of different vinyls used in the manufacturing process, which is required to make a unique submission via RSG §1.4.1..
I do however think that Translucent/Transparent is valid in the when the color is not standard black. Something like opaque blue vs. transparent blue would be much more visibly obvious as to it being done on purpose and not the result of manufacturing tolerance.
eri9
The only easily visible and easily definable difference here is the addition of a small plant code to the labels.
Calling out those plant numbers and describing them in the notes helps s define what version they have. And hopefully helps prevent duplicate entries from being added.
I agree with this. Ultimately, I'd like to see what goes in the FTF to not have to rely on a more detailed explanation in the notes section, but I do understand this is not often possible.
Shouldn't the plant codes just be substituted with the pressing plant name, e.g., Hauppage Pressing, Pitman Pressing, etc., which has become common practice? If so, then isn't that just an example of improper FTF usage, as opposed to a byproduct of RSG §1.4.4's language?
By comparison, the 'grey' and 'translucent' is indeed an example of what I believe is an infrequent, but not uncommon manufacturing variation submitted as a unique release, which the proposed guilty of submitting myself that I believe is at least just as common as the 'translucent' submissions are the mislabeled copies submitted as 'misprints'. This could easily be addressed by inserting "mislabeling" as a one-word clause immediately after the 'shades of ink' clause.
sebfact
chauncy
So how is calling out "translucent gray" and "translucent vinyl" justifiable use of the FTF, or justifiable as a unique release at all?
IMO, this info does not belong into the FTF at all. I refer to what I stated 7 years ago about the translucent "colours".
exactly.
Diognes_The_Fox
Black is black is black and those should be merged. On those submissions, there was no evidence provided that the "black" vinyl version that was drafted from isn't also translucent/transparent due to the thinness of different vinyls used in the manufacturing process, which is required to make a unique submission via RSG §1.4.1..
Yes, of course, but try telling that to the OS'ers on these. It's a non-stop self-justification fest...
These are the reason I started this thread in the first place, in addition to the same scenario I went through with some "colored" REM albums earlier this year.
Diognes_The_Fox
I agree with this. Ultimately, I'd like to see what goes in the FTF to not have to rely on a more detailed explanation in the notes section, but I do understand this is not often possible.
Yes. I understand in this case the numbers are a bit odd, but they are the only easily found difference for the novice . Perhaps "XX On Label" would be a better choice in this case.
berothbr
Shouldn't the plant codes just be substituted with the pressing plant name, e.g., Hauppage Pressing, Pitman Pressing, etc., which has become common practice? If so, then isn't that just an example of improper FTF usage, as opposed to a byproduct of RSG §1.4.4's language?
I think this would be fine if all of us were up to speed on identifying pressing plants from runouts and other clues, but I'm aiming or the most easily understood visual clue that makes sense to the casual Discogs s. A vast majority here don't care so much for deep research, in my opinion. They just want to find it and sell it. So anything that can be spotted easily is best.
eri9
Yes. I understand in this case the numbers are a bit odd, but they are the only easily found difference for the novice . Perhaps "XX On Label" would be a better choice in this case.
I'm not sure yet. I'm bouncing some ideas around internally to see maybe if there's another way we can address this issue a little better. I'll report back when I have more info.
eri9
vast majority here don't care so much for deep research, in my opinion.
It's mostly, true, but we can all work together peacefully with a little work (tangent time!):
In the FTF, I would put the basic description of what the unique identifying factor is "22 on label" / "Dog on top" / "Red labels" / etc.
In the notes, I would explain what the information in the FTF signifies:
"This version has a 22 printed on the label, which signifies it was pressed at XXXXXXX"
"This version has the shaded dog printed on the top of the label, which signifies _________"
"This version has red labels, which means it was pressed between 1968 and 1975"
Or something like that! That way it's (possibly) more easier to identify your specific version from the MR page and then learn what that variant means at the sub page level.
Diognes_The_Fox
It's mostly, true, but we can all work together peacefully with a little work
yes! it wasn't meant to be a slight, just an observation.
Diognes_The_Fox
In the FTF, I would put the basic description of what the unique identifying factor is "22 on label" / "Dog on top" / "Red labels" / etc.
In the notes, I would explain what the information in the FTF signifies:
"This version has a 22 printed on the label, which signifies it was pressed at XXXXXXX"
"This version has the shaded dog printed on the top of the label, which signifies _________"
"This version has red labels, which means it was pressed between 1968 and 1975"
Or something like that! That way it's (possibly) more easier to identify your specific version from the MR page and then learn what that variant means at the sub page level.
yes exactly, and that's what i try to do most of the time, even linking the relevant pressing plant/profile/engineer
within Discogs so others can see the reason, and additionally try to link other similar releases in the notes for easy comparison.
so, anyway, should we press ahead with getting this language assimilated? I feel we could speak towards related fine points onto infinity here, so let"s try to nail down some solid copy that works for 1.4.4, and address more points that relate to use of the FTF as we go on.
I'm still quite happy with this and I think a few others have said so as well:
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc., would not constitute a unique release. For manufacturing variations, a description in the release notes will be sufficient to describe the qualities of the item; the FTF should not be used for this purpose.
I feel the last line could be dropped if there's still resistance, but used in this manner it only relates to describing unintentional manufacturing details, not a factual difference like a valid vinyl color or identifiable pressing plant.
Diognes_The_Fox — Perhaps one solution that splits the difference would be to modify the fourth bullet in RSG §6.1.5 by adding a requirement or firm statement (similar to the one in RSG §1.4.2) that we are expected to clarify the FTF in the notes. I mention RSG §1.4.2, because the last clause, which states "unique releases must have a means of identifying them as such!", is not only very effective, but one of the most unambiguously crystal clear clauses in the whole Guidelines. Alternately, because it would probably detract from RSG §6.1.5's by increasing its visual density, the RN clarification requirement/guidance could probably be added either to RSG §6.1.6 or RSG §6.1.7 and still be effective.
I'm not sure how much it's effected other people, but s adding a sub for the odd mislabelled piece of vinyl as a mispress (or even as a misprint) seems to come up a bit, and is still keenly contested.
For consideration in addition to the other suggested changes:...'variations in the shades, or misapplication, of label paper or ink color'...
kinda bulky but would save a fair bit of grief... and we also get bonus cover for inking accidents :-}
gogobonobo
kinda bulky but would save a fair bit of grief... and we also get bonus cover for inking accidents :-}
+1 (but minus the grammatical errors) — I basically wrote the exact same thing four hours ago, but instead of 'misapplication' I used 'mislabelling' and suggested it be added as its own clause instead of commingled with the paper/ink coloration text. However, misapplication is probably even better.
I went for 'misapplication' because I could think of some instances where 'mislabelled' items are allowable subs (e.g. If a large number of releases are found to be labeled with two B sides, or a run of records are sporting labels from a completely different release).
Apologies for the grammar... had just woken up when I noticed this thread, and had 2 kids in my ear by the time I finished. I try to think before I write, but thinking while writing is a rare luxury.
gogobonobo
Apologies for the grammar... had just woken up when I noticed this thread, and had 2 kids in my ear by the time I finished. I try to think before I write, but thinking while writing is a rare luxury
I didn't mean to criticize, I just meant that the text order/punctuation should be tweaked, but I totally agree with your point. Misapplication is more precise, but also more comprehensive because it includes more labeling snafus (like those lousy copies that are missing a label altogether), so I like that a lot better.
Diognes_The_Fox, can we get an official decision on the original request text? I do appreciate other 's additions to the discussion, but there doesn't seem like there's any consensus yet on those. If we continue to talk in circles about yet another possible addition to this rule, we may never get anywhere. I don't want this to die out without resolution.
So, can we get the initial change added at this point (as restated several times along this thread), and continue to discuss additions in another thread? Please?
1.4.4. Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. For example; different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition, manufacturing tolerance based variations in the shades of label paper or ink color, or unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc., would not constitute a unique release.
For manufacturing variations, a description in the release notes will be sufficient to describe the qualities of the item; the FTF should not be used for this purpose.
Maybe mislabeled releases should be explicitly listed as manufacturing variations as well. Now many of them are entered as Misprints (blame some on me, actually.....)
sebfact
Maybe mislabeled releases should be explicitly listed as manufacturing variations as well. Now many of them are entered as Misprints (blame some on me, actually.....)
eri9
Diognes_The_Fox, can we get an official decision on the original request text? I do appreciate other 's additions to the discussion, but there doesn't seem like there's any consensus yet on those. If we continue to talk in circles about yet another possible addition to this rule, we may never get anywhere. I don't want this to die out without resolution.
Sorry about the delay! I was out of town this week.
Please add mislabelings. They are an endless discussion topic, spread over various forums so we should have that neatly documented in the RSG. Especially when it comes to merging the so-called "Misprints".
Diognes_The_Fox
I dropped the last sentence for now. I think it might be worthwhile, but I would like to roll that in with the ongoing discussion.
Additional FTF restrictions would be most effective if added to the end of RSG §6.1. However, I don't think this one is particularly necessary (or more pressing compared to other FTF 'issues') because even though FTF (mis-)usage seems to be a common topic, we're pretty good at self-regulating that as a community.
+1 — It's impossible to know that a mislabeled copy is just considered a RSG §1.4.4 variation and not a unique Misprint version. As an alternative to adding this to RSG §1.4.4, another place where the mislabeling clarification could be just as effective would be if it was added to the to the definition for Misprint in the Formats List.
sebfact
Please add mislabelings. They are an endless discussion topic, spread over various forums so we should have that neatly documented in the RSG. Especially when it comes to merging the so-called "Misprints".
I agree with this. I know we've discussed in the past that A-A/B-B/B-A type mislabellings are not okay, but what about mislabelings from completely different releases/labels that got mixed up at the plant? Was that ever determined to be a manufacturing tolerance thing or something unique enough to document?
Diognes_The_Fox
what about mislabelings from completely different releases/labels that got mixed up at the plant?
Wouldn't that have to be a misprint because the printed information doesn't match at all? Perhaps the language could emphasize that it applies to placement of the labels.
Diognes_The_Fox
Was that ever determined to be a manufacturing tolerance thing or something unique enough to document?
Maybe this could just be addressed by adding something like 'ask in the forums when in doubt' (similar to RSG §2.5.4 with determining aliases vs. ANVs).
Diognes_The_Fox
sebfactPlease add mislabelings. They are an endless discussion topic, spread over various forums so we should have that neatly documented in the RSG. Especially when it comes to merging the so-called "Misprints".
I agree with this. I know we've discussed in the past that A-A/B-B/B-A type mislabellings are not okay, but what about mislabelings from completely different releases/labels that got mixed up at the plant? Was that ever determined to be a manufacturing tolerance thing or something unique enough to document?
Misprint should be added to RSG, as the format list states
Indicates that there is an error in the printed material on the release (labels, CD booklets etc), for example, indicating wrong track listings etc. There must be a corrected version of the release for this tag to be used
but doesn't state what in circumstances is something a Misprint. If A-A/B-B/B-A type isn't OK, then it should be made clearer. For years before various subs was merged, people thought it was OK based on what the formatlist states.
sebfact
Diognes_The_Foxmislabelings from completely different releases/labels that got mixed up at the plant?I would see them as Mispress and worthwhile in the DB. Has been discussed recently but can't find the thread ATM...
Isn't Mispress only for if it has the wrong music based on this
Notes that the audio on a medium that is replicated by pressing (CD, vinyl etc) is incorrect in some way (usually, the wrong tracks
MusicNutter
Isn't Mispress only for if it has the wrong music based on this
True.
Dilemma again: Forbid side A/B / A/A / B/B labelings but allow for completely different releases? I'd say no now. Mislabeling is part of the manufacturing process but not part of the pressing process (getting the audio onto the vinyl) of the disc.
Indicates that there is an error in the printed material on the release (labels, CD booklets etc), for example, indicating wrong track listings etc. There must be a corrected version of the release for this tag to be used.
Now if guidelines elaborated on what makes it a Misprint, then it be clear. There must be thousands of release with wrong sides applied, as the guideline does say [error in the printed material] - Years we added Misprint to these subs, but now it seems to be merged. If Diognes_The_Fox adds it to guidelines, then we might get somewhere.
Diognes_The_Fox raised a good question about the "manufacturing tolerance thing" because there probably are some mislabeled copies that we would probably agree qualify as a unique entry (such as if the manufacturer forgot to add side B labels to the initial pressing, but then there's a second pressing with the right labels). Therefore, we probably need to agree on 1) whether we want to accept some mislabeled releases as unique versions and, if so, 2) how to factor that into the proposed revision.
A-A / B-B / B-A labeling is a manufacturing tolerance thing and not valid.
Totally wrong labels - valid
Completely missing labels - I'd say case by case basis. Generally I'd write these off as being more manufacturing defect than true misprints, but if there are noted cases, we'd want to preserve those.
A-A / B-B / B-A labeling is a manufacturing tolerance thing and not valid.
Totally wrong labels - valid
Completely missing labels - I'd say case by case basis. Generally I'd write these off as being more manufacturing defect than true misprints, but if there are noted cases, we'd want to preserve those.
how would one enter such information on the releasepage? atleast I think its good to knoe these veriations exist if it's a record I'm especially collecting.
should we use some sort of variation on the Matrix/run-out thing?
Silvermo
how would one enter such information on the releasepage
The same as with gold promo stamps, promo stickers, etc., i.e., optionally add to the notes a brief explanation, e.g., 'Some copies were mislabeled with two of the same labels affixed to both sides.'
berothbr
with gold promo stamps, promo stickers, etc., i.e., optionally add to the notes a brief explanation, e.g., 'Some copies were mislabeled with two of the same labels affixed to both sides.'
Ah. Sounds good. Althou I would like to ser a more systematic way of entering it. But that will work.
That makes sense. If you can that it is actually a whole run of records had bad labels, that is something a little more clear. It's cases with unverified random one-off finds that I'd like to avoid, ultimately.
IMO wrong labels (wrong side or from a different record) are a mispress, not misprint. The labels are printed correctly. But while pressing, they came on the wrong side or the wrong record.
A new Format "mislabelled" would be helpful to end the misprint/mispress-discussion
But i don't get why some errors are a valid entry, other errors don't. Why is a real mispress (wrong music) not even just a "manufacturing variation"?
Waldlicht
IMO wrong labels (wrong side or from a different record) are a mispress, not misprint. The labels are printed correctly. But while pressing, they came on the wrong side or the wrong record.
Audio always trumps (no pun intended, d'oh!) printed data.
So if the audio is still correct, it cannot be a mispress by definition.
Waldlicht
A new Format "mislabelled" would be helpful to end the misprint/mispress-discussion
Definitely!
Waldlicht
Why is a real mispress (wrong music) not even just a "manufacturing variation"?
Because:
loukash
Audio always trumps (no pun intended, d'oh!) printed data.
Waldlicht
But nothing was incorrectly printed (just put on the wrong record/side), so it also cannot be a misprint by definition. ;)
Yes, that's the very terminology dilemma we're facing here. :)
Still, "misprint" is currently much closer to the actual state of things than "mispress".
loukash
It would be applicable only to the aforementioned valid exceptions, of course.
If it's only for exceptions to the RSG §1.4.4 mislabeled rule, I think adding a 'mislabeled' format tag would be really confusing and result in chaos. For example, it's pretty well known amongst experienced s that a gold promo stamped/promo stickered copy does not amount to a unique promo version. Nonetheless, these are often submitted anyway as unique releases. I think adding a dedicated mislabeled format tag would not only negate any new language added to RSG §1.4.4, but also encourage submissions for all mislabeled copies, not just the exception.
If Misprint is in the formatlists, why isn't the info in the guidelines what = a Misprint, wrong track listings, but variations is but Misprint/Mispress isnt
berothbr
For example, it's pretty well known amongst experienced s that a gold promo stamped/promo stickered copy does not amount to a unique promo version. Nonetheless, these are often submitted anyway as unique releases.
Shall we thus request the removal of the "Promo" attribute?
loukash
does not amount to a unique promo version.
Not always the case. I mean I have seen releases with gold-stamped promo on front cover, and on release has Promotional in silkscreen which usually found on disk
Although the misprint tag can be added to a release because of an error in the tracklist, it is far more comprehensive as the Formats List definition states that it "Indicates that there is an error in the printed material on the release". Surely a labelling error reasonably falls under an error in the printed material being that the 'error' is that the printed material doesn't match the audio.
loukash
Shall we thus request the removal of the "Promo" attribute?
Of course not. The distinction here is that RSG §6.12.2 explicitly precludes GPS/stickered-only copies while there are still many RSG §6.12.2 compliant promo releases. By contrast, unless I'm mistaken, the mislabeled exception would likely only apply to a small subset of vinyl-only releases. Because it already is covered by the misprint tag, given the scope of the formats list, the potential for non-compliant/redundant submissions outweighs to the potential benefit of a more precise classification for the 'mislabeled exception' releases. By comparison, the benefit of categorizing some releases as unique promo versions far outweighs the downside of redundant GPS/stickered-only submissions (then again, I'm a huge sucker for those WLPs....)
error reasonably falls under an error in the printed material being that the 'error' is that the printed material doesn't match the audio.
That's what I thought, but seems labels on wrong side is a variation. But if Misprint is added to guidelines and state examples why a label on wrong side isn;t a Misprint.
Sorry but I don't agree with incorrect labels not being unique, not even being mis-anything.
Why not mispress? The labels are actually pressed on the vinyl, not glued or laminated or such. It's an integral part of the pressing process.
Mean collectors may say they don't care as long as the tracks are right, but ionate collectors don't want to mix up correct records and records with such blunders.
mawiles
Why not mispress? The labels are actually pressed on the vinyl, not glued or laminated or such. It's an integral part of the pressing process.
I strongly disagree with this for two reasons. Broadly, this is not always true, e.g., Styrene releases, weird WLs, custom label art, release, etc. Crucially, the Formats List definition for mispress is as follows: "Notes that the audio on a medium that is replicated by pressing (CD, vinyl etc) is incorrect in some way (usually, the wrong tracks)." (emphasis added). Regardless of whether the mislabeling is a manufacturing variation or a unique release, the audio is still 100% correct/unaffected.
I know this is a little off topic (sorry this merge, which is for a mislabeled copy of an otherwise identical submission, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
