I have uploaded a fair amount of artwork with the sticker to add to the without sticker version that existed. I have seen this sticker “make the cover different” between the normal and special release of a CD for example. I think it all depends on the sticker. The “store” sticker… 50% off, buy 2 get one free, etc are useless to me. But stickers that are relevant to the release, those to me are important.
I also have 2 CDs that differ only by the color of the slim jewel case. I believe those to be different releases, and collectors items, thus I have both.
The barcode is “under the shrink wrap”!
And if it’s the only barcode on this release, I would probably use it, but in case of conflicting information, I would stick to what’s directly on the cover. (and I would only mention it under annotation, if it says import)
I was quickly finding a simple example. This was also put on top of shrinkwrap of some copies. As it is a peelable sticker, it was often removed. Discogs has pointlessly split releases on this basis. MB thankfully keeps them together.
Personally I always scan promo stickers that are on a release, but will not make a new release for them. I have see occasions where the stickers change over the months, but don’t believe this is separate release territory.
Agree that a different colour jewel case likely is. I always note unusual jewel cases in the annotations.
To drag us back OT with the barcodes - this is all part of the package as purchased. Interesting to some, not to others. Useful when identifying a specific edition.
That stickers on this release are on the outside of the shrinkwrap. In this example, when I added to MB I did not create a separate Release for the signed edition. Just added it as an annotation and showed the scans. BUT this now means that no one can find it with a barcode search of the database.
Barcodes on MSP limited editions are often on stickers. With this one, stickers are where the “anniversary edition” name is, the barcodes, and even the copyright details from the back of the book. All disappear with the shrinkwrap.
Okay, you’ve found an exception
In this case, neither standard nor limited edition has the barcode sticker directly applied (good decision). Maybe I would split them - they are also identifiable if unwrapped. On Discogs it would be the same version, but there’s the option of using two or more barcode fields with description.
In earlier times you had to unpack your edition yourself (very likely loosing any stickers) to get it signed by the artist. Today I get it delivered as a ready-made product with a separate barcode. I wonder if there will be digital editions with the front image digitally signed…
All of the replies and slight tangents have been very helpful, thank you. I think I understand a bit better on how the barcode for a digital release could be helpful, however, I still fail to see it as primary identification like as for a physical release… but I can see it as secondary information as should I have the release, or hear it streaming, the barcode is likely not known to me unless I know the source of the release, and even then needing to know how to “manipulate” it out of the system.
I see that MB has a distinct different use for those trying to identify a release vs those looking to add additional data to a release already identified. I also see that editors are using what we have available to us in MB… which uses a barcode as a primary identifier of a release. While I see far more value in using say the iTunes album ID, MB does not have a place for this.
I find MB great when trying to identify a physical release, like a CD… but very little use when identifying a digital release. However, I am seeing that the opposite is true for digital file, while it might not help me identify a release, if I manage to identify it by other means, it is able to supply details to that release that I would otherwise not have. I want to note I explicitly exclude streaming in my statements… they are just too different.
That MSP album was bought for a friend. And due to an error in posting, I was originally sent the unsigned copies. This is how I got so many photos of the different versions. Barcodes and copyright info is just shop and legal text. Only kept by the geeky collector. My friend just ripped all that off her copy to see the signatures clearer. (It now has been framed).
Inside it are the same CDs as all the other editions. Just packaging changes at different payment levels.
Should I say those letters - nft? Anything to cash in. MSP are experts in wringing cash out of their fans. Or look at Sony Pink Floyd. There is always something to repackage and sell. So they will find a way to nft their music too…
With digital barcodes, MB pages have links back to those digital stores. And from reading the source code of those pages barcodes can be found. This is all extended meta data around a release. We just have different levels of interest.
It is very helpful to identify digital releases. It is not that helpful when trying to identify a specific file on your computer.
But that isn’t really one of MBs goals (so far?!) or a common use case to be honest.
Edit: identifying ‘files’ being distinct from identifying ‘music’
One thing I am a fan of is applying the exact image (including specific resolution) that came with a download to that release, as this is one of the few ways of being able to differentiate local files. I haven’t thought about using file metadata to do this, as it’s often so sh*t and people muck with it if you’ve found it through… questionable… means. By that stage you can usually forget about having enough info to match it to a specific release in MB. Conversely, if you’re getting it directly from a online store I don’t know why you have to identify the files
Yes, these are all good points. It really all depends on how each person uses the system. For me, digital media gets confusing because when I get the list of a release to pick from, the attributes shown to me are not anything I have to differentiate with. The list includes the mane and date, which is all good. But then, it differentiates between label, catalog number, barcode… all things I do not have in my data. The stuff in my data is not there, or I need to dig into each release version to find it, if it is in fact there.
that’s why I usually try and disambiguate similar digital releases, such as a Bandcamp, SoundCloud, or iTunes release, sometimes even if there’s only one release in the group~
What happens if a release you own has a slip cover that has a different cat.no. and upc/ean than the tray inserts upc/ean and cat.no. on the spine. Which do you use? Ex, Christmas With the Rat Pac, Jewel Case Spine Cat. No.72435-42210-2-6 UPC/EAN 724354221026, Slip Cover Cat.No. 09463-74508-2-6 UPC/EAN 094637450826
So next question, if there is a release with the slip case info, but it has a different jewel case info, do I add as a different release?, or add annotation to existing release?
Jewel case info is there, artwork is the same, except for the cat. no. and upc/ean. Same with the slip cover, artwork is the same, except for the cat. no. and upc/ean.
)
