First The Wall CD release Made in the UK

MusicBrainz
1

I decided to use the forum for this issue because it concerns several editors:

Swindon was productive since 1986 and all earlier UK releases were made in Japan or Germany (maybe not all). On MB we have The Wall (made in the UK, printed in England), released in 1986.

But that’s not what images and the Discogs relationship ( Pink Floyd – The Wall (CD) - Discogs ) say: “unknown” release date with discs very likely not manufactured in 1986.

The first release made in the UK was probably this release: Pink Floyd – The Wall (1987, CD) - Discogs
I don’t know if it was in 1986 or 1987, but it has earlier discs and no barcode on the back. There’s also this version, a possible duplicate, printed by “EMI Services Benelux B.V.”, but that’s not shown on images (→Printed in England).

There is another Discogs version without barcode, containing discs manufactured in Swindon (earliest known version 2) and printed in Uden. They could have been released in 1986, though more likely 1987. (on MB is a similar version with barcode, released in 1987 - that’s possible)

Now, there should be a 1986 release, if there was such a release date, but the currently documented release is definitely not from 1986 - what should be done?
I hope for the help of @IvanDobsky, but also like to invite others who contributed recently @Zas, @kellnerd, @Goose90053

Another problem: should additional information really be entered into the cat# field?
→ “CDP 7 46036 2 (cd 1), CDP 7 46037 2 (cd 2), CDS 7 46036 8 (case)”?
And the same line seen for made in the UK, printed in Holland has misspelt cat#s for the discs. It’s no surprise, it’s not easily legible.
(the additional cat#s on the discs are no distinguishing feature and appear on all discs from similar releases)

3 Likes
2

I’ll come back to this tomorrow when more awake. I have done a LOT of research on this one and slowly been cleaning up the Releases. Especially as they change how the tracks are edited over the years.

This resource is going to be helpful
http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/DUKCDPF.htm#Wall

I do know that from research the Discogs side can be pretty chaotic on this. Too much of copying releases and not checking track lengths. This is an area where there is too much noise on the Discogs side and dates usually just get deleted. The mess of incorrect track lengths is especially awkward with this release changes the CD so much over the years.

When I first started poking at The Wall in the MB Release Group it was chaos. I have been splitting them up better over the years with more research, checks on DiscIDs when unique, and references to the PFArchives.

(I physically hold in hand this CD, purchased in the UK in 1988 (maybe second hand, can’t remember): https://musicbrainz.org/release/c6e42921-85a4-4429-9f01-9d145ac04a59 and is the start of a lot of my research. Especially as I learnt more about the Japanese pressings and odd way the tracks are sliced up.)

I have a chart of DiscIDs and changes over the years I’ll find tomorrow.

Re: Cat nos. I usually focus on getting the SPINE and REAR into the main cat no. And then add CD Cat Nos into the Annotation. Personally I feel too many cat nos can cause more chaos than use.

You will notice my name on many of the annotations and edits already from my initial work on this :smiley:

WRT EMI Swindon - remember Dark Side of the Moon was literally the first and last disc they pressed. They have been on the Floyd CDs early in their life time.

6 Likes
3

I will get way too geeky on this one. Notice on my CD (https://musicbrainz.org/release/c6e42921-85a4-4429-9f01-9d145ac04a59)

There is a barcode. The two CDs have different matrixes - one has + signs, the other mentions EMI SWINDON. The tracks follow the Japanese original lengths. And it was certainly in my possession during 1988. The only thing I cannot tell you for sure is if it came from HMV brand new, or a second hand store. In this time period I was hammering second hand stores a LOT.

What I have been trying to track among these releases are the DiscIDs and when the track times change. It gives you a good cut offs for the different versions.

Had a quick look at that one… as is always the way, arguments on Discogs kill facts. Merges blur reality. So do we believe the editor who claims they purchased it in 1986/87? Even though the EMI SWINDON text in the matrix seems to put around the same time or slightly later than the copy I own?

Interesting their barcode is on the opposite side to mine. Guess that is just a printing change between Swindon and Uden. Still have the pixelated numbers on the barcode.

Also that release is FUBAR’d with 62 discIDs. Needs a flamethrower on it.

4 Likes
4

I assume you have already seen these notes about earliest Floyd CDs from West Germany?
http://www.pinkfloydarchives.com/DGerCDPF.htm#GCDMI

PinkFloydArchives have some good well researched notes on earlier Pink Floyd CDs from many countries. They don’t have EVERY CD, but one of the best resources I have ever found. I try and add as many links to that side as possible as “Discography” links to Floyd CDs. (You also see them referred to from Discogs)

(I gotta stop looking at this now… sleep time)

2 Likes
5

Your first sentence, one hour ago :smiley:

I’ve seen the archives, no dates, but I think, most of these version were manufactured in a relatively short period. Many, with and without barcode have similar matrix codes without EMI SWINDON and plus (+) or etchings from duplication.

I believe it, at least 1987. At least some of the discs were made then, and I can’t think of a reason why they would hold them back.

Uden printed the barcode on the left, Swindon on the right. But both printed first versions without barcode.

… and no dates given for any Swindon pressing (4th to 8th UK issue). But they also show the same GM versions on all these. So, with or without barcode, printed in Uden or Swindon, they were all made and probably released in and around 1987. But a version with barcode and colon-separated numbers (on at least one disc) was certainly not released in 1986.
Maybe one of those without barcode were released then (they have lower GM version numbers), but there is no reference. So I can’t honestly add a Discogs version and set it to 1986. Do you have information about a 1986 release?

Hope, you’ve slept well when you read this :wink:

3 Likes
6

i believe the game is called ‘Let’s see how late we can get Ivan to stay up’! :grinning:

7

searching for ‘ pink floyd the wall swindon cd’
on ebay shows two items for sale that you may wish to review.

One is listed as ‘made in uk’on the CD

The other is Made in Holland, possibly printed in swindon

Both listings have a good number of photos and info inc matrix numbers that may be of interest

1 Like
8

It is a subject that I have been curious on. I have some old Floyd CDs.

I’ll relook over them, but yes. Agree no dates. But check out the styling of the matrixes and it also shows some of the ages. I find it interesting my two discs are with and without the “EMI SWINDON” text in that same box.

This will be a huge pressing run. Hence using both Swindon and Uden for pressing and printing. Also seems logical that a few box loads of CDs get shipped to Holland for packaging up with Uden paperwork to ship into European shops. Or maybe the paperwork happens in Holland first? No reason they are not both the same dates of the CDs. I would comfortably add yours as a 1987 edition. It obviously shares DiscIDs with mine.

I don’t think I have found anything that specifically said “these appeared in 1986”, but have just left those dates as they are for now. As their first CD was May 86 it is certainly possible they had Wall CDs coming out that soon. If you feel 1987 fits, use it. Personally when I look at those CDs they look just like mine, just different paperwork used. (Edit notes on those releases get lost with the noise of the Recording Relationships… but I’ll dig and see if I can spot why I used 1987)

Barcodes - I also watch the font. That pixelated font was early. It was then replaced with a cleaner font later and the price codes started to appear. And the other text around barcodes like UK Cat Nos, etc. Thats what I think keeps these CDs in the 1980s

That game happens a lot. Also means that when I do get to bed I end up not sleeping for an hour with some daft thoughts about 1986 CDs I my head.

Uden didn’t come on line to press CDs until around 1990… so initially we are focusing on the Swindon Made in UK CDs. Notice how the Made in Holland example you found uses EMI Swindon Masters as it has EMI SWINDON in the matrix.

2 Likes
9

yes, just trying to help

1 Like
10

I always like seeing other versions. Helps make patterns stand out. Notice how those CD faces still look like the Swindon Pressed CDs from the late 1980s, the only differences are in the box on the left with the Rights Socs and Made In country. Everything else is still printed exactly the same.

11

I do as well. I know that the artwork style/approach is high quality, but there’s an opportunity to save artwork such as this for future disambiguation by creating the corresponding release and attaching the artwork.

1 Like
12

One of EBay’s positives can be those kinds of badly cropped examples as you know they are more likely real. Trouble is many bad sellers on there who just mix and match stock photos. Can be a bit hit and miss, but I’ve often lifted images from there. (I have also ended up buying albums purely to get that better photo… LOLz… but now we going OT)

1 Like
13

My initial focus with The Wall was on how the CDs are split. Tracks are very different between the original Japanese version and the later 1994 remasters. The early EMI Swindon and EMI Uden CDs used the same track splits as that first Japanese master. And it is almost comically bad if you try and play tracks on their own. Try selecting Young Lust (track 9) and you get One of my Turns… it is all shuffled up

Especially noticeable differences on CD1 track 3,4 and 8,9,10. And CD2 tracks 5 and 6. When you play these you realise someone in the factory tried to work out where to split the tape by ear, and got it all a bit muddled up. (I’ve left a lot of notes on Release and Recordings about this as I untangled it)

One of my missions has been to split those earlier 1980s CDs off from the later 1994 CDs and separate out the recordings correctly.

Some sideways puzzles are added in when a few 1990s CD (like the USA MFSL appear with a new set of unique track splits)

Concept albums are tricky to slice into CD tracks when you don’t know if the talking between the tracks should be on the end of a track or start of the next bit…

I have been trying to collect up example of DiscIDs from different eras as many of these releases have a comically bad 64(!) DiscIDs attached. Most of them clearly wrong.

1 Like
14

Okay, but I have to change “mine” to 1987. That’s probably the best choice.

This is an interesting release, possibly sold in 1986: The Wall (made in the UK, printed in Holland)
Should be this one on Discogs: https://www.discogs.com/release/24616673-Pink-Floyd-The-Wall
The print on the CD is clearly different (see BIEM/MCPS), but it looks like it was also pressed in Swindon.
Unfortunately there’s no date for it, neither on MB nor on Discogs…

I like to point again on another issue: the cat#s of my release, your release and one other: Catalogue numbers with extra information in brackets?
I would like to remove the disc cat#s at all. Neither are they helpful for disambiguation, nor do they belong to the release itself, only to its parts. If separate cat#s for parts of a release should be added, I would have to add side specific cat#s for vinyls too.

I haven’t looked on how my versions are split, but it’s hard to find the best start/end points. I have done it for my vinyl version. There is no “correct” point. :upside_down_face:

Looks like work to do for the Flamethrower™ :smiley:

2 Likes
15

If that is your one, I’ll let you better fix that annotation. I just attacked it to make it look more like a “how to tell the difference”… Flame Thrower also came out on the DiscIDs. So it would be good if you can add yours in the annotation then I may just got the full Napalm in there.

From looking at the general pattern, I do wonder if the initial copies were using Dutch printing and only later did the Swindon paperwork turn up?

Makes sense to add a few more of the combos. I was being careful to add the more clearly obvious (I’ve added some of the Japanese ones from the PF Archive in the past). Just don’t trust the track lengths from Discogs and use Common Sense instead.

Did you notice the EBay version linked by @dpr above has no country on the rear paperwork, but the bar code is on the left like Uden?

My cat nos followed some other pattern I saw. As you can see, the (cd1) etc is not part of the cat no and just showing where to find that cat no. Some people add these cat nos, some don’t. I don’t even think I am consistent - LOL.

Re: the audio splits. This I find more interesting than artwork. Just try and play Young Lust, track “9” and you’ll find you have to rewind to the track before. When you listen you can tell why someone who did not know the album cut it up like this. It is a concept album - one long piece. Lyrics do define the tracks, but not the bits in between. So you get many different variations depending who is trying to put in the index points of the CDs. I tend to take the later 1994 or 2011 cuts as more definitive as this is when someone seemed to pay attention and fixed that original Japanese mistake.

Also happens to Dark Side of the Moon and The Final Cut, but I don’t want to go Off Topic yet…

I have a Wall CD from the Discovery Boxset (actually a Chinese knockoff) and the splits are noticeably different in there. A 2011 pattern.

Focus on CD1 track 3,4 and 8,9,10. And CD2 tracks 5 and 6.

CD1 1987 - Vr3ixbsYuIYG1j0fgyOM.8IZHrA-
CD1 1994 - P44Npk3QpAa1uQ25YVly2_YSQwU-
CD1 2011 Discovery - Bt1gf1AbSHTqGOBVhDNfFVll2jk-
CD2 1987 - EhIv8_Gg3Kt_xqWDvkAmJDKrcH0-
CD2 1994 - uDAm7lKUREWYqiy5SA5BJ.OI6QM-
CD2 2011 Discovery - NWQ87gtQxr5lVsZy72a.c92FRcE-

Updated list to add 1994 editions

3 Likes
16

Now I’ve looked at it: tracks 3/4 on disc 1 may be subjective, but 8/9/10 is completely wrong on the Swindon discs. Disc 2 index 6 is again subjective. These interlude parts belong neither to the previous nor the next track. In general, the later version has the better splits. (I’ve got a downloaded version and it seems to match your “Discovery” disc IDs)

1 Like
17

Okay… so how many CDs have that “10 - One of my Tunes” typo on CD1? I only just spotted that!! :rofl: (Disappears in the 1994 “remasters” when they use painted CDs)

1 Like
18

Agree it is totally subjective. Mainly about - do you put the “in between” bits at the end of a track or a start of the next track?

8/9/10 is a hang over from the Original Japanese CD Masters. I bet it was just that someone told the guys in the manufacturing to split it up without giving them any guide. When you listen to it there is logic as to where they chose to split it.

The main point is - an album like this is not created to be listened to on shuffle. You listen to the whole album.

Just updated the above list with 1994 DiscIDs… and that is when the main error was corrected.

19

Yes, and it looks like printed in Uden with the upper left corner barcode. The printing credit does not appear on all later releases manufactured there. In fact EMI Services Benelux B.V. ended in 1990 when EMI Uden was founded (although it still appears on some later releases).

I would be better readable without.

→ :+1:

1 Like
20

I don’t know - seems to me it makes it clearer where to look for that cat no. Especially as they seem to have a bit of a random order to them. Search picks 'em up in whichever format.

Makes sense that printing credits disappear. There is going to be a phase some point in the 1990s where UDEN are churning them out before they stop and “remaster” them for that big 1994 push when all the Floyd CDs were repackaged.