I sometimes add vinyl releases where I don’t physically own the release. Discogs almost always has pictures of the vinyl labels, but usually only the actual label, not the whole medium. I never add those pictures, but they might be useful anyway. Some labels also provide pictures of those from their website, but not the whole medium. Would it be useful to add a new category for those pictures?
Also, (I guess this should actually be another topic) shouldn’t we have an easy way to specify which medium the picture is of (CD1, Side B etc.)?
Actually I add the whole 12” in case of coloured vinyl and there are other options than a scanner. I would not recommend any commercial scanner, not even for imaging a centre label. A 12” record will never lay flat on the glass.
The release itself defines the type of medium - CD,7 inch vinyl, 12 inch vinyl, cassette etc
There’s an image/artwork type called ‘medium’. There are releases today on MB where the images of the vinyl labels have been uploaded with type of ‘medium’. It’s use is not restricted to CDs.
There is a convention to add the sequencing of the medium - Side B etc.
What information cannot be recorded by using the existing types and conventions above that argues for adding new type(s)?
Yeah, although it could also be done automatically inside Picard while being correct for most cases (if it’s a CD//DVD etc., use one pic per medium, use two for vinyl/cassettes/…).
To be clear, the release itself is limited to one type of medium - CD,7 inch vinyl, 12 inch vinyl, cassette etc. The images of the medium(s) / media? for a release should correspond to the type of a release. There should not be a mismatch. For example, a release of type CD should have images of CDs!
The convention is to use the comments field to indicate side A or CD2 etc.
