Release or Variant (Unique releases on MB)

MusicBrainz
1

Hi,
I tried to list all elements that make up a separate release.

It’s a new release if one of these conditions is true:

  1. different Cover art (all details)
  2. different medium artwork
  3. different release date
  4. different release country (is it? - if everything else is the same, it’s probably the same release with 2 release events)
  5. different CD manufacturer (due to matrix information)
  6. different matrix information (significantly different)
  7. different DiscID (if all the above is the same, it will share the same master = discID)
  8. different barcode (in general not only applied with a sticker)
    In general stickers on the packaging foil may indicate releases/release events, but do not make it a different release.

Variants of the same release may have:

  1. different mould SID (from the same plant)
  2. different matrix codes (minor differences)

For most releases this works well. But there are always special cases, mostly with represses. On Discogs they are often entered as separate releases although only matrix codes have changed. Release dates are mostly avoided as these RP releases are unannounced.

Discogs allows every distinguishable version to be added as a “unique release”, but “manufacturing variations” like “different stampers / matrix numbers for the same edition” should not be added as separate releases. So if you feel your RP is a different edition because it is distinguishable and it was released later, you may add a new release.

And now there’s a case where I really don’t know what to do:

I’ve added this one after inspecting the links related to the 1986-01-01 German release…


Both differences in artwork and matrix codes made me think, it’s clearly different. But afterwards I looked at the images of the German release:

They show the same artwork as mine, although all matrix information visible has a 100% match on the linked musik-sammler release. So images and links should probably be part of separate releases, but is the pictured release (images provided by @ClA_psHydra) the same as mine? One of them might be an early repress, but the differences in matrix code are definitely minor.

And what should be done with this very first Bring On the Night release? (released on Jan 1st … according to Amazon :wink: ) Should it be one or the other?

I hope someone can help and I would like to here if every one agrees on my “unique release list”.

4 Likes
2

Your list is good.

I think you should remove those two as these are things that cannot be known from release in hands. And as you say, if nothing else is different, it’s the same.

Different barcode makes different release, yes.
But what do you mean with:

What is ev.?
If the back cover barcode or lack of barcode is the same but a removable sticker is different, it should remain same release IMO. And we can upload all variations we know in cover art tab.

Yes, exactly!
All removable (regional, commercial, time limited, etc.) stickers should not make us create new releases if the content is the same.
We can upload all different stickers in cover art tab. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
3

Thanks for response!

Yes and no. Country is canceled, but the release date or at least a period of time can be determined from the imprints on the matrix. For example, if it’s MADE IN GERMANY BY PDO, it points to a short period of time between 1986 and 1991. If an otherwise matching release has a release date outside this period, then it can’t be my release. The absence of a code in Discogs notes can’t be taken for “it is not existent”. Not all releases in databases are well documented :wink:
Or another example:
I’ve got an exact match on this release, including all matrix codes:
https://www.discogs.com/Sting-Ten-Summoners-Tales/release/1905310
1993, no Mould or Mastering SIDs… My CD has a mould SID, available from 1994 on… It’s not in MB by now as I have put it away when I noticed that.

Something like that:

A barcode sticker is attached over the original barcode, meant to make it a separate release - a signed release, separately distributed.

4

It’s what I mean, the matrix is more obvious and enough to say it’s different.
The release date is more obscure and subject to mistake and is not necessary in this case as the matrix is different is enough reason. :wink:

I think we agreed stickers over identical physical release were still the same MB release.

I just wanted to know what’s ev in (ev. applied with a sticker). :wink:

1 Like
5

That was a German abbreviation looking through :grin: “ev.” is short for “eventuell” which is not the same as “eventually” in English. It’s more “possibly”, but it was triggered by one single release and should not have been mentioned at all as I thought of general rules.

Yes, but the problem is, you often have only limited information about the matrix on comparable releases. But I have information from my matrix and in databases I can skip releases by not matching release date. I’ve got a 1988 release? Isn’t possible if there is a mould IFPI code!
Of course, information in databases is not absolute and most releases on Discogs with “unknown” release date had the date removed before that … because it wasn’t possible…

2 Likes
6

Calling all release variant nerds. I am planning to add a scan of the matrix/runout information of my copy to Scooter’s “…And the Beat Goes On!”.

The track list, catalog number, barcode and cover art exactly match my copy. The release date and Discogs link point to this matching Discogs release with mastering and mould SID code IFPI L621 and IFPI 1G** respectively. According to this handy list that indicates a pressing company called CDA from Germany. However, my copy resembles a different release at Discogs with SID codes IFPI L357 and IFPI 9702. Those point to DOCdata Germany and Optimal Media Production respectively (I think?).

So is this an instance of #5 different CD manufacturer? Do I make a new release entry even though all release information (except release date, I guess) match?

1 Like
7

It looks like they were both glass mastered at the same plant (probably CDA, unlikely Optimal), but definitely pressed at different plants. 1G** is CDA, 97** is Optimal (probably the reason for writing OPTIMAL GERMANY to the matrix). Now I would expect small differences in artwork, especially on the disc, though I can spot none…
They will have the same discID (probably), but nevertheless, in doubt I would add a new release.

2 Likes
8

Thanks for the swift response, ernstlx.

That’s arcane magic you are using there. How did you establish that the L357 SID code belongs to the CDA plant?

There are none, as far as I can tell. The original release has “Made in Germany by optimal” pressed on the disc face as well. There is a “bestellcoupon” attached to the booklet of my copy that is conspicuously missing from the scans of the original release on Discogs, but without access to a physical copy I cannot verify that it wasn’t just skipped during scanning.

Yeah, that I was afraid of. It will need exceptionally good annotation and disambiguation to prevent it being merged in with the existing release.

1 Like
9

I know nothing about L357 but the matrix of the disc looks very similar to the one with L621 (even the rare stretched font for the LBR code) and L621 is certainly from CDA. I guess they made the initial glass master for Optimal and pressed afterwards discs at their own plant. (If they sent the first glass master to Röbel, they had to make a new one for their pressings)

After my comment, I thought about this problem too. If you can’t find a detail to distinguish between the releases (mould SIDs are probably not sufficient), it’s probably better to just stick with one release and point out the fact of different duplication plants in the annotation.

1 Like
10

Ah, that’s how it is done. Thanks for the clarification.

I considered that, but worried about the possibility that my copy has a coupon that the original release lacks. I’ll think about a solution.

1 Like