CD versions of previously released albums predating the format, aren't reissues. Reissue pertains to a Format and a 2nd release of that format, when the 1st, original release has been deleted.
A clear example, the Beatles music, released all during the 60's on LP records. In 1987, EMI Parlophone decided to release the British LP versions internationally on CD. They're not "reissues".. check in here.
I believe, not too long ago.. cardboard editions (replicating the original LP jackets in miniature form) were released,.. those definitely are reissues because CD's of the same music existed before.
And this:
Submitters submit back to back hit 45's (double A-side), as reissues. They too aren't. Those 45's were NEVER released that way before, so unless the release of them is deleted, and say 3 years later were released... again, those would be "reissues" of the original oldies 45.
I can't find any ing RSG (please point me to it if I've simply missed it).
So what is the consensus here? I'm sure it's been discussed ad infinitum before, but can I simply get the condensed version?
From guideliens:
"This tag should only be used where it is clear the item was released as such, for example it is explicitly mentioned on the release, or by the label, artist, or other reliable source."
In other words: it doesn't matter if it has been released in the same format before etc etc. If it says reissue on the release; use the tag. If it doesn't (and you can't find other reliable sources for the tag) don't use it.
I have some Japanese Mini-LPs that are issued on CD for the first time ever. Where it says "Reissue" on these CDs (or"reissue staff" or similar), I apply the tag.
But allow me to add some emphasis to show how it could read to me (and, probably hundreds of others):
This tag should only be used where it is clear the item was released as such,for example it is explicitly mentioned on the release, or by the label, artist, or other reliable source.
Perhaps then it should just say:
Do not use this tag unless it is explicitly mentioned on the release, by the label, artist, or other reliable, verifiable source.
I don't mean to be argumentative, and this is not a lobby effort to rewrite RSG, but if the ambiguity were to be removed, that would help.
For we all know that there are many, many s not following that guideline as it might be implied. That in turn could make many, many submissions incorrect.
INTERSTELLAR_VINYL
Reissue pertains to a Format and a 2nd release of that format, when the 1st, original release has been deleted.
While the "general consensus" regarding the current guidelines is clear, I still find the above quote being a good definition for a more general usage of the "Reissue" tag. I wouldn't mind if this would be added to the guidelines, as it makes complete sense.
I'm was the one that sent INTERSTELLAR VINYL, the above mentioned.
I do believe the tag "Reissue" does belong on a later edition of the same Format, regardless of whether the Label states it, because it's the only way to distinguish one release from another.
Let's take Discogs guideline "only tag it if it is clearly mentioned". I have a "beef" with that because, with 45's (they literally are "singles", yet you show me how many Labels tagged them as such??, especially if they weren't issued in a picture sleeve. The music industry called them this and Billboard and Cash Box clearly had them on tagged charts. If you don't apply the "single" tag and say only put 7", some of these won't categorize correctly in the Artist Pages and will appear somewhere else.
Both are my subs. As an added piece of information, Eric Records identifies itself on its website as the manufacturer of "The Highest Quality Reissues For Over 30 Years".
KCJammer
o was it inaccurate to tag Angels, The (3) - Cry Baby Cry as a reissue of Angels, The (3) - Cry Baby Cry?
KCJammer: you probably won't get an answer here... like many discussions, there isn't a solution.. I find they lead nowhere and it's basically the opinions of the few that take interest in these discussions
DSCHRUBBA2
KCJammer: you probably won't get an answer here... like many discussions, there isn't a solution.. I find they lead nowhere and it's basically the opinions of the few that take interest in these discussions
The "solution" would be to use "reissue" as it is commonly defined in English: "to make a new supply or different form of (a product, esp. a book or record) available for sale : the book was reissued with a new epilogue." (Oxford Dic); or, more to the point but basically stating the same thing: Wikipedia:
"Recordings originally released in an audio format that has become technologically or commercially obsolete are reissued in new formats. For example, thousands of original vinyl albums have been reissued on CDs since introduction of that format in the early 1980s."
This definition makes the interpretation starting off this topic much too strict, and incorrect. On the other hand, it is much wider and more easy to apply than the RSG guideline. In fact, this is how I have interpreted the concept of "reissues" intuitively all along.
"This tag should only be used where it is clear the item was released as such, for example it is explicitly mentioned on the release, or by the label, artist, or other reliable source".
Back to my example ... if the label identifies itself on its website as the manufacturer of reissues, would that be enough to tag its releases as "reissues"? Or does the release have to say "REISSUE" on the label?
This has bothered me for years also. Reissue or not!
I agree with INTERSTELLAR_VINYL, The RSG is not clear about this.
Sticky: later CD releases from previously released LP's. Let's face it, most of those CD's are now commonly tagged as reissues even though it does not state that on the CD. Is that right or wrong?
To me, any CD release from a previously released LP is a reissue and that's how most s apply it ... but some don't.
And how do we know for sure that a CD version from a previously released LP is the very first CD to be released? We don't.
Negative votes and EI's are given over this as many voters apply different standards because that rule is simply not clear.
tintweiss
This definition makes the interpretation starting off this topic much too strict, and incorrect. On the other hand, it is much wider and more easy to apply than the RSG guideline. In fact, this is how I have interpreted the concept of "reissues" intuitively all along.
You and the other 5.9999 billion people in the real world who don't use Discogs!
KCJammer
Back to my example ... if the label identifies itself on its website as the manufacturer of reissues, would that be enough to tag its releases as "reissues"?
Absolutely!
KCJammer
Or does the release have to say "REISSUE" on the label?
Not if it can be demonstrated that the tracks have previously been issued, by referring to catalogues, websites, charts, even other Discogs entries!
euroduo
Sticky: later CD releases from previously released LP's. Let's face it, most of those CD's are now commonly tagged as reissues even though it does not state that on the CD. Is that right or wrong?
Right, as far as I and, I think, a lot of other people here are concerned.
Once again, the problem seems to be with Discogs guidelines bearing little relationship to real-world practice and lacking common sense.
KCJammer
if the label identifies itself on its website as the manufacturer of reissues
Yes, if that is an exclusively done thing for that label.
philsoul
if it can be demonstrated that the tracks have previously been issued, by referring to catalogues, websites, charts, even other Discogs entries!
No that is not correct, that is implicitly inferring the use of the tag, the tag usage must be EXPLICITLY citable.
Summarizing, we have 2 opposing lines of thought and interpretation; in this respect Discogs has some affinity with the real world (hat ART reissues a previously in 1982 on LP issued session on CD in 1991, but it doesn't state it's a reissue, not on the release itself, not on its website, nor by the executive producer in an interview, then according to Discogs this isn't a reissue. If, however, another CD from the same label, having followed the same path, appearing in the same series, is stated in the same interview to be a reissue, then according to Discogs we may apply the Reissue tag.
Trying to bring both worlds together, would be, first, to use the Reissue tag as it is used in normal English generally, and in the audio world. Next step would be that submitters carefully research the status of what they think is a reissue, justify their choice, and provide sources for it and for the original release (as many s already do, to be sure). In the instance I gave, if hat ART again issued the 1991 session in 2004 in another packaging and with different artwork, this would be a reissue of the 1991 release, not of the original 1982 LP release. What it's boiling down to is: do we want to fill the dbase with as much releases as possible, or do we want to make it as precise and reliable as possible.
^^ Great summary!
Count me to the "Others", aka the Second Line®.
We've already managed to agree upon a for most parts applicable "Compilation" definition (occasional grey areas notwithstanding). Creating a general definition of a "reissue" or a "repress" would actually seem a bit easier to me.
I've seen change & chaos here, I'm not afraid though, just sick of people constantly ignoring the guidelines* / sick of wishy-washy guidelines* (delete as applicable).
Whether you decide to use
tintweiss
the Reissue tag as it is used in normal English generally
is moot. A better argument would be to do away with the tag entirely and have the "opposite" tag. "Original". As a case can be made 'for the Reissue tag as it is used in normal English generally' to mean anything after the 1st one !!
hafler3o
do away with the tag entirely and have the "opposite" tag. "Original". As a case can be made 'for the Reissue tag as it is used in normal English generally' to mean anything after the 1st one !!
hafler3o
As a case can be made 'for the Reissue tag as it is used in normal English generally' to mean anything after the 1st one !!
What I meant to say by justifying the Reissue tag is to state also its preceding "original" (see the example I gave). So both tags are linked to one another, and both are relative to each other as well, as I tried to illustrate with the example. The submission form could be adapted so as to include a field that - in case of a Reissue - forces the submitter to fill out the "original" of that particular reissue. This shouldnt' be the über-original first, but rather the logical and provable immediate predecessor.
euroduo
later CD releases from previously released LP's. Let's face it, most of those CD's are now commonly tagged as reissues even though it does not state that on the CD. Is that right or wrong?
It may be a reissue of the work, but it is not a reissue of the CD.
philsoul
Right, as far as I and, I think, a lot of other people here are concerned.
Once again, the problem seems to be with Discogs guidelines bearing little relationship to real-world practice and lacking common sense.
There was a thread some time ago where a looked into a specific case, and came up with the conclusion that the tight definition / requirement is the right one to use.
hafler3o
A better argument would be to do away with the tag entirely
In fact, I agree, and have been considering this. As far as tags go, it is quite a useless one for the most part, especially since it seems to be corrupted by misapplication / overuse / redundancy.
Yeh, but then there are a million and one 12" that only have one version, are these all 'originals'?
TBH I'd be happy to ditch the tag entirely. It doesn't even describe unique releases well, unless the truly only difference is one of the releases has 'reissue' on it!
nik
Surely, anyone can look at the dates and figure things out?
Not all releases have an exact release date, yet they are still clearly identifiable as one being the "original" and the other one(s) a "reissue(s)". That's when such a tag is enormously important.
loukash
Not all releases have an exact release date, yet they are still clearly identifiable as one being the "original" and the other one(s) a "reissue(s)"
What is the process for that?
Surely it is more important to catalog the definitive proof rather than simply put a tag with not citation as to it's correctness?
Center label design, runouts, the kind of sleeve used (e.g. flipback, laminated, etc.), you name it. For instance, on some undated relases, you can perhaps tell it was released between 1960 and 1963 given the known manufacturing facts. While another undated pressing can be safely identified as a "reissue", released e.g. some time in the late 1970s (as identifiable for instance by having a Label Code).
That's why having some kind of an abstract tag like "reissue" or "repress" makes sense. It's only a matter of defining workable guidelines for it.
nik
Surely it is more important to catalog the definitive proof rather than simply put a tag with not citation as to it's correctness?
Hence my earlier comment:
loukash INTERSTELLAR_VINYL: "Reissue pertains to a Format and a 2nd release of that format, when the 1st, original release has been deleted."
While the "general consensus" regarding the current guidelines is clear, I still find the above quote being a good definition for a more general usage of the "Reissue" tag. I wouldn't mind if this would be added to the guidelines, as it makes complete sense.
I've already seen reissues of file based releases, the "original" was already a file based release, then one year later, the exactly same release was available for purchase and on another online store.
While I see some use for the tag on vinyl records, this tag makes absolutely no sense to me on digital releases no more. If you have two identical file releases, but one was available one year later at a different shop, how can you distinguish them and furthermore, does it make any sense?
If you want to use a tag like "Original", fine if you think of ye old vinyl or shellack releases, but a todays release might be available on half a dozen different media, does it make sense to tag them all as "Original"? The original MP3 file??
After all I'm fine in dropping the tag completely, the "original" makes sense on vinyl or even on some CDs, but not for the todays releases no more.
Later CD releases from previously released LP's. Let's face it, most of those CD's are now commonly tagged as reissues even though it does not state that on the CD.
nik
It may be a reissue of the work, but it is not a reissue of the CD.
Ah, ok nik, so if you say that the tag applies to the actual format and not the work, then I'm all for nixing it also.
Heck, we'll never know for sure what exact release is the very first reissue of an original work, that would be guess work.
It's easy to reference the DB anyway as everything is listed chronologically, so we can all make out from the release year in the MR if the work has been released again, which actually makes the tag obsolete.
To avoid all confusion, I'd say get rid of it.
euroduo
It's easy to reference the DB anyway as everything is listed chronologically, so we can all make out from the release year in the MR if the work has been released again, which actually makes the tag obsolete.
Yes, that would make sense if the release-date stated are correct. But there are tons of misleading "release-dates", cause most of the s can't distinguish a (P)-mark on a reissue from the real release-date. I often find records, correct stated as reissue, but still have the release-date of the original release.
Maybe we should reduce the use of reissue to that cases, it is helpful to distinguish two otherwise identically releases? I try do do clear notes for the version, but most of the s don't have the knowledge, to do so. IMO the tag is still useful.
loukash
Creating a general definition of a "reissue" or a "repress" would actually seem a bit easier to me.
Agreed. Either a guideline for general application or a complete removal of both tags appears to be apt, as "reissue" and "repress" are not as conceptual and hence don't apply to be dealt with, presented as and set on the same level as "album" or "EP" AFAIC.
For quoting explicit statements from the release such as fine prints the notes section is used anyway, and probably would be sufficient if only or primarily such confirmations are to be considered. The tags' use as solid differentiator between release versions would be extinct then after all.
As for the first option, also a more clear differentiation between reissue and repress would be quite beneficial, e.g. whether a remastered re-release can be a "repress".
(And on a further note, does a re-release that has evidently different mastering than the original, like vinyl with entirely different run-out etchings incl. a different mastering signature or even playing at different speed, apply for the "remastered" tag by default.)
Above post generated a possible solution to the ime in which this topic has landed. Even though I'd prefer a considerate use of the reissue tag - esp. in the case of vinyl - I feel that it will not be implemented. To get out of the hassle, get rid of the Reissue and Repress tags, and replace it with the less precise, but easily usable tag "Re-release". It's no beauty but it works. How about that?
CD versions of previously released albums predating the format, aren't reissues. Reissue pertains to a Format and a 2nd release of that format, when the 1st, original release has been deleted
Technically a new cd with previously released material already on CD isn't a reissue either then, because its a new package.
If a CD was released in a Jewel Case and 2 years later in a Digipak is it not a reissue or yes?
SampleKween
Reissue should not be based on format but content.
These are two different concepts.
But a Good Point® anyway, as Discogs is currently brainlessly mixing both concepts. Hence the overall confusion regarding formats.
And that was also the reason why back in the day I have requested the "Format Description" menu to be split into two distinct "Physical" and "Abstract" menus: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/disbugs/1180 (With the result: "Won't implement". Grrrreat. So here we are mere 18 months later, still discussing related issues over and over again. But we don't have anything better to do anyway, do we?) [<— that was sarcasm]
SampleKween
This is dumb. Reissue should not be based on format but content.
But then it's open for every pre 1986 LP which was then put out on CD to be tagged reissue. I think that's silly.
I think the tag ciould be purged without too much heartache. if a release explicitly states reissue, then that can go in the free text field but only if it's explicitly mention.
A lot of the time an album is reissued or a reason, such as it being remastered or it's an anniversary edition with some bonus content. I know there are more generic reissues, but with these is the tag that important?
loukash
Discogs is currently brainlessly mixing both concepts. Hence the overall confusion regarding formats.
Sorry, but IMHO that has nothing to do with this current issue. Whether it is one list, or two, the exact same issues that we are discussing here would apply.
loukash
Not all releases have an exact release date, yet they are still clearly identifiable as one being the "original" and the other one(s) a "reissue(s)"
Surely it is more important to catalog the definitive proof rather than simply put a tag with not citation as to it's correctness?
loukash
Center label design, runouts, the kind of sleeve used (e.g. flipback, laminated, etc.), you name it. For instance, on some undated relases, you can perhaps tell it was released between 1960 and 1963 given the known manufacturing facts. While another undated pressing can be safely identified as a "reissue", released e.g. some time in the late 1970s (as identifiable for instance by having a Label Code).
That's why having some kind of an abstract tag like "reissue" or "repress" makes sense. It's only a matter of defining workable guidelines for it.
Surely though that comes down to guesswork, even when applied by a reasonably knowledgeable person. I suspect that most of the time, there won't even be that much thought applied to it.
nik
What would be the possible problems that could come up?
Let's look at a MR like this one: Nick Drake - Five Leaves Left
Now imagine how it would look like without the tags Reissue and Repress. How could you ever find out which one is which? Clicking through all of them and compare all notes? Seems awkward to me. Why not compose a fitting definition for the tags?
marcelrecords
Now imagine how it would look like without the tags Reissue and Repress.
The 1967 release is the original, all the others are reissues/represses. Simple, no?
They are still guessing anyway as the notes on one say e.g. "Probably an 80's repress" however Repress was added to the format, but not really 100% sure of that? Could be an 80's reissue?
marcelrecords
Why not compose a fitting definition for the tags?
I'm all for that but mistakes will still be made.
That's why we better get rid of the tags.
I'm probably repeating myself (I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through all the earlier posts) but my definitions of "repress" and "reissue" would be:
"Repress" - same label, catalogue number and country as the original; best example of these would be all those Beatles albums that stayed in print under Parlophone, Capitol, Apple, whatever for 20 years or more, with variations in label design or layout (and sometimes covers, e.g. gatefolds changed to single sleeves) but with the original catalogue numbers.
"Reissue" - implies that the record has gone out of print at some point (in the case of 1979-onwards MCA reissues of ABC product, scarcely out of print at all), and is re-released with either a different catalogue number, or a different label name, or both.
euroduo
I'm all for that but mistakes will still be made.
That's why we better get rid of the tags.
Honestly, what's the worst that could happen if occasional mistakes are made (and they will always be made, no matter what system we come up with)?
euroduo
The 1967 release is the original, all the others are reissues/represses. Simple, no?
Not necessarily. One of the ''unknown'' releases could be the original too. And the submitter could mistake the printing year for the release year (as happens very often). What if I do not know which year it was originally released?
philsoul
but my definitions of "repress" and "reissue" would be:
While perhaps the wording could be polished, that's about the gist of it
If we ditch the tags, because they are prone to erroneous use, we may as well
philsoul
my definitions of "repress" and "reissue" would be:
"Repress" - same label, catalogue number and country as the original; best example of these would be all those Beatles albums that stayed in print under Parlophone, Capitol, Apple, whatever for 20 years or more, with variations in label design or layout (and sometimes covers, e.g. gatefolds changed to single sleeves) but with the original catalogue numbers.
"Reissue" - implies that the record has gone out of print at some point (in the case of 1979-onwards MCA reissues of ABC product, scarcely out of print at all), and is re-released with either a different catalogue number, or a different label name, or both.
Ok, we're going 'round in circles here. To avoid error and confusion I say and other s also say: nix the tags.
Only, and only if a clear rule can be established and implemented in the RSG I'm all for keeping them.
That brings me back to the previous issue where I left off: CD releases of previously released albums.
euroduo
Later CD releases from previously released LP's. Let's face it, most of those CD's are now commonly tagged as reissues even though it does not state that on the CD.
nik
It may be a reissue of the work, but it is not a reissue of the CD.
Forget that!
If re-issue in this case applies to the actual format we'll never know what is the very first CD release that has been 're-issued' from a previous vinyl and not tag that CD as a re-issue, that's not gonna work.
So we either have to come up with solid rules or nix the tags all together.
To me, this release is clearly a reissue. Same label/sleeve/tracklisting but different distributor, more recent year, different cat #. However, it doesn't explicitly say "re-issue" anywhere on it.
Likewise, this release is a repress: same sleeve, cat#, label, and the only difference is that it uses a later label design than the earlier pressing(s). But again, I have only my own experience in collecting AVI titles to know that the solid blue or grey design didn't come along until late 1978 or early 1979. Nowhere does it say "repress"... but then again, what label ever used these ?
I do agree that tagging any CD of a pre-1984 LP as a "reissue" is daft. More bothersome to me are the flood of crappy-sounding counterfeit vinyl releases we've seen in recent years which are marketed as "reissues" by the stores which sell them. This has rendered the term "reissue" meaningless, and also given many people the impression that these are fully legit.
Coming from another angle, in respect of 'time-lines' (aka 're-issue'/later issue, etc), I begin to notice a build-up of "Version 1", "Version 2" and so forth in CD BAOIs.
Before even looking at images or Notes, in many cases there are mastering & press/mould codes 'lumped together' in one CD release - when the plants shown are in different countries & operating in different time-frames.
eg A PDO [An acronym of Phillips DuPont Optical] clearly precedes a PMDC [An acronym of Phillips Music Distribution Co], which precedes 'Universal', etc. Albeit subtle, there are also visible manufacturing differences too.
The 'L' mastering prefix with digits & it's mould prefix are related IDs on CDs, often becoming 'rearranged' to incoming & misunderstood further transcription.
IMHO, irrespective of whether some may then be seen or entered as 'reissues', they need to be seen as, or considered as, early or later separate issues.
(IMHO; Including additional mould suffixes is also really no more useful than including additional vinyl stampers)
Heaven knows what's happening on CDs I have no interest in. ;)
Remaster and Repress stay for the moment with their current guideline.
nik
What would be the possible problems that could come up?
marcelrecords
Let's look at a MR like this one:
Nick Drake - Five Leaves Left
Now imagine how it would look like without the tags Reissue and Repress. How could you ever find out which one is which? Clicking through all of them and compare all notes? Seems awkward to me. Why not compose a fitting definition for the tags?
That's a good example. IMHO it looks a bit of a mess at the moment, the proliferation of "RE", together with "RP" and "RM", looks confusing. Also, since not all items are tagged as "RE", it is not consistent.
I feel we would be better without this tag, there are better fields already (the date field in particular) that we can use to find the version we want.
Are we to remove the tag from existing submissions? Charles Mingus - Mingus Revisited
And do we add this info to the notes, like in above example already has been done?
nik
there are better fields already (the date field in particular) that we can use to find the version we want.
Unfortunately, the date field doesn't show the month/day in the MR list.
At least 'reissue' & 'repress', however incorrectly applied, flagged that something was 'different' - requiring investigation...
And time-lines, again...
swagski
I begin to notice a build-up of "Version 1", "Version 2" and so forth in CD BAOIs.
Regarding that, I find CDs in one issue that are a year to ten years apart from original "because we are not to go by the matrix data" is the cry... "doesn't matter, they're just ref numbers anyway".
I say, imagine those "numbers" printed on the front and then it's "of course they're different! Look at what's printed"...
If a vinyl had made in Austria printed on it and another made in - would they not be different?
...it's an uphill struggle :)
This seems like a rather hasty and poorly-considered move. Whether or not a release is a reissue is still useful information, so I guess now everyone will start putting that in the notes field. Is that the desired outcome here?
Well nik, now that you've mentioned the Free Text field, guess where people will be entering "reissue" from now on? Come to think of it, it will be useful for "expanded reissue", "abridged reissue" (a speciality of Capitol Records in the 1970's), "coupled reissues" and another 57 varieties!
philsoul
guess where people will be entering "reissue" from now on?
The FTF guidelines are clear enough:
6.1.5. The Free Text field should be used to describe;
* Any non-standard color of the audio carrier,
* Any notable packaging (for example gatefold sleeves, Digipak etc ( see 6.1.6)
* Text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example 'Disc 1', '30th Anniversary Edition' etc). The free text field should not be used to describe things that are already in the Format or Description fields.
* Cassette length information, for example "C60".
* Bitrates for lossy file formats, for example "320 kbps".
So no reissue unless it's Text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others. For emphasis: the text has to be present on the release, it has to say on it what it is.
nik
Surely 'Bonus Tracks' could be added to the FTF
We have indexing or notes for bonus material, 'reissued with extra tracks' versions almost always have a different cat# anyway...
hafler3o
For emphasis: the text has to be present on the release, it has to say on it what it is.
Well, a lot of the reissues that I have include my example wordings (or some variations thereof) somewhere in the cover or notes, but there are plenty of other reissues that are demonstrably reissues (by virtue of the fact that previous releases can be or are documented, including here in Discogs) but don't actually say "reissue" anywhere on the package. To say that I can't add "reissue" as free text for those is just plain stupid! (And before anyone says "it should be obvious from the date that it's a reissue", it's not always obvious, because sometimes only the original copyright date is shown).
philsoul
To say that I can't add "reissue" as free text for those is just plain stupid!
I fail see how the use of Reissue in the FTF over the drop down will help to solve the problem that we obviously had already with the dropdown tag? It still will be the same debate release over release if it is to be used or not. Please just don't do it. It's of virtually no use as the # of "reissue" will just outnumber the original issues by far I guess. Why not tag the first issues as Original instead (just KIDDIN')? It will just jam the release pages. If you find it worth mentioning, just use the notes, where is the problem?
Mop66
If you find it worth mentioning, just use the notes, where is the problem?
But, they don't get read until the release is viewed.
So one has to open every potentially similar, as viewed in MR, to check...
The MR now won't display such 'difference'- be it accurate or not.
Indeed, such 'difference' is oft-used as a separate sub...
hatfulofelt
By definition alone, a remastered re-release is not a repress...
Yes, also by my definition at least (hence ~). But that one's not consequently applied on Discogs.
There are "RP, RM"s (not being represses of previous remastered release versions) and vinyl "RP"s with entirely different run-out etchings and mastering initialisms around in the DB.
That said, the question could separately be applied to "sound" and "disc" remasters.
I really think the removal of re-issue from the dropdown is a bad thing.
A re-issue is a unique release.
They will not be easy to find.
Must be better to learn submitter to use the tag.
Because of missuse we should have to remove some more tags.
BAD desicion.
Reissue definately needs to be re-instated. Every music publication, reference book and any other info sourses refer to reissues. Many people will search for a reissue, but will not accept a repress. We will need to add it in the free text box if it is not available in the drop down menu.
Nik this decision is one o the worst. It makes absolutely no sense. The content is what is reissued not the format. Please explain how at all this makes sense.
With your logic the honest truth is even if a vinyl LP is reissued on vinyl 20 years later technically its not a reissue, unless everything was exactly the same. Its a new release.
Reissue needs to be based on content rather then format.
Just not long ago we were having the discussion about reissues with bonus materials and this was not what was decided.
euroduo
Forget that!
If re-issue in this case applies to the actual format we'll never know what is the very first CD release that has been 're-issued' from a previous vinyl and not tag that CD as a re-issue, that's not gonna work.
So we either have to come up with solid rules or nix the tags all together.
So true. I wish people, Discogs, used common sense. This is why people hate Discogs.
They want to attract all these people to the site but make it increasingly difficult to use the system, make new rules that have no real world relevance and wonder why there are 3 million incorrect subs on the site.
hafler3o
This type of attitude is exactly why reissue was removed, because people won't go by the guidelines.
What are you talking about. So an original Island LP with a circle logo is reissued a year later with an "i" logo is a repress????
As far as I am concerned with classic albums, a repress is something like these Rhino pressings of 30 or 40 year old albums. When a record label brings out a record again a year or 2 later, this is a reissue of the original album!!
philsoul
my definitions of "repress" and "reissue" would be:
"Repress" - same label, catalogue number and country as the original; best example of these would be all those Beatles albums that stayed in print under Parlophone, Capitol, Apple, whatever for 20 years or more, with variations in label design or layout (and sometimes covers, e.g. gatefolds changed to single sleeves) but with the original catalogue numbers.
"Reissue" - implies that the record has gone out of print at some point (in the case of 1979-onwards MCA reissues of ABC product, scarcely out of print at all), and is re-released with either a different catalogue number, or a different label name, or both.
cannymusic
As far as I am concerned with classic albums, a repress is something like these Rhino pressings of 30 or 40 year old albums. When a record label brings out a record again a year or 2 later, this is a reissue of the original album!!
Apparently not the worst decision to limit the use of such inconsistently defined and applied tag.
OK Discogs operates on Goldmine standards. What does Goldmine call a pressing that was released a year or two later on a slightly redesigned label but by the same label - e.g. Island or Elekra to name but two.
Call them "original" and other "later presses" or whatever, but there's need of a tag!
s are using wrongly every single field in the submission form, are we going to remove titles, labels, date of release, trasklisting etc. because s are wrongly using them??? what kind of argument is this?
4_trade_or_swap
Call them "original" and other "later presses" or whatever, but there's need of a tag!
s are using wrongly every single field in the submission form, are we going to remove titles, labels, date of release, trasklisting etc. because s are wrongly using them??? what kind of argument is this?
+3 (two friends)
please add 2nd press in the dropdown as well.
SampleKween
I wish people, Discogs, used common sense.
Yours or mine?
(I'll stick to mine if only possible, may I? ;)
cannymusic
As far as I am concerned with classic albums, a repress is something like these Rhino pressings of 30 or 40 year old albums. When a record label brings out a record again a year or 2 later, this is a reissue of the original album!!
^^ This quote actually shows the exact problem with these (no offense :) in particular due to the previous lack of any usable guideline.
As discussed earlier in this topic, quite a few of us actually understand it the other way round.
I think the problem here lies with discogers selling 12" here. I rhink it another story for classsic albums / records here.
I know dicogs started as a 12" site mainly. but it has progressed from this. There is much more - many albums for sale are Reissues, not repressings. Many literature confrmations will agree with this
