• Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    Foo fighters stickered, stamped or similarly altered commercial releases on the db.

    http://www.discogs.com/Foo-Fighters-Foo-Fighters/release/2557408 - stickered - cat# should be prefixed with cdp as per the cd image and so is a dup of this http://www.discogs.com/Foo-Fighters-Foo-Fighters/release/391941

    http://www.discogs.com/Foo-Fighters-Foo-Fighters/release/2557414
    stamped copy of this http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1772986

    http://www.discogs.com/Foo-Fighters-Big-Me/release/2789749 is a stickered copy of this commercial release http://www.discogs.com/Foo-Fighters-Big-Me/release/396384

    Those with the stickered/ altered or stamped copies should amend their notes. Also the fact that stickered or stamped or otherwise altered commercial version were altered for promotional reasons can be explained in the commercial releases and the duplicates entered as promo purged from the DB. I'm sure there's more but I'm not really looking, these were brought to my attention when I tried to get Big Me promo removed.

    Also see http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/195517?page=17#2961679

    Seek feels the info is screenprinted onto the cd, I disagree but even so it would still be an altered release, the original artwork can be seen through the sticker which means this has been done post production.

    6.12.2....Retail releases with stamped, stickered, or similarly altered covers and / or media are to be considered the same as retail, as should retail releases with cut spines, marked or cut barcodes, or other such defacement. Additionally, retail releases that include 'one-sheet' promotional press-release or feedback type pages are not to be considered different than the retail version.

    Advice is appreciated.

    Edit: used wrong rule number but right wording, just put the right rule number in.
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    It is NOT a sticker on the CD. I own 2557408. And you can not see through to the CD at all so it is a clearly different disc.

    The whole point of a Promo release should be that it has a clearly different intent on release, and is clearly identified as such. This is in both cases. The above nonsense is just that - nonsense. It should be seen to be a promo.

    The point here is that collectors want to know of the existence of these different releases. Taking them away from being easily identifiable as existing does NOTHING to benefit Discogs whatsoever. But let the vote decide.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    I'm referring to the images supplied bythe original submitter which is linked below.

    http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-2789749-1301149209.jpeg

    The artwork can be read through the sticker/screenprinting which as I've mentioned supports this is a post production alteration.

    I have no reason to disbelieve that his images are wrong. If you have scans of your own of this image, please supply them.

    With respect, I must reiterate that the rules are clear with regards to commercial items being marked as promo being entered as unique release. You can add to the notes in your own collection or amend the release notes to advise that some copies were used as promotional items and state how these were altered in those notes. The information is not then lost, it just mneans the same item is not duplicated.
  • hafler3o over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    http://www.discogs.com/Foo-Fighters-Foo-Fighters/release/2557414
    stamped copy of this http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1772986

    Looks like a dupe to me.

    foozealand
    And you can not see through to the CD at all so it is a clearly different disc.

    Forgive me but I can see through it to the outline of the 'country border' underneath, what is it EXACTLY that is on the disc?

  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    Because Evil has decided to add all manner of releases to his thread all at once you are confused. I am talking about:

    http://www.discogs.com/Foo-Fighters-Foo-Fighters/release/2557408

    which he has listed above - NOT the one you have mentioned.

    Evil PLEASE add a new forum issue thread for EACH AND EVERY item you have an issue with - and make it CLEAR which of them THIS thread relates to.

    They can then be dealt with individually and discussed until resolved. You have just proven here with hafler3o's post that you are now seriously confusing people.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    This is sufficient, you needed to be more specific in your reply to me, that is all.
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    I have today in my possession coincidentally another release of the exact same nature for The Colour And The Shape. It is most definitely screen printed on the CD, with a professionally made sticker by the record company on the CD cover liner. It is not yet on Discogs.

    My statement here is simple. Alban, Cheko, Esmee and I are the biggest currently identified Foo collectors out there. I have 37 or so releases not on Discogs for the Foo Fighters including Test Pressing and silver pressed cds that nobody here even knows about. There is no point in me working towards sharing any of that here if I feel I am just wasting my time.

    Rules are rules etc etc, but if this place is not going to do what I need it to do I'm simply going to do what I need to do myself with them elsewhere. I don't want to piss anyone off and I certainly don't have the time to get into arguments. I'm not trying to threaten anything, it makes no difference to me really, I just need somewhere to share with these collectors what we know to exist that is different from other items.

    It is starting to seem to me that based on these rules Discogs is not actually the place to be doing that?
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    OK in full fairness to you, you have already answered my question just above. My adding notes on a release aren't going to help them, their notes aren't going to help me. I don't have the time to trawl through all that shit looking to see what I might not have.

    It seems pretty clear to me the best use of this site for my purposes - and it seems many others too, is as a reference only. With real respect for the creators and rule makers here this just dumbs the whole thing down for me. I can never look to it to be able to tell me the picture I want to see. If that's good enough for someone to call themselves a collector then that's fine, it isn't what I need from my efforts.
  • hafler3o over 7 years ago


    foozealand
    NOT the one you have mentioned.

    yes it is the one I'm talking about,
    foozealand
    I own 2557408.

    that's the one I'm talking about.
    foozealand
    And you can not see through to the CD at all

    hafler3o
    I can see through it to the outline of the 'country border'

    So please answer, something is not right, either the scan or your description.

    PS: Words like "crusade" are not relevant, we all supply information and we all evaluate it (with reference to the RSG). Problems arise when people lie on the locus between geuinely misunderstanding the guidelines and maliciously screwing with the database.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    I'm not going to take further action as that fella's on another hemisphere and so may be sleeping. We need further input.
  • PabloPlato over 7 years ago

    i dont see any inherent difference between a screen-printed promo label on the disc surface and a gold foil-hand stamped promo.

    if the items were intentionally manufactured as promos they would lack a barcode on the sleeve, and the cd face wouldnt waste ink printing underneath the promo notice - the promo notice would have been printed at the same time as the rest of the cd face.

    i say remove them and mention how the promos appear from which sources in the release notes - feel free to add high quality detailed images to the release images of the retail edition.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    I'm going to start the removal process. I think Foozealand has stated his argument fully.
  • seek over 7 years ago


    hafler3o
    what is it EXACTLY that is on the disc?
    Screenprinting.
    I've seen plenty of promo discs with that sort of screen.
  • seek over 7 years ago

    foozealand
    The Colour And The Shape. It is most definitely screen printed on the CD, with a professionally made sticker by the record company on the CD cover liner.
    You could scan it, post to some random release, disable it, then
    post the link to the disabled image here, so we can take a look.
    Or post to flickr or some such site.
  • hafler3o over 7 years ago


    seek
    Screenprinting.
    I've seen plenty of promo discs with that sort of screen.

    Would screenprinted fall into 'altered after manufacture' or 'unique' artwork then?
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    I've posed that a few times and never got a reply, I got a threat of picking up their ball and leaving the field of play and a repetition of the same arguemtn without addressing my query, requests for clearer scans which were ignored and votes against removal ignoring all the above.

    If people aren't prepared to help us further our enquiries, there's little alternative but to trust our earlier assumptions.
  • seek over 7 years ago

    hafler3o
    Would screenprinted fall into 'altered after manufacture' or 'unique' artwork then?
    It's part of the manufacture.
    A label intends from the start to have a certain number of promos and a certain number of saleable copies for the first pressing.
    The promo copies are pulled from the pressing and the additional graphic is added.
    It's part of the manufacture of the promo: it's a way to save costs.

  • seek over 7 years ago


    Eviltoastman
    If people aren't prepared to help us further our enquiries, there's little alternative but to trust our earlier assumptions.
    It's only been 11 hours since you've posted the topic.
    Relax! Give it some time!!!
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago


    seek
    The promo copies are pulled from the pressing and the additional graphic is added.It's part of the manufacture of the promo: it's a way to save costs.


    Just like gold foil stamping, ink stamping and stickering the release. Rule 6.12.2 says "Retail releases with stamped, stickered, or similarly altered covers and / or media are to be considered the same as retail."

    It's the record label that affixes the gold foil stamping, the ink stamping and the promo stickers and it's the same with screen printed promos.
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    Firstly - it was late for me here after a long week when I posted above and on one of the listings itself. So I apologise if I wasn't clear or offended anyone.

    These are the facts:

    1) 6.12.2 is clear - none of the mentioned releases are correct - they should all be removed and Evil is right. Stamped or stickered - see through or not, they are all quite clearly initially based on a production retail release and are therefore not unique based on this rule.

    2) 6.12.2 as a rule totally voids major value to me (and other collectors) that I thought Discogs had. These items exist, we want to know they exist, we want to EASILY identify them to others that also want to know they exist. Discogs clearly (whether by design or accident) want to remove that ability by saying they are the same. We TOTALLY disagree with that view point.

    3) In fact 6.12.3 is even worse:

    "Test Pressing - Typically a limited run of a record made to test the sound quality. Only list an item as Test Pressing if the release is clearly marked as such." Does anyone here actually understand how many Test Pressings exist that do not have the words "Test Pressing" on them? What if it's in another language, that isn't covered. What if part of the wording is missing or over written or faded? The list would go on and on. By sheer implicit literal interpretation of that one sentence none of those cases are allowed on Discogs either.

    The application of these rules results in this place not being appropriate for what I need from a database. That is entirely my problem. Alban and I share the same requirements as collectors, so we both have the same issue. I know there are others in the same situation.

    The end result is I have no choice but to say nice idea, doesn't work for me, I will have to do it myself. It seems a shame that such rules could well drive away all the very people that have many of the super rare items that make the database have such great potential in the first place.

    Anyway I wont post further here in this thread, I've had my say on the subject. Add all the removal requests, they can be dealt with based on the rules. As a well know poster on the Foo board I will now simply work with the other collectors to establish a discography for the band based on our own rules, and our efforts can go into creating the result we need.
  • FauniGena over 7 years ago

    foozealand
    1) 6.12.2 is clear - none of the mentioned releases are correct - they should all be removed and Evil is right. Stamped or stickered - see through or not, they are all quite clearly initially based on a production retail release and are therefore not unique based on this rule.

    +1 They should be removed as duplicates.

    foozealand

    The application of these rules results in this place not being appropriate for what I need from a database.

    I don't get this. Manufacturing variations are covered well by notes and BaOI so you can know what's out there and what exists. To me, having umpteen releases with itty, bitty slight differences would make the database somewhere between unwieldy and unusable.
  • seek over 7 years ago


    Eviltoastman
    Rule 6.12.2 says "Retail releases with stamped, stickered, or similarly altered covers and / or media are to be considered the same as retail."
    That's definitive enough for me, too.
    Don't completely agree with the logic relative to this particular issue, but it is the rule.

    I'll reverse my vote.
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    FauniGena

    foozealand

    The application of these rules results in this place not being appropriate for what I need from a database.

    I don't get this. Manufacturing variations are covered well by notes and BaOI so you can know what's out there and what exists. To me, having umpteen releases with itty, bitty slight differences would make the database somewhere between unwieldy and unusable.


    To me, having umpteen releases with itty, bitty slight differences is what being a collector is all about. Thus my needs are different from yours.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago

    foozealand
    What if it's in another language, that isn't covered. What if part of the wording is missing or over written or faded? The list would go on and on. By sheer implicit literal interpretation of that one sentence none of those cases are allowed on Discogs either.


    In all of those cases the release is clearly allowed to be entered as a Test Pressing. It's a pretty major stretch to argue that they wouldn't be.

    In all my years making records, and I've made a few, test pressings are always marked - in fact pressing plants are anal about such things as are labels.

    foozealand
    As a well know poster on the Foo board I will now simply work with the other collectors to establish a discography for the band based on our own rules, and our efforts can go into creating the result we need.


    That's your choice but I suspect that others will continue to add that act's releases - as they seem to be. Discogs can't work its guidelines around the demands of a small bunch of people who collect one band because that's the way they want it.

    The rules on manufacturing variations, as FauniGena says, provide plenty of scope for adding clear unique issues. The sort of minutiae you say you need may well be best suited to a fan site.
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    asylum27
    That's your choice but I suspect that others will continue to add that act's releases - as they seem to be. Discogs can't work its guidelines around the demands of a small bunch of people who collect one band because that's the way they want it.

    The rules on manufacturing variations, as FauniGena says, provide plenty of scope for adding clear unique issues. The sort of minutiae you say you need may well be best suited to a fan site.


    Yes of course they will, and they should, the vast majority aren't going to give a damn what I do, nor even what a group of collectors do, and I totally appreciate that. The question then becomes, do I continue to do what I want to do in two places, or just use my time doing it all in one place where I (and others with the same needs) control it.

    That's one we will have to figure out for ourselves. We will most probably work out a way to use both effectively together. The only down side is nobody can ever come to Discogs with an expectation of being able to EASILY see all of what a collector has. But all your points are quite valid.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago

    asylum27 edited over 7 years ago
    foozealand
    We will most probably work out a way to use both effectively together.


    I hope so - the more New Zealanders I can entice onto this site the better :)
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    foozealand
    To me, having umpteen releases with itty, bitty slight differences is what being a collector is all about.


    Me too. Just replace Foo Fighters with Faith No More and we're not so different.
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    Just a final question - we've now had a couple of these removed, which we now all hopefully agree is correct.

    I'm then pretty much certain its correct to say the scans or photos that associated those removed releases are correctly valid to be added to the original production release the promos were each based on?
  • seek over 7 years ago


    foozealand
    I'm then pretty much certain its correct to say the scans or photos that associated those removed releases are correctly valid to be added to the original production release the promos were each based on?
    They're not the best representation of the actual release.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago


    seek
    They're not the best representation of the actual release.


    They are variations of the item though - they exist, so I don't see why not?
  • FauniGena over 7 years ago

    foozealand
    Just a final question - we've now had a couple of these removed, which we now all hopefully agree is correct.

    IMHO, yes. I agree.

    foozealand
    I'm then pretty much certain its correct to say the scans or photos that associated those removed releases are correctly valid to be added to the original production release the promos were each based on?

    asylum27
    They are variations of the item though - they exist, so I don't see why not

    +1. I think they can be added and explained in the notes.
  • seek over 7 years ago


    asylum27
    They are variations of the item though - they exist, so I don't see why not?
    They're not really variations, though, not according to the Guidelines.
    That was the whole point of this exercise, I'd thought: to establish that they weren't unique releases.
  • seek over 7 years ago

    If there's a note in the Release Notes, detailing the existence of some copies that were screenprinted with promo text, then posting those pics makes sense.
    Just not as the main images on the release pages.

    FauniGena
    +1. I think they can be added and explained in the notes.
    You meant Release Notes, I take it.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago


    seek
    That was the whole point of this exercise, I'd thought: to establish that they weren't unique releases.


    It would be quite acceptable to add images of matrix and runout variations to one sub - there are plenty of examples in the DB - this seems to me to be similar. It's a way some official versions on the unique variation can be found out there.
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    asylum27
    They are variations of the item though - they exist, so I don't see why not?


    FauniGena
    +1. I think they can be added and explained in the notes.


    Thank you both. And to clarify, it would be my intention to set the notes up in these cases so they show some detail on the alternate versions without going into any kind of repetition, with a small additional comment to see the photo section for clarification.

    The master photo remains the original release cover, and the next photos all pertain to that actual retail release FIRST, with the promos in addition to these at the end. The only immediate issue I see is the inability to look at the notes and see 1,2,3 etc promo versions itemised, and then not directly be able to tell which is which in the photo section.

    As footnotes to images aren't currently allowed, it would be great to overlay a small number - even if it was outside the actual item scan / photo area so that it didn't impinge on the item image itself in any way - but I'm thinking that would probably be frowned upon.

    Either way the more I think about it the more I see that could work just fine. If you are a propeller head you just need to be sure to look at the images section thoroughly to confirm what detail on the release variants you need to know, otherwise you just stop at the top images when you confirm what you have matches the retail release etc. Pretty straight forward.

    And as we have all agreed, the differences here are by their very nature ONLY visual, or else they would in fact indeed warrant a separate item, so the photo section in fact seems the ideal place to show them, with the notes identifying that they exist and can be seen.
  • foozealand over 7 years ago

    seek
    If there's a note in the Release Notes, detailing the existence of some copies that were screenprinted with promo text, then posting those pics makes sense.
    Just not as the main images on the release pages.


    SNAP = I just wrote with exactly that intention (with perhaps a bit more detail in the explanation).
  • seek over 7 years ago


    asylum27
    It would be quite acceptable to add images of matrix and runout variations to one sub - there are plenty of examples in the DB - this seems to me to be similar. It's a way some official versions on the unique variation can be found out there.
    seek
    If there's a note in the Release Notes, detailing the existence of some copies that were screenprinted with promo text, then posting those pics makes sense.
    Just not as the main images on the release pages.

  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    I don't see anything wrong with adding the information in the release notes and have suggested so since this issue started. Just preceed the info with "Some copies modified for promotional purposes had..." and as long as the images are not used as primary images (order must be after all images of the non modified version).

    I'd personally feel it would be negligent of a community geared towards completeness of information and cataloguing the information about every release to omit something which although not important enough (according to the rules) but important enough to warrant comment, to disallow such an update to the information carried within. We're not jumping on a sack of kittens and the rules don't disallow it (11.3) and in 11.2 it states:
    "The following items are recommended for adding to the release notes:
    Anything unusual (for example, hidden tracks on a CD) or anything that is impossible to enter (for example, different titles on different parts of the release)".

  • seek over 7 years ago

    Timely clue in yesterday's New York Times Sunday Crossword Puzzle:
    115 Across: Foo Fighters frontman Dave
    (5 letters, of course. ;))
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    B-O-R-I-N...that can't be it.
  • seek over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    B-O-R-I-N...that can't be it.
    Nope: it was
    S U C K S.

Log In You must be logged in to post.