• jweijde over 12 years ago

    Can numbers like xx-123456-xx and 123456x000 which appear on most Sony releases be put in the 'Other identifiers' field if there is another number on the release which follows Sony's standard cat# format of xxxxxx-x or ABC xxxxxx-x?
    We've had quite a few discussions about these numbers in the past, but it's still not clear whether or not they are catalogue numbers so in my opinion they shouldn't be put in the Catalog# field.
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago

    IMO these are not cat#s at all, I recently had a big 'lot' of Sony/Epic/Columbia/CBS releases and on about one in four the xx-123456-xx varied on the booklet, CD and rear. some even had the xx-123456-xx printed on it's own on the inside of rear trays that are not viewable through a CD tray (as the tray was opaque), so I removed them all from the cat# section of my collection citing -

    "Having seen how inconsistent these xx-XXXXXX-xx #s are on recent Epic/Columbia releases I've handled, i'm now convinced they are not cat#s so just noting them."
    ie 'notes' or 'other identifiers' fodder.

    I've not encountered a release yet that hasn't got a MUCH more prominent set of cat#s printed on them either.
  • jweijde over 12 years ago

    For the first time I found a release which actually specifies what a 123456x000 number is:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1911030
    release
    Catalogue number: 669 241-1
    Article number: 6692411000
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago

    hafler3o edited over 12 years ago
    ^^ be careful, I note that's a Designer's Republic 'Artworked' CD, they make allsorts of strange mumbo-jumbo seem somehow 'relevant' http://www.discogs.com/image/R-3622-1226339222.jpeg

    not that I'm disagreeing though, it is in my opinion an article or part #.
  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    For me, it's clearly a catalog# variation. A few releases only have this sort of catalog#.

    If we don't consider them as catalog#s, we will just have the next discussion about EMI's "full barcode" catalog#s.
  • auboisdormant over 12 years ago

    jweijde
    "Having seen how inconsistent these xx-XXXXXX-xx #s are on recent Epic/Columbia releases I've handled, i'm now convinced they are not cat#s so just noting them."

    Yeah, there has been some discussion (and here) what that number really is, and I'm not sure if anyone really knows. A lot of people think/used to think that it's a Sony distribution#, but there seems to be varying views to this. I personally don't think it's a cat# at least, but tbh, I don't know what the heck it is. :)
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago

    mawiles
    A few releases only have this sort of catalog#.

    I don't think you see enough EPIC/SONY/CBS releases
    I see plenty and they're not cat#s, never on the spine of a CD for instance
    Celine Dion* - The Colour Of My Love, Celine Dion* - Let's Talk About Love
  • jweijde over 12 years ago

    jweijde edited over 12 years ago
    mawiles
    A few releases only have this sort of catalog#.

    Examples?
    I've never seen one.
    Another thing I found is that the 123456x000 codes very often match a part of the matrix number of cds.
    Example: Evanescence - Fallen
    Number printed on back cover 5108792000, matrix number: S5108792000-0101

    mawiles
    If we don't consider them as catalog#s, we will just have the next discussion about EMI's "full barcode" catalog#s.

    Don't really see how that relates to this discussion. The numbers we're discussing have a format that's completely different from the actual catalogue number. EMI catalogue numbers are either the full barcode or only the bold part of it. Different story if you ask me.
  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    jweijde
    Another thing I found is that the 123456x000 codes very often match a part of the matrix number of cds.


    Yes, these alternative catalog#s usually match the matrix number. And that's the relation to EMI catalog#s, since their catalog#s usually match the barcode.

    So in order to prevent further confusion (we already have too much on this matter), we should make clear distinctions between catalog#s and identifiers. Otherwise an increasing amount of people will add identifiers in the catalog# field or even the other way round, delete valid catalog#s, just because it matches also an identifier.
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago


    mawiles
    So in order to prevent further confusion (we already have too much on this matter), we should make clear distinctions between catalog#s and identifiers. Otherwise an increasing amount of people will add identifiers in the catalog# field or even the other way round, delete valid catalog#s, just because it matches also an identifier


    But in order to make that decision you need to know what that number means first.

    As for know, all of the Sony releases I've evaluated that have the xx-XXXXXX-xx number have the same figures in the XXXXXX part as in the catalogue number. So there is a relation to the catalogue number, at least it is somewhat unique (or at least supposed to be unique) to a release. I suppose that the first and last xx somehow indicate where the release was manufactured but I'm not sure about it.
  • barttrumba over 12 years ago


    mawiles
    For me, it's clearly a catalog# variation.

    sure I agree

    for example
    Sony : xx-XXXXXX-xx
    Dance pool : XXXXXX-x
    nearly the same
  • jweijde over 12 years ago

    jweijde edited over 12 years ago
    barttrumba
    Sony : xx-XXXXXX-xx
    Dance pool : XXXXXX-x

    the last (=7th) digit in XXXXXX-x is essential to the catalogue number as XXXXXX can be the same for several different versions of a release, but the last digit is always different.
    So I really do not believe it is 'just' a catalogue number variation.

    For example, let's say you have a Dance Pool release with the following catalogue numbers:
    DAN 123456 7
    and
    123456 7
    Now those are clearly variations of each other.
    It also has 01-123456-20. This can not be a variation of the other two, because the seventh digit is not there. ('01' and '20' are very common pre- and suffixes by the way, so I did not make those up)

    In my opinion a catalogue number variations are things like:
    - different spacing (DAN 1234567)
    - different capitalization (dan 123456 7)
    - use of brackets, dashes, slashes, dots etc. (DAN 123456-7 or DAN 123456.7)
    - in a different order (123456 7 DAN)
    - leading zeros or the lack of them
    etc.

    The 'base catalogue number' should always be the same though. So 01-123456-20 surely is a different number and can not be considered a variation of the catalogue number in my opinion.
    The fact that the format of these numbers has changed over the years, while the format of the catalogue numbers has stayed the same also proves that. On old Sony releases they were xx-xxxxxx-xx, later they became like this: xxxxxxxxxx. After the merger with BMG was completed they disappeared completely from the records.
    I'm convinced they have a different function than a catalogue number, but I just don't know what.
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago


    jweijde
    I'm convinced they have a different function than a catalogue number, but I just don't know what.

    me too.

    hafler3o
    some even had the xx-123456-xx printed on it's own on the inside of rear trays that are not viewable through a CD tray (as the tray was opaque)

    That pretty much seals it for me. A code placed where there is no other artwork at all or possibility of being seen is not a catalogue number.
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    Interesting thread so far.
    But dou you really believe, that a submitter should know, that
    491652 2 is a cat#, and the number just beneath using the same font
    01-491652-10 isn't a cat# but something different?
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago


    rassel
    But dou you really believe, that a submitter should know

    no, we are all somewhere on a learning curve, I've learned a lot since opening an account here. And I expect that viewpoints I hold are able to be challenged, but having physically sifted through many releases with these codes I don't believe they are (also see the disc image here for dissimilar 'font' http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1636953 I can provide lots of examples of this, also my point about the code under the opaque trays has been ignored, what do you think that might be? The only printed code on a portion of the release that will never be seen? A part number (having worked in manufacturing) seems the only answer.
  • barttrumba over 12 years ago


    rassel
    But dou you really believe, that a submitter should know, that


    Yeah right We can agree on something but hard to spread this info to all discogs user

  • jweijde over 12 years ago

    jweijde edited over 12 years ago
    I don't think it will be that hard to spread to the average discogs user (to all is virtually impossible without action from the management).
    I mean, the reason why submitters pick it as a catalogue number currently is mainly because there are lots of releases which have it listed as catalogue number. They think it's a right thing to do because others did so too and got a 'Correct' or 'Y-vote'. For the same reason people are still submitting releases under legacy 'Label (Country)' labels. Discogs' reputation as a reliable source is working against us in this matter.
    If we would simply move all these numbers to the 'Other Identifiers' section, I'm sure people will stop using them as catalogue numbers eventually.

    And in general, we shouldn't decide not to do something simply because it might be hard to inform everybody about it. I bet half of the stuff we decide in forum topics doesn't reach each discogs member. Yet some things seem to spread rather easily amongst submitters, like using rights societies to decide on the country of release (which is something that shouldn't be done actually, but that's a different discussion).
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 12 years ago

    Interesting discussion. Here is my summary / take on things:

    * Going by this release The Colour Of My Love, I think we could deduce that 474743 2 and EPC 474743 2 are the catalog numbers, 31-474743-10 is the CD matrix number, and 01-474743-10 is the booklet matrix number. Unless we get further info to the contrary, we can apply this to all releases with a similar layout.

    * This is a specialist subject. We can't expect everyone to know details such as this. There should be some leeway to allow users to simply enter the information, and ultimately whether we tag it as a catalog number or a matrix number or a barcode or an 'other' number is a secondary consideration (not saying it isn't important, but I'd rather the number was entered as a primary consideration), and something the 'those that know' should / can just update on sight.
  • barttrumba over 12 years ago


    jweijde
    If we would simply move all these numbers to the 'Other Identifiers' section, I'm sure people will stop using them as catalogue numbers eventually.


    yeah best is to place some example to rules

    Also just number submit like you have now:
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=105698
    Other: 07-476878-10
    its for nothing, its just number. I think its necessary to place more details to brackets.
    thx
  • jweijde over 12 years ago

    jweijde edited over 12 years ago
    barttrumba
    Also just number submit like you have now:
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=105698
    Other: 07-476878-10
    its for nothing, its just number. I think its necessary to place more details to brackets.
    thx

    Don't see why that's for nothing. Sure, it doesn't have a description but I can't give one as long as I don't know what it is exactly. And I don't expect that we will know it anytime soon. Moving it to the notes also isn't a solution. Leaving it as Catalog# is wrong, so can't do that either.
  • barttrumba over 12 years ago


    jweijde
    I can't give one as long as I don't know what it is exactly


    then I think better is to wait a little then start immediately removing action

  • jweijde over 12 years ago


    barttrumba
    then I think better is to wait a little then start immediately removing action

    Reasonable, however there are two reasons why I think its good to start already:
    1. It isn't a catalogue number, so it's in the wrong field
    2. The logic of adding that number for the copyright holder, which is the case for most releases, is beyond me.
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago

    All we know is they are an 'identifier' of some sort. So the best place is ... you guessed it!
  • loukash over 12 years ago

    ^^^ agreed.
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    nik
    * Going by this release The Colour Of My Love, I think we could deduce that 474743 2 and EPC 474743 2 are the catalog numbers, 31-474743-10 is the CD matrix number, and 01-474743-10 is the booklet matrix number. Unless we get further info to the contrary, we can apply this to all releases with a similar layout.

    Hmm, so
    - 474743 2 and EPC 474743 2 are the catalog numbers
    - 31-474743-10 is the CD matrix number
    - 01-474743-10 is the booklet matrix number

    But if I look at this release here, then there are two CDs with the numbers:
    - 491652 9
    - 491652 2
    - 01-491652-10
    - 01-491652-11
    and not added to the release yet:
    - S0149165210-0101
    - S0149165211-0202

    Seems to me that S0149165210-0101 and S0149165211-0202 look like the matrix#, but I'm still not sure about - 491652 9, 491652 2, 01-491652-10 and 01-491652-11.
    nik
    31-474743-10 is the CD matrix number, and 01-474743-10 is the booklet matrix number.

    Doesn't seem to be the best solution on this release, and probably the booklet matrix number would be printed on the booklet only?
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    Moreover, on the Celine Dion release the inlay and the CD both have the same 31-474743-10 number while only the booklet has a different number.

    Why would the inlay have the same "matrix" number as the CD if the assumption is that all components of the release all have their own "matrix" number? And if it is a matrix number, why is the matrix number of the Celine Dion release listed as "Sony Music | S0735652710-0101 101 | A10"?

    This whole thread is full of assumptions without any real answers. It is ASSUMED that it isn't a catalogue number, and now it's ASSUMED that it is a matrix number, which I doubt it is.

    And what's worse, people start to move the xx-xxxxxx-xx numbers from the catalog #s on many releases to the identifiers based on this thread, which is stupid because it may have to be reverted at some point.

    So please stop making assumptions and editing releases until there is a final and definite answer on what these numbers actually mean. Thanks.
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther edited over 12 years ago
    hafler3o
    I see plenty and they're not cat#s, never on the spine of a CD for instance


    So the definition of a catalog# is that it has to be on the spine of a CD? That's an interesting one... I think we're about to edit all CD releases in the database based on this...

    jweijde

    1. It isn't a catalogue number, so it's in the wrong field


    Please provide a source for this conclusion. All I see in this thread is people saying "I don't think it is" and "I doubt that". To me that's insufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

    On all releases I've seen that have the numbers this code includes the major part of the catalogue number so there is at least a relation with the catalogue number. There may be inconsistancies in the numbering but these may as well be unintended errors. Like the odd occurance of the UK "CDR" catalogue numbers on European repressings of Parlophone UK CD-singles.

    As long as there is no definite answer it makes no sense to start making edits, or even worse, voting NMC on releases where this was added as a catalogue number. People should stop doing that and leave it up to the submitter where this information is put until someone has the final answer on what these numbers are. There is no information available in any of the threads on this subject that makes it feasible to prefer one way of adding it over another.
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    I sent a mail to Sony Music Austria Yesterday to provide some real information about this topic, so let's see what they know.
  • SickMF over 12 years ago

    Not speaking for the linked releases in discussion above, but at the Dancepool (sublabel of Sony) releases I've checked recently these very numbers (found on booklet, back cover and CD artwork prints) that were previously designated as Sony cat#s, always happen to be identical to the matrix numbers found at the CD inner ring (except at double CDs, at which the elsewise identical inner ring matrices are additionally prefixed with an according "1-" or "2-" as per CD).
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    rassel
    I sent a mail to Sony Music Austria Yesterday to provide some real information about this topic, so let's see what they know.


    Great! I hope they come up with an answer because I'm really curious ;-)

    SickMF

    Not speaking for the linked releases in discussion above, but at the Dancepool (sublabel of Sony) releases I've checked recently these very numbers (found on booklet, back cover and CD artwork prints) that were previously designated as Sony cat#s, always happen to be identical to the matrix numbers found at the CD inner ring (except at double CDs, at which the elsewise identical inner ring matrices are additionally prefixed with an according "1-" or "2-" as per CD).


    I've seen this as well, but this doesn't support the view that these numbers are matrix numbers. Matrix numbers are very often based on and sometimes even the same as catalogue numbers.

    Not to say that I'm supporting the "catalog number view", I (and we) simply don't know.
  • barttrumba over 12 years ago

    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1404356

    P)+(C) 1996 Sony Music Entertainment (Sweden) AB, DAN 662710 2 (09-662710-14)

    In my opinion
    here its listed as catalog
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    I've got a reply from SONY Austria yesterday about this release in question here:
    rassel
    But if I look at this release here, then there are two CDs with the numbers:
    - 491652 9
    - 491652 2
    - 01-491652-10
    - 01-491652-11
    and not added to the release yet:
    - S0149165210-0101
    - S0149165211-0202


    Answer from SONY Austria
    - 491652 9 Cat.No. for 2CD Version
    - 491652 2 Cat.No. for 1CD Version
    - 01-491652-10 ?
    - 01-491652-11 ?
    - S0149165210-0101 ISRC-Code
    - S0149165211-0202 ISRC-Code

    So it seems to me, that one CD (there are two CDs within this release) has the cat# 491652 9, the other 491652 2. One has the ISRC-Code (Matrix#) S0149165210-0101, the other S0149165210-0202.
    The numbers - 01-491652-10 and - 01-491652-11 are unknown so far, so I replied that it would be really helpful to know what these numbers mean.

    So there's still hope :)
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago

    barttrumba
    here its listed as catalog


    where? not on the spine, it's on the release but why 'assume' it's a cat#?

    BlackPanther
    So the definition of a catalog# is that it has to be on the spine of a CD?


    Don't be silly, were talking about a specific subset of releases with defined cat#s, it's the "obscure #s" that's at issue, I'm just pointing out a FACT about POSITION.

    BlackPanther
    Why would the inlay have the same "matrix" number as the CD if the assumption is that all components of the release all have their own "matrix" number?


    maybe think of it as a part # (rather than matrix # which I didn't mention anyway) then all the problems dissolve eh ?;)

    rassel
    The numbers - 01-491652-10 and - 01-491652-11 are unknown so far

    Great! From that we know what the catalogue numbers for the release are (which we were confident of anyway).
    My money's on part numbers for the last 2, these often vary on things such as stickers.
  • barttrumba over 12 years ago


    hafler3o


    barttrumba
    here its listed as catalog

    where? not on the spine, it's on the release but why 'assume' it's a cat#?

    please look to the image. I hope its not so difficult, I palced also written form:
    P)+(C) 1996 Sony Music Entertainment (Sweden) AB, DAN 662710 2 (09-662710-14)
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago

    hafler3o
    it's on the release but why 'assume' it's a cat#?

    why is it so difficult to read what i say, you don't have to type it out because I said it's on the release, therefore I saw it, my point is why pick it off the inside cover as a cat#? Sony Music Entertainment (Sweden) as label, they're only mentioned as copyright!! That's all bunkum as far as I'm concerned.

    PS what's on the disc?
  • barttrumba over 12 years ago


    hafler3o
    PS what's on the disc?

    dont have it

    whole point was to show how cover creator listed this information on back cover.

    DAN 662710 2 (09-662710-14)
    nothing else (after catalog is 09-662710-14 in bracket)
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    Ok, got a final answer from SONY Austria now:

    Answer
    - 491652 9 Cat.No. for 2CD Version
    - 491652 2 Cat.No. for 1CD Version
    - 01-491652-10 No idea
    - 01-491652-11 No idea
    - S0149165210-0101 ISRC-Code
    - S0149165211-0202 ISRC-Code

    But
    They also told me, that this item was sold in two versions, one as a 1 CD version with the cat# 491652 2 and the other version with 2 CDs with the cat# 491652 9.
    This may seem strange for us, because in the package there were two CDs with different cat#, but for the label, this is ONE ITEM and one ITEM = ONE CAT#, even if the individual CDs have different cat#s.

    But I don't think that this would be useful for us here, it's one release with two CDs with different cat#, the "commercial cat#" is not documented or we would need some guessworking for this.

    So, for me it's fine to put
    01-491652-10 and 01-491652 11 in the Identifier field as "Other".
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago

    rassel
    So, for me it's fine to put
    01-491652-10 and 01-491652 11 in the Identifier field as "Other".


    as suspected! HOSANNAS IN EXCELSIS DEO!

    barttrumba
    dont have it


    pity, I still don't hold that a catalogue number would only be placed on the inside of a sealed item, it may vary on the inside, due to human or machine error, but when there's a completely different 'visible' cat# present on the visible portions that's got to switch some sort of lightbulb on ;)
  • jweijde over 12 years ago


    rassel
    They also told me, that this item was sold in two versions, one as a 1 CD version with the cat# 491652 2 and the other version with 2 CDs with the cat# 491652 9.
    This may seem strange for us, because in the package there were two CDs with different cat#, but for the label, this is ONE ITEM and one ITEM = ONE CAT#, even if the individual CDs have different cat#s.

    But I don't think that this would be useful for us here, it's one release with two CDs with different cat#, the "commercial cat#" is not documented or we would need some guessworking for this.

    Interesting.
    That would mean that the actual catalogue number of that release is 491652 9 and 481652 2 should not be listed as catalogue number on this particular release.
  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    rassel
    Answer
    - 491652 9 Cat.No. for 2CD Version
    - 491652 2 Cat.No. for 1CD Version
    - 01-491652-10 No idea
    - 01-491652-11 No idea
    - S0149165210-0101 ISRC-Code
    - S0149165211-0202 ISRC-Code


    It seems that this employee of Sony doesn't have a clue. The last two codes are pressing numbers for CDs. ISRC codes have a totally different format.
    Unsurprisingly he has "no idea" what the other codes mean.

    So I think we should ignore that reply completely. Basing any conclusion on it fails.
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    mawiles
    It seems that this employee of Sony doesn't have a clue.

    Maybe not "no big clue", but he probably just searched in their internal database for the cat#s.
    But the main point is still valid: They don't consider xx-xxxxxx-10 and xx-xxxxxx-11 as a cat# in their database, so even if he has no clue, they're not listed there.
    And this is one of the answer: Should we look at them as cat#s if SONY doesn't -> no.
  • hafler3o over 12 years ago

    mawiles
    So I think we should ignore that reply completely. Basing any conclusion on it fails.

    Not at all! As rassel points out we should treat them as SONY do, to do anything else now would be to ignore the facts we have. And ignore Nik's considerations, and the skepticism of many contributors to the debate in this thread.
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther edited over 12 years ago
    hafler3o
    maybe think of it as a part # (rather than matrix # which I didn't mention anyway) then all the problems dissolve eh ?;)


    Not quite. Again see http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1881237

    Both disc and inlay mention 31-474743-10

    If it was a part number, it wouldn't have been the same for the disc and the inlay.

    hafler3o
    As rassel points out we should treat them as SONY do


    So how do they treat it? One person in the Sony organization says that he has no clue and based on that you know how Sony treats it?

    hafler3o
    to do anything else now would be to ignore the facts we have


    The only facts we have are:

    - It's there on many Sony releases
    - On the majority of the releases, the six middle digits are exactly the same as the first six digits of the seven-digit catalog# format
    - Different parts of a release (either discs or artwork components) CAN have number variations in the first or last two digits, however the six middle digits are consistent on a release and there are cases in which several parts of a release contain exactly the same numbers
    - At least one of the thousands of Sony employees has no clue

    So enlighten me, what conclusions can we draw from this?

    Edit: typo
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther edited over 11 years ago
    Some further investigation of releases in the Discogs database seems to indicate that it is a combination of a (CBS/Sony) country code, catalog number and format code. There is a certain consistency over quite a large number of releases that indicate that the following is true:

    - the first two digits indicate the country for which a release is intended
    - the following six digits entail the catalogue number (without the last digit that indicates the format in that structure)
    - the last two digits indicate a more specific format definition than the one digit of the "regular" catalogue number can entail.

    Some examples:

    07-xxxxxx-xx: Germany
    09-xxxxxx-xx: Sweden
    10-xxxxxx-xx: Denmark
    11-xxxxxx-xx: Promo release
    12-xxxxxx-xx: Germany
    14-xxxxxx-xx: France
    17-xxxxxx-xx: The Netherlands
    21-xxxxxx-xx: Norway
    28-xxxxxx-xx: Belgium
    31-xxxxxx-xx: UK
    32-xxxxxx-xx: Finland
    37-xxxxxx-xx: Italy
    42-xxxxxx-xx: Spain
    45-xxxxxx-xx: Greece
    48-xxxxxx-xx: Hungary

    The country part seems to be valid for releases that are only released / intended to be released in that specific country. International releases that are released in several countries get:

    01-xxxxxx-xx

    I haven't fully figured out yet why Germany "has" 2 country codes (07 and 12). It looks like Various Artists compilations have 07 and dedicated artist releases have 12.

    As for the format part of the code, the following can be derived:

    xx-xxxxxx-00: 7"
    xx-xxxxxx-10: Album / Compilation
    xx-xxxxxx-11: Album + CD Maxi Single set or other box set
    xx-xxxxxx-12: 3" CD Single
    xx-xxxxxx-13: 3" CD Maxi Single
    xx-xxxxxx-14: 5" CD Maxi Single
    xx-xxxxxx-15: Second / Third / Remixes 5" CD Maxi Single
    xx-xxxxxx-17: 5" CD Single
    xx-xxxxxx-18: Second / Third / Remixes 5" CD Single (found one example)
    xx-xxxxxx-19: Second / Third / Remixes 5" CD Maxi Single (found one example)
    xx-xxxxxx-20: 12" / LP
    xx-xxxxxx-21: Second / Remixes 12"
    xx-xxxxxx-23: Second / Third / Remixes 12"
    xx-xxxxxx-29: 10"
    xx-xxxxxx-30: Cassette
    xx-xxxxxx-35: Cassette Single
    xx-xxxxxx-50: MD

    Please note that these are examples, both lists are not comprehensive (although after some edits it gets pretty complete...)

    See for instance Sony Music Entertainment (Belgium), Sony Music Entertainment (Sweden), Sony Music Entertainment (France), Sony Music Entertainment (Holland) and Sony Music Entertainment (UK).

    This coding structure seems to have been used in Europe only, or at least it seems to have been printed on European releases only. First occurances of a system similar to this are from around 1983. On releases after approximately 1999/2000 the coding can no longer be found. Which may explain why current Sony employees can't find this coding (anymore) in their systems.

    The xxxxxxx000 format seems to have been introduced right after the xx-xxxxxx-xx format was dismissed.

    So this provides some nice information to verify Sony releases from that era. If a release with 28-xxxxxx-14 is listed as a German CD-Single, you can be 99% sure it's wrong because it's actually a Belgian CD Maxi-Single.

    As for the Celine Dion example, we're facing a UK release with a booklet intended for the "international market". How this combination came together we'll probably never know. Could be a shop owner who replaced a missing / damaged booklet with another copy, or it could be that the combination was created in the Sony / DADC manufacturing plant, or whatever reason you can think of.

    Possible (hypothetical) variations could be an international 01-xxxxxx-xx release that gets a sleeve sticker for a specific country which states "as seen on television" or something similar. Imagine that this sticker was ony added for the UK market, and that it refers to a UK TV show. Now the disc, booklet and inlay may have 01-xxxxxx-xx while the sticker only will have 31-xxxxxx-xx.

    This coding shows similarities with the European (non-UK) EMI coding I've been discussing here: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/202944 . On one hand EMI has a 7-digit catalog number which entails a unique code for that release and a last digit which indicates the format, similar to the Sony catalog number (although Sony releases will have the same six digits for all formats while EMI will have a unique 6 digit code for each format). On the other hand, there is a more extended code that also includes country and more extended format information.

    Edit 18-04-2010: 11-xxxxxx-xx added
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther edited over 12 years ago
    jweijde
    It also has 01-123456-20. This can not be a variation of the other two, because the seventh digit is not there. ('01' and '20' are very common pre- and suffixes by the way, so I did not make those up)


    In fact this IS the case. The last 2 digits of the xx-xxxxxx-xx code indicate the format, and so does the last digit of the xxxxxx x code.

    There should be consistency between those last digits.

    If in the xxxxxx x format the last digit is 1, the last two digits in the xx-xxxxxx-xx format will be 17.

    Some more examples (in the form xxxxxx x -> xx-xxxxxx-xx)

    0 -> 15 or 23 or 29
    1 -> 17
    2 -> 14
    4 -> 30
    5 -> 19
    6 -> 20
    7 -> 00
    8 -> 50
    9 -> 11 or 18

    Some last digits exist with different xx format codes. There are far more special formats than a one digit code can entail. There may be more examples where a X format is translated in to different XX formats. Or maybe it's the other way around: the X format may be a simplification of the XX format.

    jweijde
    Interesting.
    That would mean that the actual catalogue number of that release is 491652 9 and 481652 2 should not be listed as catalogue number on this particular release.


    Correct. It can be concluded from the above that the xxxxxx 9 and xx-xxxxxx-11 codes identify some form of special release.

    I suspect that the xxxxxx 2 and xx-xxxxxx-10 numbers are only mentioned on the first disc of that set, since this disc was also manufactured and released separately under these numbers.

    The limited edition set however is not released as such, but with the 9 and 11 numbers, and probably the "bonus" disc mentions those numbers as well. The 2 and 10 numbers are no valid catalog numbers for this set.
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther edited over 12 years ago
    hafler3o
    And ignore Nik's considerations, and the skepticism of many contributors to the debate in this thread.


    Maybe those skepticists should be a bit more open minded. And get over the fact that Nik is not almighty. Considerations are just what they are: considerations. Whether they come from Nik or anybody else.
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    Good work, BlackPanther !
    BlackPanther
    As for the Celine Dion example, we're facing a UK release with a booklet intended for the "international market". How this combination came together we'll probably never know. Could be a shop owner who replaced a missing / damaged booklet with another copy, or it could be that the combination was created in the Sony / DADC manufacturing plant, or whatever reason you can think of.

    Hmm, and why is this as UK release? Just because we got the number 31-474743-10 on the CD and on the the backcover? And why has a UK release a SACEM imprint?

    BlackPanther
    There should be consistency between those last digits.

    If in the xxxxxx x format the last digit is 1, the last two digits in the xx-xxxxxx-xx format will be 17.

    Some more examples (in the form xxxxxx x -> xx-xxxxxx-xx)

    0 -> 15 or 29
    1 -> 17
    2 -> 14

    The Celine Dion* - The Colour Of My Love example has the last digit 2, which turns into 14, which again should be a CD maxi single.

    Maybe we should do some further investigations here.
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther edited over 12 years ago
    rassel
    Good work, BlackPanther !


    Thanks! It took some hours but it was worth it.

    rassel
    Hmm, and why is this as UK release? Just because we got the number 31-474743-10 on the CD and on the the backcover? And why has a UK release a SACEM imprint?


    The rights societies are a complete different discussion. I have Dutch compilation albums which were only released in the Netherlands, with Dutch text on the sleeve and all, that have MCPS/BIEM. There are other discussions on this forum about this topic. The rights authority printed on a disc says nothing about the origin of a certain release. But I would not like to mix these things up as they have nothing to do with eachother.

    If you look at the more exotic Sony labels such as the Belgian or Swedish divisions you'll find releases by local artists in their native language that you can be quite sure of that they were only released in their home country. That's where their country codes match exactly. For 31 it may be difficult to proove the correctness of this statement, but the proof that lies with other countries balances this.

    rassel

    The Celine Dion* - The Colour Of My Love example has the last digit 2, which turns into 14, which again should be a CD maxi single.


    That "translation scheme" isn't comprehensive (yet). And I actually put it the wrong way around. Not all 2s become 14. However al 14s become 2. In the xxxxxx x format the 2 is used for both CD Maxi Singles and Album CD's. So both 14 and 10 in the xx-xxxxxx-xx format are translated to 2 in the xxxxxx x format.

    The only purpose of the xxxxxx x scheme seems to uniquely identify a release. All formats of a certain release have the same xxxxxx identifier, and the last digit identifies the format. Since there will never be a release with the same xxxxxx code that come both as a CD Maxi Single and as an album CD, the last digit code is "re-used" over various kinds of releases (singles, albums).

    The purpose of the xx-xxxxxx-xx scheme seems to be to exactly describe what a release actually is, for what country, on what carrier.
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther
    The rights societies are a complete different discussion.

    I know as I am/was involved in several of them :)
    BlackPanther
    I have Dutch compilation albums which were only released in the Netherlands, with Dutch text on the sleeve and all, that have MCPS/BIEM.

    Yep, that's the "problem" with the multinational labels who had bulk licencing deals with specific mechanical rights societies, starting in the early 80ies.
    BlackPanther
    The only purpose of the xxxxxx x scheme seems to uniquely identify a release.

    Agreed, and that's what we should use as a cat# here.
    BlackPanther
    The purpose of the xx-xxxxxx-xx scheme seems to be to exactly describe what a release actually is, for what country, on what carrier.

    Maybe, I'm not 100% convinced yet, as it seems, that they mixed up sound carriers with different sleeves and different booklets for various reasons (usually to save money of course).
    Remember the famous OBI strips used on Japanese releases, it might get very confusing if we expect all numbers on a release to match a certain numbering scheme.
  • Kergillian over 12 years ago


    rassel
    it might get very confusing if we expect all numbers on a release to match a certain numbering scheme.


    Still, it's better to have a standard with exceptions than to be blindly guessing ;)

    This scheme could easily fall under the 'in most cases' scenario - and would help to dig more deeply when we see those exceptions in order to discern whether they are true exceptions or submitter errors...
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    Kergillian

    Still, it's better to have a standard with exceptions than to be blindly guessing ;)

    Agreed, but I just raise my hand to warn people from adding blindly all numbers found on a release and making wrong assumptions thereof.
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther edited over 12 years ago
    rassel
    Agreed, and that's what we should use as a cat# here.


    In fact, we now know what these numbers mean and how they are related and can be derived from or transformed into the cat#. However what we don't know yet is what the purpose of these codes was and how they were used and in what stage(s) of the production and/or distribution and/or sales process they were used. So we still don't know how to treat them, as cat #s or otherwise.

    rassel
    Maybe, I'm not 100% convinced yet, as it seems, that they mixed up sound carriers with different sleeves and different booklets for various reasons (usually to save money of course).


    Yes but inconsistent combinations are (still) very common. EMI releases usually were consistent with regard to the country of manufacture. In 9 out of 10 cases, if the disc was manufactured in Holland, the booklet would also be printed in Holland. Same for UK and Italian pressings. However I've come across EMI releases with discs manufactured in Holland and booklets printed in the UK. Which makes no sense because both plants in Uden and Swindon were full production lines, so why would a booklet of Swindon turn up in the Uden plant or the other way around. Still these "combined releases" exist.

    As for (in)consistent numbering, a nice recent example is George Michael - December Song (I Dreamed Of Christmas). Catalog number on sleeve: 2732142. Catalog number on disc: 2729330.

    What happened here is dat Island Records released a limited Xmas card edition on December 14, 2009 in the UK. They underestimated the demand with the result that all copies were sold out on day of release. Island quickly took action and came up with a re-release on December 21, 2009. But this time it was not the (expensive to produce) xmas card edition, but housed in a regular slim jewel case.

    The xmas card edition had cat# 2729330, the re-release has cat# 2732142. So they pressed the disc with the "old" cat# and didn't bother or forgot to update it.

    Submitter of this release added both, however 2729330 is not a valid cat# for this release.

    But to get to the point: the fact that inconsistent numbering may occur on Sony releases is not unique to Sony releases nor is it related to the xx-xxxxxx-xx numbering scheme. The fact that inconsistent numberings exist should not have impact on how these codes are treated on Discogs.

    Even more, again refering to the Celine Dion example above. If there would exist a similar release but with a booklet with 31-xxxxxx-xx in stead of 01-xxxxxx-xx, that should be considered as being a separate release.

    rassel
    it might get very confusing if we expect all numbers on a release to match a certain numbering scheme.


    Agreed but we don't "expect" anything right? It may be very well possible that anyone can come up with an example that doesn't fit or is in conflict with the scheme above (in fact I'd like to challenge anyone to come up with examples that don't fit).

    Still, these may be exceptions or errors, and in general people should not worry whether "14" in the one format should be "2" in the other format, they should just enter how they appear on the release. For validation the schemes above may come in handy, and maybe we should complete them as much as possible and put them in a wiki, but still the first and main purpose of the exercise above was to find out what these numbers mean.

    Next step should be to determine how we are going to deal with these codes on Discogs, and that's all a submitter should know: where to put these codes.
  • auboisdormant over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther
    The rights societies are a complete different discussion. I have Dutch compilation albums which were only released in the Netherlands, with Dutch text on the sleeve and all, that have MCPS/BIEM.

    Might be the same issue than with Scandinavian major label releases, which are often manufactured in Germany, and because of this, you can find GEMA/BIEM from the release instead of the local rights society.

    And awesome work with the codes. :)
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    Just a thought:
    On Celine Dion* - The Colour Of My Love we have
    - It's an Epic release
    - Cat# 474743 2 or EPC 474743 2
    - 31-474743-10 on disc and backsleeve
    - 01-474743-10 on the booklet

    On Celine Dion* - The Colour Of My Love we have
    - It's a Columbia release
    - Cat# 474743 2
    - 31-474743-10 on disc and backsleeve
    - No pics from the booklet

    Makes me think they used the Columbia booklet for the Epic release too.

    So
    - I wouldn't use the number on the booklet as cat# if it's different to the number of the disc
    - Use just the most prominent number as cat#, 474732 2
    - As we have a clear matrix# on the inner ring of the CDs starting with S0532xxxxx I would look at this (and just this one) as the matrix#
    - 31-474743-10 and 01-474743-10 are further identifying numbers for this release and belong the the Identifyer fields as "Other" with a comment where these numbes can be found.
  • BlackPanther over 12 years ago


    rassel
    So
    - I wouldn't use the number on the booklet as cat# if it's different to the number of the disc
    - Use just the most prominent number as cat#, 474732 2
    - As we have a clear matrix# on the inner ring of the CDs starting with S0532xxxxx I would look at this (and just this one) as the matrix#
    - 31-474743-10 and 01-474743-10 are further identifying numbers for this release and belong the the Identifyer fields as "Other" with a comment where these numbes can be found.


    Agreed. Would be nice though if we could add a description to the Other field, but for this we still need to know what purpose these numbers had @ CBS / Sony, and that we still don't have the answer on.

    I sent an e-mail to Sony Music Netherlands, never got a response.
  • mjb over 12 years ago

    BlackPanther
    Would be nice though if we could add a description to the Other field, but for this we still need to know what purpose these numbers had @ CBS / Sony, and that we still don't have the answer on.


    You can add a description...of where it is on the release, at least.

    Submission_Guidelines
    5.5. The description field [can be used] to add any further information regarding the identifier, such as the identifier type, any descriptive text associated with it, it's [sic] location on the release, or anything else that seems significant. If an identifier is associated with only a subset of the total labels on the release, you can include the exact label name/s it is associated with.


    (Good grief, nik, fix those typos!)
  • fisonic over 11 years ago

    Good work there, BlackPanther, et al!
    You can add 11- to the list of prefixes, for German promos.
  • asylum27 over 11 years ago

    It's an internal tracking number used for production & royalties I believe. I released two albums via Sony around 2007 and they had bloody numbers galore, including some that looked like this. Some of which ended up on the artwork or on the CD, some as data on the disc and some just used internally. They were utterly anal about it all and the data sheet that the system spewed out was 8 pages long. You can't vary size of type, front, exact size of barcode and very much more. And these numbers were regarded as crucially important.

    Other companies use these but often don't print these on the release. Universal issue a number to every element in a package including booklets, stickers etc, which are, or used to be, in the same format as the catalogue numbers.

  • BlackPanther over 11 years ago

    It seems indeed very important to them. If you look at the images of this release:

    http://www.discogs.com/Wham-The-Best-Of-Wham-If-You-Were-There/release/729796

    The number is presented next to the cat # in an equal font size / weight. See the image of the inlay, right above the barcode. By 2007 these numbers where at least no longer printed on releases.

    Do you happen to still have that data sheet? Could contain very interesting info with regard to identifying and classifying Sony releases.

    BTW, added 11-xxxxxx-xx to the post containing the identified codes above.
  • asylum27 over 11 years ago


    BlackPanther
    Do you happen to still have that data sheet? Could contain very interesting info with regard to identifying and classifying Sony releases.


    I may do, I'll have a hunt around. If I don't the graphic artist might. At the time we were all mighty unhappy at the stuff they wanted on the CD labels, which destroyed the imagery.
  • BlackPanther over 11 years ago

    I can imagine that you were. It seems indeed like especially Sony has some extreme requirements regarding logos and codes to be put on a release judging from some releases in my own collection.

    And what's more, these requirements change over time. If you have done one release two years ago and think you know what you're up to for a new release you may find that they have completely changed their requirements.
  • jweijde over 11 years ago

    asylum27
    I may do, I'll have a hunt around. If I don't the graphic artist might.

    Would be great if you find one.
  • BlackPanther over 11 years ago

    A bit offtopic in this Sony thread, but here are the Parlophone logo requirements:

    http://www.parlophone.co.uk/dandad/parlophoneLogoGuidelines.pdf
  • asylum27 over 11 years ago


    BlackPanther
    A bit offtopic in this Sony thread, but here are the Parlophone logo requirements:


    The companies have got increasingly strict on all these things since digital piracy has been deemed to be the cause of all their woes as if printing stuff on the CD and sleeves will somehow save their bacon (and as an aside many first draft contracts with artists have got increasingly onerous and one sided in my experience).

    jweijde
    Would be great if you find one.


    I moved cities last year and still have boxes of stuff back in Bali, including papers going back 5 years so likely its there as I'm a shocking hoarder. I'll be back there in a few weeks and will find it. I remember there were two cat numbers too, a printed one and a shadow number which I think exists as data on the disc to track copies of the disc. I'm not sure if each pressing has a variation on this but I think so.
  • barttrumba over 11 years ago

    on the back cover of this release:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=46402

    Distribution: Sony Music Entertaintment BV
    17 486897 10

    I think clear, why we cannot use it as disrtibution Sony code as it was in many release?
  • jweijde over 11 years ago

    jweijde edited over 11 years ago
    Thats what made me think it was a distribution code also. But it is not always printed near the distribution info and often different parts of a release (booklet, cd, back cover have a different number. I'd expect a release to have only one distribution code or several completely different ones.
    I'd rather not call it a distribution code again just yet.
  • mawiles over 11 years ago

    We shouldn't call it distribution code. Distribution codes are considered to be non-unique, i.e. not to contain specific release data.

    Since these numbers are in most cases the essential part of the matrix, and since case stickers contain a slightly different number, I'd rather say it's some production number.
  • asylum27 over 11 years ago


    mawiles
    Since these numbers are in most cases the essential part of the matrix, and since case stickers contain a slightly different number, I'd rather say it's some production number.


    Pretty sure it's an internal tracking number which covers royalties, production, parts etc
  • hafler3o over 11 years ago

    asylum27
    Pretty sure it's an internal tracking number which covers royalties, production, parts etc

    agreed it could be a combination of these.

    What we should avoid at all cost is 'adding descriptor names' without the hard evidence.
  • Ronaldvd over 11 years ago

    @ asylum27 :
    asylum27
    I moved cities last year and still have boxes of stuff back in Bali, including papers going back 5 years so likely its there as I'm a shocking hoarder. I'll be back there in a few weeks and will find it. I remember there were two cat numbers too, a printed one and a shadow number which I think exists as data on the disc to track copies of the disc. I'm not sure if each pressing has a variation on this but I think so.

    Did you have a chance to look up the information yet?

    @ BlackPanther :
    Maybe you could make a page on the Discogs wiki with the information from this posting: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/202443#2532815
  • BlackPanther over 11 years ago

    Ronaldvd
    @ BlackPanther :
    Maybe you could make a page on the Discogs wiki with the information from this posting: http://www.discogs.com/help/fo...topic/202443#2532815


    Done! See http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Identifiers_on_European_CBS_and_Sony_Music_releases

    Comments are welcome.
  • jweijde over 11 years ago

    jweijde edited over 11 years ago
    BlackPanther
    Done! See http://wiki.discogs.com/index...._Sony_Music_releases

    Nice work!

    Two things that are worth mentioning about the xxxxxxx000 scheme:
    - In Australia and New Zealand these were sometimes used as catalogue numbers. See for example Creed (3) - Greatest Hits. On these releases there's no xxxxxx x catalog# present.
    - As far as I know they stopped using xxxxxxx000 after Sony BMG Music Entertainment was founded.
  • asylum27 over 11 years ago


    Ronaldvd
    Did you have a chance to look up the information yet?


    I spent much of the last weekend going through crap in Bali trying to find this and other (rather important) paperwork without much luck. I've just fired off an email to my mate at Sony in NZ. He's in marketing but he might be able to help.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 11 years ago


    BlackPanther
    haven't fully figured out yet why Germany "has" 2 country codes (07 and 12).

    21 years ago there where 2 Germanies, maybe once it was East & West?
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 11 years ago

    rassel
    - It's an Epic release
    - Cat# 474743 2 or EPC 474743 2
    - 31-474743-10 on disc and backsleeve
    - 01-474743-10 on the booklet

    On Celine Dion* - The Colour Of My Love we have
    - It's a Columbia release
    - Cat# 474743 2
    - 31-474743-10 on disc and backsleeve
    - No pics from the booklet

    Makes me think they used the Columbia booklet for the Epic release too.

    yea, it happens a lot that from the different items within a release (disc, cover, booklet, ...), some are used for more versions. (for example: booklet gets one print for all countries, CD/LP & cover differ per country.
    Also for later version things can get mixed: Deutsche Grammophon updated their design somewhere in the sixties, because of that some records have versions with both cover & centerlabels in the old design, with new centerlabels & old cover & with new centerlabels & cover design, applied on them.

    -
    & What's the difference between matrix#'s & catalog#'s? In essence they are both identifiers. Only the catalog# if for the whole package in it's specific version, matrix numbers serve as identifiers for parts of the package.

    Maybe it's also good to be aware that these numbers are often company-specific. Every company has it's own numbering systems, and doesn't always use the same names for the numbers as others, or as discogs. I think it's important that if (unidentified) identifiers are added, that the note field is used to tell the placing on the release. That way it's easier to clarify them afterwards if somebody comes around with a box of knowledge.
  • BlackPanther over 11 years ago

    jweijde
    - In Australia and New Zealand these were sometimes used as catalogue numbers. See for example Creed (3) - Greatest Hits. On these releases there's no xxxxxx x catalog# present.
    - As far as I know they stopped using xxxxxxx000 after Sony BMG Music Entertainment was founded.


    Now that you mention it, there are even Dutch / European releases where the xxxxxxx000 format was used as a catalogue number. I will dig up some examples and do some more work on that section of the article within a few days.

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    21 years ago there where 2 Germanies, maybe once it was East & West?


    Unlikely. In these days Western record companies weren't active in Eastern European countries. I've only found examples regarding compilation albums and "regular" albums which seem to be quite consistent.
  • Ronaldvd over 11 years ago

    BlackPanther
    Done! See http://wiki.discogs.com/index...._Sony_Music_releases

    Looks great! Thanks. I've posted a couple of possible additions on that article's talk page.

    asylum27
    I spent much of the last weekend going through crap in Bali trying to find this and other (rather important) paperwork without much luck. I've just fired off an email to my mate at Sony in NZ. He's in marketing but he might be able to help.

    Thanks for the effort put into this!
  • BlackPanther over 11 years ago

    Ronaldvd
    I've posted a couple of possible additions on that article's talk page.


    Thanks for that! I included 08- and also included -85. But for 02-, which I have seen before indeed, I still haven't been able to determine what these releases have in common. The examples you provide are both denoted as "Europe" and are on the Columbia label but more examples are welcomed.
  • jweijde over 11 years ago

    The "Translating Format Indicators" is kinda tricky.
    For example: Bruce Springsteen - Human Touch (435352) has 01-657872-15.
    Going by your list, the last digit of the catalogue number would be '0'. It is however '5'.
    The only releases I've seen with a catalogue number ending with zero were vinyl releases. Maybe your list only applies to vinyl?
  • BlackPanther over 11 years ago

    jweijde
    Going by your list, the last digit of the catalogue number would be '0'. It is however '5'.


    When I did the research some months ago I mainly focussed on the yy-xxxxxx-zz structure and less on the catalogue numbers The catalogue number overview was far from extensive. And because the catalogue numbers weren't extensive, the "translation table" wasn't extensive either. So I'm doing some rework now and indeed it turns out that there aren't always 1:1 relations between -zz and the last digit, unfortunately.

    jweijde
    The only releases I've seen with a catalogue number ending with zero were vinyl releases. Maybe your list only applies to vinyl?


    Example of a CD release ending with 0: http://www.discogs.com/release/2210230

    But these are rare cases. There is some kind of order or priority in which numbers are being used for CD-single releases and the 0 is hardly ever used. You really have to search to find them but they exist.

    The list didn't only apply to vinyl, however in the rework that I'm doing I'm splitting it up in Album and Single releases because with all the different formats existing the catalogue number overview becomes quite messy.
  • jweijde over 11 years ago

    Something else to note:
    Releases with codes like xx-00xxxx-xx are promo releases it seems

Log In You must be logged in to post.