• djindio over 8 years ago

    MCA Records "Twofer" album, double LP:

    Side 1 is on Record 1, Side 2 & 3 are on Record 2, Side 4 is on Record 1.

    Record 1:
    Side 1 (A)
    Side 4 (B)

    Record 2:
    Side 2 (A)
    Side 3 (B)

    The record is designed to be played on one of those players that automatically drop the next record onto the platter when the previous record is finished. Then both disks are removed, flipped and placed on the device one on top of the other to play 'side 3' and 'side 4'...

    Do I enter the tracks into the tracklisting in the order they are meant to be played, or enter them based on the physical order?!?

    thanks.
  • mirva over 8 years ago

    This isn't actually that uncommon, what I've seen. Usually people enter the track listing in the order it's on the cover, which is usually the order they are meant to be played, and then mention in the Notes how the sides are split.
  • djindio over 8 years ago

    mirva
    Usually people enter the track listing in the order it's on the cover

    well, that's what makes this one tricky, the tracklisting is (intentionally?) broken into 4 sections and could be read either way:

    http://i37.tinypic.com/ws67mr.jpg

    top left column is side 1 (record 1)
    top right column is side 4 (record 1)
    bottom left column is side 2 (record 2)
    bottom right column is side 3 (record 2)

    ...also stating at the bottom of the cover: "See label for correct playing order and timing."

    ...but I think I'll go with:
    mirva
    ...the order they are meant to be played


    thanks.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 8 years ago

    Somewher in the RSG is stated that multi-disc 2-sided media should have the relation between the sides & discs indicated in the submission.
    Usually I do this together with entering the individual cat#'s of the discs in the baoi like this: 'Other (catalog# disc 1 (A/B)) - cat1234'
    or in this case would be: 'other (catalog# disc 1 (A/D) - cat1234'

    indeed not that uncommon, and has something to do with record changers i thought.
    Also when playing those on the radio for instance, it's easier to let side A continue to side B without stop.

    Use for sure the order they are meant to be played in the tracklist. this is a pure technical matter that shouldn't influence the actual content.

  • djindio over 8 years ago

    djindio edited over 8 years ago
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    indeed not that uncommon, and has something to do with record changers i thought

    http://vintage-record-player.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/-143292606104702610.jpg
    Turntables with that 'hockey stick' looking extra arm by the tonearm and that excessively tall center spindle are designed to play multiple records, playing the stack from bottom to top, dropping one record at a time to the platter. The automated system drops and plays the first record from the bottom of the stack, then when the 1st record is finished it automatically moves the tonearm out of the way, drops the next record from the bottom of the stack and then plays that record, etc... The 'hockey stick' shaped arm (placed on top of the stack of records) is part of the mechanism that holds the stack in place above the platter. The excessively tall spindle at the center of the platter contains the other part of the mechanism that holds the stack of records in place above the platter. That's the cheap home version of a record changer! :-)
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Somewher in the RSG is stated that multi-disc 2-sided media should have the relation between the sides & discs indicated in the submission.

    Yes, I've done that in the release notes.
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Usually I do this together with entering the individual cat#'s of the discs in the baoi like this: 'Other (catalog# disc 1 (A/B)) - cat1234'
    or in this case would be: 'other (catalog# disc 1 (A/D) - cat1234'

    I remember reading a thread here on discogs where they discussing the excessive/redundant use of cat#'s in the B&OI field, so I would shy away from the method you describe there.
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Use for sure the order they are meant to be played in the tracklist. this is a pure technical matter that shouldn't influence the actual content.

    Cool, thanks. :-)

    EDIT: Typo
  • music44 over 8 years ago

    music44 edited over 8 years ago
    The obvious way to handle these (not only are they very common, but also a specific, identifiable, easily definable chracteristic) - is to include it in the format list, thereby allowing it to be selected as a format tag.

    Not only does that provide a standard tool for dealing with this format, it makes them clearly and easily identifiable without having to decipher potentially confusing release notes.

    I suggested this ages ago :-
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199337#2494367

    but didn't even get the courtesy of a reply.

    And yes, the tracklist should be in the order you get when the format is used as intended/optimised for, i.e. stacked on an autochanger. Anything else is just confusing.

  • silverleaf over 8 years ago

    These sort of releases can be confusing. I did one before and some thought I was making it up or not seeing it correctly, but it worked out.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 8 years ago

    music44
    I suggested this ages ago

    but didn't even get the courtesy of a reply.


    Sorry about that, I must have overlooked the thread. Please feel free to message me via the support system http://www.discogs.com/help if you need to call my attention to something.

    djindio
    Side 1 is on Record 1, Side 2 & 3 are on Record 2, Side 4 is on Record 1.


    I have read over the old thread http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199337 and I agree with Kergillian.

    The order to list the tracklisting is the physical order on the discs, so:

    Disc 1 side 1
    Disc 1 side 2
    Disc 2 side 1
    Disc 2 side 2

    etc...

    If the sides have out of order position numberings, reflect that in the tracklisting:

    A - Disc 1 side 1
    C - Disc 1 side 2
    B - Disc 2 side 1
    D - Disc 2 side 2

    etc...

    Mention in the notes any notable characteristics of the release, i.e. "Record were designed to be played on an auto-changer in the order A, B, C, D"

    This means we leave any interpretation as to the intended order in the notes, and don't transfer this to the physical tracklisting.

    Adjusting or clarifying in the notes is way easier than adjusting the tracklisting, and we already have a president for representing what is physically on the release.
  • djindio over 8 years ago

    djindio edited over 8 years ago
    nik
    I have read over the old thread http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199337 and I agree with Kergillian.

    ?? they are discussing the entry of a reissue/boot of a record. The reissue/boot being pressed with the sides labeled A/B C/D and the original being pressed A/D B/C. swagski wanted alter the Tracklisting/Pos of the reissue/boot to match the original and Kergillian was explaining why that is not a good idea. That's a different issue all together.

    Anyway, I agree with Kergillian:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199337#2492534
    Kergillian
    The most correct solution is to list them exactly as they are pressed, with a proper A, B, C, D tracklisting, in that proper order.

    ...which is what I've done:
    Freddie Hart - The Best Of Freddie Hart
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 8 years ago

    I realise they were discussing a mispressed example (which makes this even more complicated).

    The way I read it, Kergillian's examples / terminology wasn't clear at the start. He clarified it later on:

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199337#2493127

    We should add tracklisting as per the recording, not as per the cover, and add a note mentioning the discrepancy.


    I agree with this, and it applies to all eventualities, rather than having to switch about information based on perceived or desired 'correct' order, and the compounding of the complication when errors take place during the release printing / pressing / reissuing.

    As an example, if a CD is issued with the tracklisting on the sleeve not matching the tracklisting on the release, we enter what is physically on the release.
  • djindio over 8 years ago

    djindio edited over 8 years ago
    The way I have entered the release corresponds with the current RSG:
    12.2.6. Vinyl albums can have sequentially listed tracks, regardless of sides (e.g. A1, A2, B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, D8), but this should be clarified in the Release Notes.

    12.2.7. For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language.

    :-)
  • djindio over 8 years ago

    djindio edited over 8 years ago
    "Side 1" = A
    "Side 2" = B
    "Side 3" = C
    "Side 4" = D

    Side 2 just happens to be on the 2nd vinyl.

    EDIT: See the label scans, this has nothing to do with the cover/sleeve:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2422567
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 8 years ago


    djindio
    I remember reading a thread here on discogs where they discussing the excessive/redundant use of cat#'s in the B&OI field, so I would shy away from the method you describe there.

    hmm, that's what the baoi is designed for, matrix#'s cat#'s, etc..

    but I tend to ignore discussions about what's supposed to be redundant and what not. (too little info is bad, too much never hurts, on the long term) But individual disc cat#'s are for sure home in the baoi, whatever they say. adding (A/B) (4 characters) to explain the sides at once is for sure not redundant, it would rather be redundant to add extra lines in the notes in trying to avoid using condensed info.
    (the baoi is designed to catch these things in 1st place so I wouldn't mind those discussions too much)

    But this is all op to personal preference of the submitter at the end. It's for sure not forbidden to add them there.

    nik
    I agree with this, and it applies to all eventualities, rather than having to switch about information based on perceived or desired 'correct' order, and the compounding of the complication when errors take place during the release printing / pressing / reissuing.

    As an example, if a CD is issued with the tracklisting on the sleeve not matching the tracklisting on the release, we enter what is physically on the release.

    Now I lost the clue.

    But to make things easy: is this example right? Verdi*, Price*, Vickers*, Gorr*, Merrill*, Tozzi*, Rome Opera House Orchestra* And Chorus*, Solti* - Aïda
    (apart from the regular updates this sub needs (nohtml, baoi, new credits)
    Disc 1 = (A/F)
    Disc 2 = (B/E)
    Disc 3 = (C/D)
    Tracklist follows A-B-C-D-E-F just as any record. Regardless of how the sides are spread over the disc.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 8 years ago

    djindio
    The way I have entered the release corresponds with the current RSG:

    12.2.6.


    That guidelines addresses cases where the numbers are incrementing (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...) irrespective of the sides (A, B, C, ...), not when the side identification is incongruent with the physical media.

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    I lost the clue.

    But to make things easy: is this example right?

    Disc 1 = (A/F)
    Disc 2 = (B/E)
    Disc 3 = (C/D)
    Tracklist follows A-B-C-D-E-F just as any record. Regardless of how the sides are spread over the disc.


    My opinion is that the sides should be listed as per the physical media - that is, the two sides of a double sided disc should not be separated by other discs, no matter what the tracklisting says.
  • music44 over 8 years ago

    nik
    I realise they were discussing a mispressed example (which makes this even more complicated).


    Dosen't make it in the slightest bit complicated.
    The vinyl is either formatted for use with autochangers or it's not. It's a "binary decision".

    If someone presses a CD with tracks in running order A/D/B/C, that's a different issue entirely, handled in a different way - see the thread being referred to. I made the tag suggestion in the other thread because there was a side issue going on of Normal, Correctly-formatted vinyl autochanger pressings being confused with "pressing errors" because of an unfortunate example used at the beginning.

    This thread is about standard vinyl pressings formatted for use with an autochanger - in which case the tracklist should surely be the intended order of play (i.e as per the cover, as per the records - when used in the way they were intended, on the equipment they were optimised for).

    Using a format tag (with a definition/description in the format list - I'll draft one for you if you want) basically provides pretty much all the functionality that's needed (consistency of description, differentiation from sequential pressing, format prominent in marketplace listings and Artist/Label/MR pages etc.) ??
  • mirva over 8 years ago

    nik
    If the sides have out of order position numberings, reflect that in the tracklisting:

    A - Disc 1 side 1
    C - Disc 1 side 2
    B - Disc 2 side 1
    D - Disc 2 side 2

    Mention in the notes any notable characteristics of the release, i.e. "Record were designed to be played on an auto-changer in the order A, B, C, D"

    I hope this is doesn't go through. There are tons of records like this, and IMHO the past method is just fine, I don't understand why we should start suddenly reflecting the physical release in these cases. The releases already in the database are going to need fixing, and not to mention it's gonna mess up track listings into something ridiculous.
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    is this example right? Verdi*, Price*, Vickers*, Gorr*, Merrill*, Tozzi*, Rome Opera House Orchestra* And Chorus*, Solti* - Aïda

    IMHO that's how it should be. If I understood nik's suggestion correctly, it should be changed to this:

    Aida - Oper In 4 Akten
    A Act I, Scene 1
    F1 Act IV, Scene 1 (Concluded)
    F2 Act IV, Scene 2
    B1 Act I, Scene 2
    B2 Act II (Part 1)
    E1 Act III (Concluded)
    E2 Act IV, Scene 1 (Part 1)
    C Act II (Concluded)
    D Act III (Part 1)

    Now that could be considered as an experimental version of the opera. Mentioning the correct playing order in the Notes is not going to make the track listing any clearer, btw, if we go with this.

    A CD with an incorrect track listing is a different case than this, it's most likely an actual error in the track listing. In these cases the sides are just split differently, but it doesn't change the content, nor the actual playing order.
  • music44 over 8 years ago

    music44 edited over 8 years ago
    nik
    My opinion is that the sides should be listed as per the physical media - that is, the two sides of a double sided disc should not be separated by other discs, no matter what the tracklisting says.


    A perfect recipe for wholesale confusion.

    How would you designate the sides in the tracklisting then?

    A/D/B/C (as per pressing, but in the "wrong" (i.e. unintended) order)?

    or A/B/C/D (i.e. not as per release - Side B is Side D from the release, Side C is Side B from the release, and Side D is Side C from the release)?

    or some other mess?
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 8 years ago

    Dr.SultanAszazin edited over 8 years ago
    nik
    My opinion is that the sides should be listed as per the physical media - that is, the two sides of a double sided disc should not be separated by other discs, no matter what the tracklisting says.

    hmmm...

    because the majority uses disc1-A/B, disc2-C/D
    we should treat the other two common systems (disc1-A/D, disc2-B/C) & (disc1-A/C, disc2-B/D) that way?

    Kinda disagree very much with this...
    Every side is a separate part.
    A disc has 2 sides. Nowhere it was ever determined that the other side of the same disc should contain the next part. Nobody is going to play side 4 before side 2 & 3 (except if there's is a certain purpose)

    The order is determined by every separate side and how these sides are spread over different discs shouldn't influence anything.
    There is no law or standard saying side 2 should be at the other side of side 1.
    We should ignore the position of the side on the different discs and list them in the order the sides are numbered.

    if act IV (conclusion) is on side 3, and Act II is on side 4, Ok in that case the opera should be listed as a mashed-up tracklist.
    But here it follows side indications, so it should be listed right.

    Doing this another way is just crazy, not only because it's crazy and ignores the fact that the side indication is more important than on which disc the side is pressed, it also asks to change hundreds of previous releases in the db, as No One Ever came on the idea of ignoring the sides and using the discs as reference.
    That's a logical way for one-sided media, but on 2-sided media the order should be determined by the sides, on not by the discs.

    Next reason not to mash up the tracklist on those is: look around, if you can find one example on the whole world doing it that way, I'll send you a crate of beer from Westmalle! (this abbey: http://www.trappistwestmalle.be/ & this beer: http://www.trappistwestmalle.be/en/Page/tripel.aspx )

    The side indications should be dominant, as they determine what is being played first, and what is being played next. The disc are just a matter of... uh simple matter.

  • plastiq over 8 years ago

  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 8 years ago

    That example has 'frivolous' side positions to spell out "J A N E".

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    The order is determined by every separate side and how these sides are spread over different discs shouldn't influence anything.
    There is no law or standard saying side 2 should be at the other side of side 1.
    We should ignore the position of the side on the different discs and list them in the order the sides are numbered.


    Yes I can see how my idea could make things more complicated and user-unfriendly, and I don't want that. So I will change my mind and agree it's ok to go by the intended side orders in this instance.

    Do we need a brief guideline for this? Something like:

    * The order that the sides of a release such as, 2 X LP are supposed to be played sometimes does not follow conventional disc 1 side 1 followed by disc 1 side 2. For example, for discs made for old style turntable autochangers the sides will run 'disc 1 side 1' then 'disc 2 side 1' then 'disc 1 side 2' then 'disc 2 side 2'. The tracklisting for these type of releases should be entered in the intended order of play.

    music44
    Using a format tag (with a definition/description in the format list - I'll draft one for you if you want) basically provides pretty much all the functionality that's needed


    I'm not sure a format tag is needed though, it is only a numbering scheme after all.
  • marcelrecords over 8 years ago

    mirva
    There are tons of records like this, and IMHO the past method is just fine, I don't understand why we should start suddenly reflecting the physical release in these cases. The releases already in the database are going to need fixing, and not to mention it's gonna mess up track listings into something ridiculous.

    I agree with this statement. If the B side of a 4-sided release happens to be on the second vinyl, then that is done to facilitate the playing of side B after side A on a ''hockey player'' without having to change discs. So side B is clearly to be played after side A and its tracks should be entered tha way. Naturally, there should be a release note that unmistakenly describes how the sides are distributed on the discs. Side B still is side B, no matter where it figures on the discs.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 8 years ago


    nik
    Do we need a brief guideline for this? Something like:

    * The order that the sides of a release such as, 2 X LP are supposed to be played sometimes does not follow conventional disc 1 side 1 followed by disc 1 side 2. For example, for discs made for old style turntable autochangers the sides will run 'disc 1 side 1' then 'disc 2 side 1' then 'disc 1 side 2' then 'disc 2 side 2'. The tracklisting for these type of releases should be entered in the intended order of play.

    When I entered these ones first, it was for some reason perfectly clear how to enter them. (I remember something in the RSG about it), but an explicit mention in the RSG would be fine.
    Personally I'd rather formulate it like:

    'For 2-sided media, the tracklist should follow the intended playing order of the sides. The playing order is determined by the side numbering, not by the disc numbering.'

    (and maybe the example added indeed, but I'd use disc 1 side A,..., as 2-sided media need to be entered with ABC, not with 123)
    (note, first I wrote: 'The tracklist should follow the intended playing order.' but this could lead to a CD which has a different playing order adviced on cover to be reordered too, while only the sides of 2-sided media should take this in account)

    (hehe: no crate of beer, phew, would be a high shipping cost, except if I drink 'em empty before sending:) but after 3 beers of that, it becomes rather difficult to move)
  • mirva over 8 years ago

    nik
    Yes I can see how my idea could make things more complicated and user-unfriendly, and I don't want that. So I will change my mind and agree it's ok to go by the intended side orders in this instance.

    Thank you. :) *phew*
    nik
    Do we need a brief guideline for this? Something like:

    * The order that the sides of a release such as, 2 X LP are supposed to be played sometimes does not follow conventional disc 1 side 1 followed by disc 1 side 2. For example, for discs made for old style turntable autochangers the sides will run 'disc 1 side 1' then 'disc 2 side 1' then 'disc 1 side 2' then 'disc 2 side 2'. The tracklisting for these type of releases should be entered in the intended order of play.

    Why not, doesn't really hurt to have that. :)
  • plastiq over 8 years ago

    nik
    That example has 'frivolous' side positions to spell out "J A N E".

    Yes, we are talking about uncommmonalities.
    nik
    Do we need a brief guideline for this?

    No.

    Simpler and less confusing would be to catalogue what physically appears on the release and record any idiosyncrasies in the notes.
    At present this is the way I see most entering such releases.

  • JustinCredible over 8 years ago


    Dr.SultanAszazin
    'For 2-sided media, the tracklist should follow the intended playing order of the sides. The playing order is determined by the side numbering, not by the disc numbering.'


    short and clear ...
  • djindio over 8 years ago

    djindio edited over 8 years ago
    nik
    That guidelines addresses cases where the numbers are incrementing (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...) irrespective of the sides (A, B, C, ...), not when the side identification is incongruent with the physical media.

    ahh, ok, my mistake there.

    nik
    Yes I can see how my idea could make things more complicated and user-unfriendly, and I don't want that. So I will change my mind and agree it's ok to go by the intended side orders in this instance.

    ok. :-)

    nik
    Do we need a brief guideline for this? Something like:

    * The order that the sides of a release such as, 2 X LP are supposed to be played sometimes does not follow conventional disc 1 side 1 followed by disc 1 side 2. For example, for discs made for old style turntable autochangers the sides will run 'disc 1 side 1' then 'disc 2 side 1' then 'disc 1 side 2' then 'disc 2 side 2'. The tracklisting for these type of releases should be entered in the intended order of play.


    Sounds good, but you'll probably need to change the above bolded text to:
    'disc 2 side 2' then 'disc 1 side 2' ...as B & C are both on disc 2 and the final side D is on disc 1 from what I've seen so far (unless that is only the case with MCA Records releases and not the standard).

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    'For 2-sided media, the tracklist should follow the intended playing order of the sides. The playing order is determined by the side numbering, not by the disc numbering.'

    hmm, ok, how 'bout something more like->
    For multi-sided media, such as 2xLP's, the tracklist should follow the intended playing order as indicated on the release (except in the case of a misprinted / erroneous tracklisting).


    EDIT: ^the bracketed text so as not to contradict RSG 1.7.4. & RSG 1.7.5.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 8 years ago


    djindio
    For multi-sided media, such as 2xLP's

    hehe,
    multi-sided media:)
    you probably mean 'For multi-disc 2-sided media, such as 2xLPs,...'

    (unless there are cubes and pyramid shaped discs around:)
    but I agree with your remark.
  • djindio over 8 years ago

    ya, something like that. :-)
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 8 years ago

    nik edited over 8 years ago
    How about this for the main guideline:

    For double sided releases with two or more items, such as auto-coupled 2xLP's, the tracklist should follow the intended side order as indicated on the release. Commonly, one disc will have side A then side D, and the second disc will have side B and C. Enter the tracklist in the A, B, C, D order, and make a note in the release notes field saying it is an auto-coupled release.


    However, "except in the case of a misprinted / erroneous tracklisting" is unclear to me. What do we expect users to do if the sides of an auto-coupled release have been altered and re-released?
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 8 years ago

    nik
    How about this for the main guideline:

    sounds clear to me.

    nik
    What do we expect users to do if the sides of an auto-coupled release have been altered and re-released?

    maybe also add to the guideline that the side coupling always needs to be specified for any 2-sided releases with 2 or more items.
    (normally it is somewhere in the guidelines, but would be good to add it to together with this guide)

    I actually think some releases were indeed released both in A/B-C/D & A/D-B/C order. I also read there were sets wich played A/C-B/D (for manual mixing on broadcast?)

  • Laffnmules_Lode over 8 years ago

    Laffnmules_Lode edited over 8 years ago
    So glad this got straightened out; for awhile there I was afraid that I was going to have to change the track order on two releases with 5 records each and one with 6 records. That was going to be a very complcated ordeal.

    These are on 7", 45 rpm records, with some of the songs split between two records. Since these three albums were also issued in LP versions, I want to keep the tracks in the same order as they appear on the records and on the corresponding LPs.

    A/J-B/I-C/H-D/G-E/F and A/L-B/K-C/J-D/I-E/H-F/G
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 8 years ago

    nik
    What do we expect users to do if the sides of an auto-coupled release have been altered and re-released?


    Dr.SultanAszazin
    maybe also add to the guideline that the side coupling always needs to be specified for any 2-sided releases with 2 or more items.
    (normally it is somewhere in the guidelines, but would be good to add it to together with this guide)

    I actually think some releases were indeed released both in A/B-C/D & A/D-B/C order. I also read there were sets wich played A/C-B/D (for manual mixing on broadcast?)


    What I think we need a specific remedy for, is when an auto-coupled release is issued with the same physical order of the tracks, but the sides changed. For example:

    Auto coupled release:

    DISC 1
    A1 - Track 1
    A2 - Track 2
    D1 - Track 7
    D2 - Track 8

    DISC 2
    B1 - Track 3
    B2 - Track 4
    C1 - Track 5
    C2 - Track 6

    Non-auto coupled version, same physical track order, but the sides have been changed:

    DISC 1
    A1 - Track 1
    A2 - Track 2
    B1 - Track 7
    B2 - Track 8

    DISC 2
    C1 - Track 3
    C2 - Track 4
    D1 - Track 5
    D2 - Track 6

    My feeling is this should not be changed to represent the auto coupled version, the A, B, C, D order should remain as on the disc.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 8 years ago

    Dr.SultanAszazin edited over 8 years ago
    nik
    My feeling is this should not be changed to represent the auto coupled version, the A, B, C, D order should remain as on the disc.

    I agree (if I'm right in what you mean:
    tracklist of the auto-coupled version should not have other side indications than the non-coupled version in the tracklist. But when the sides are mentioned as A/B C/D, but the order of the tracks is like an autocoupled release, side indications in the tracklist should still follow the side indications on the discs and list a 'mashed-up' tracklist in that case.)

    or summarized: Tracklist follows side indications in all cases.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 8 years ago

    nik edited over 8 years ago
    Dr.SultanAszazin
    Tracklist follows side indications in all cases.


    Yes!

    Guideline?

    The tracklist should follow the intended side order as indicated on the release. Some double sided releases with two or more items, such as auto-coupled 2xLP's, have unusual ordering. Commonly, one disc will have side A then side D, and the second disc will have side B and C. Enter the tracklist in the A, B, C, D order, and make a note in the release notes field saying it is an auto-coupled release. The side order versus tracklist order will sometimes change on different versions of the release - always follow the side order on the specific release.
  • djindio over 8 years ago

    nik
    The tracklist should follow the intended side order as indicated on the release. Some double sided releases with two or more items, such as auto-coupled 2xLP's, have unusual ordering. Commonly, one disc will have side A then side D, and the second disc will have side B and C. Enter the tracklist in the A, B, C, D order, and make a note in the release notes field saying it is an auto-coupled release. The side order versus tracklist order will sometimes change on different versions of the release - always follow the side order on the specific release.

    sounds good 2 me.
  • mirva over 8 years ago

    Sounds good to me too. :)
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 8 years ago

    ^to good sounds me too!

Log In You must be logged in to post.