Funnily, after having input it I checked The Impressions U.S. discography to see how it looked and realised there was already an entry in there for "Ridin' High", so maybe I should have tagged my scans onto that?
Would it be possible for one of the Mods to either merge the two entries together ... or ... even better, reassign the previously existing L.P. as the Stereo version and move the two existing owners of it over to my entry.
All of this has got me thinking ... for much of the 1960s (roughly 1964-69 in The U.K. from what I can work out) it was standard for there to be separate Mono and Stereo versions of L.P.s, often with significantly different recordings being used. Would it be possible to put some kind of warning into the inputting screen so that people would be discouraged from entering L.P.s from this period without specifying whether it was Mono or Stereo?
Trainman Member since Jun 2014 2559 Points Moderator
It does say to NOT specify mono or stereo unless you KNOW that it was issued in both. I for one think it would be better to err on the side of caution, and assume that if it was from the period between 1959 and 1968 (at least in the US) that is WAS issued in both, even if you're not sure.
(Not to mention, that many "mono" only issues from the 50's were later reissued in the 60's in rechanneled stereo)
To ignore is human, to follow is divine. Member since Jul 2014 3084 Points
I'd agree that there is nothing wrong with "The Guidelines", but I think the probem is that it probably doesn't occur to people to wonder whether there might be different Mono and Stereo versions of a particular release at the time that they input it as they are in a hurry to complete the entry. I know that with me I've had to train myself to slow down inputting something new to prevent entering something wrongly.
With 1960s U.S. releases I tend to check release dates etc. against the relevent entry at bsnpubs.com and if there are two quoted catalogue numbers then I take that as meaning there are different Stereo and Mono releases.
A girl who looks good in vinyl Member since Dec 2012 1544 Points Moderator
Oh my -- this one hits on one of my pet peeves -- people making entries with NO images to support them. Prior to the entry by RogerFoster, for all we knew the entry with no image could be totally wrong or imaginary. SIGH
As to the whole issue of stereo though, I do have to wonder if subsequent issue of stereo lps, although retaining the same catalogue number, bounced between true stereo and re-channel muck.
That said, unlike some sites on 78 rpm side that shall go unmentioned, Both Sides Now (bsnpubs) is a first class reference guide for all things stereo and should always be a reference point.
Admittedly this one is easy because the image clearly shows the stereo LP. however I will be inputting (is that a word?) the mono version in a few moments.
Admittedly this one is easy because the image clearly shows the stereo LP. however I will be inputting (is that a word?) the mono version in a few moments.
It's really not an issue - you enter your Mono one correctly, then submit a correction on the other one and we'll change it to Stereo (which takes a couple of seconds).
Definitely an interesting area in it's own right. At least for most of the 60's you could choose between mono and stereo editions but unfortunately that could be perilous since stereo albums cost more but you might end up with some godawful rechanneled beast. The Dave Clark Five were the classic example... Clark himself mixed all those early ones in mono and gave them to Epic and believed that was how they were being released so he was baffled to be confronted with a "stereo" version of one such album. He was horrified when he played it to hear it had been rechanneled into some fake stereo.
Unfortunately it got worse once stereo became the norm because then the record companies thought issuing in mono was a con and a rip off hence tons of stuff got senselessly rechanneled and sold purporting to be in stereo. There were loads of such monstrosities released during the 70's until it seems all of a sudden in around 1978, they stopped and would start using mono again.
I do think it's important - where possible and can be verified - to put in the notes where a "stereo" album is actually fake stereo. It might save a few people some money... I steer clear of that stuff myself and if I'm buying a stereo album then I want to be 100% certain it is actual stereo. None of the various forms of fake stereo were any good nor convincing though Capitol's patented "duophonic" I think was the worst of the lot - utterly horrible and lumpy... not that Capitol always warned you it was in that format!
Rock, Country or R. & B. - Classic Hits for me! Member since Dec 2014 252 Points
Jock_Girl wrote:
Oh my -- this one hits on one of my pet peeves -- people making entries with NO images to support them. Prior to the entry by RogerFoster, for all we knew the entry with no image could be totally wrong or imaginary. SIGH
As to the whole issue of stereo though, I do have to wonder if subsequent issue of stereo lps, although retaining the same catalogue number, bounced between true stereo and re-channel muck.
That said, unlike some sites on 78 rpm side that shall go unmentioned, Both Sides Now (bsnpubs) is a first class reference guide for all things stereo and should always be a reference point.
Amy
Yep! That's why I always scan my covers AND labels for upload. Though I must hold off for a while on uploads until I can build up a good data reserve.(For a while I was on the "net" daily and gobbled up a large chunk of my reserve. I had over 50 Gigabytes at my disposal, now I'm down to about 4 Gb - OUCH!
a happy disposition is an omnious sign.... Member since Feb 2010 1707 Points Moderator
Stereo + Mono is my pet peeve at the mo, I am extremely short of time and rarely have enough time to type out the entire track/songwriter info.
Most I have noticed have identical tracklistings so I just a comment with the cat number of the other release.
(note: everything I comment like this, I own a copy, if I dont own it I dont comment).