How do you go about entering a disc that was, let's say originally released in 1973, then was re-released multiple times since that original year ? The discs will have major or minor differences between them. such as label design, cover jacket, or even the color of the vinyl. If, in this particular circumstance, the labels, and the catalog numbers are the same whether in the 1973 version, and/or the 2015 re-release, but the vinyl is of a different color in the 2015 one, should the newer release have it's own separate entry based on the date of release, and the different color of vinyl ?
Turning rebellion into money since 1962 Member since Nov 2009 6566 Points Moderator
In most cases if the same cat # is used throughout then the original entry can be amended to state that it was also reissued in 19xx etc etc. To get the notes of the release updated submit a correction and a mod will sort it.
Scans of the reissue can be added to the original entry to show the changes in releases such as changes to the cover, label design, vinyl colour etc.
If it is a major difference such as a new cat# then a new entry is in order. If a new release is added it can then be linked to the earlier (primary) release.
This is not a rule set in stone as some artists (such as The Beatles) will have each release entered and some members will put up a case for such and such to have it's own individual entry.
Hi Red,
if the cat# remains, all versions of a release go onto one page here, including all possible re-designs of sleeve and label, even vinyl colour. For a re-issue of something originating in the 70ies, I would doubt that the main criterion, the cat#, would still be identical. Sometimes repro artwork retains the original cat#, but that I would classify as "legacy artwork", and it may become a secondary cat#. In most cases nowadays the cat# seems to be identical to the barcode, especially for major and internatioonal releases.
Anyway, I would draw the line at an item getting "barcoded" to require a new entry. But that is just my point of view, I cannot remember if we have some "official" site policy on this.
It's not a universal rule, so much as a principle. There are exceptions, as common sense dictates. Imagine, for example, if Simon & Garfunkel's studio albums were all re-issued on 180 gramme with original cat numbers. They would have new pages.
I was in a bit of a dilemma myself concerning the 1980s re-issue of "The Kink Kontroversy". Original catalogue number and sleeve design with Pye Records info yet have PRT labels!
Too Many Records , Too Little Time Member since Jan 2013 306 Points
PRT was the legal successor to Pye, hence the confusion. But take it from the Label as PRT , but note sleeve etc mentions Pye and link release back to any 'original'
For real confusion, see MCA Records' early 1980s reissues of their own and ABC Records (which they acquired in 1979) releases; old pressings in new covers, or new pressings in old covers, and throw in new catalogue numbers stamped on the covers for good measure!