Diamhea, "request for input" now understood... (but I always read them ALL anyways...)

(EDIT: But this should be changed to read something other than "request for input", IMO... like, "READ THIS, YOU IDIOT!")

I'm wondering... why would one of my reports have been deleted? I reported a "promo" in an "Other versions" for a release and the promo is now gone but there is no record of my report... was I stepping where angels fear to tread?

(and yeah, I AM being vague, since I don't know...)


Feathers fell like leaves from a tree
Blood ran like water from a sea
Angels cried as the rain poured
Feathers fell - They'll fall no more

The report history gets deleted along with the album/artist it is attached to. So yeah..that makes sense.

Oh, OK, I'm glad it makes sense to somebody. And somebody important too, no offense intended...

(I guess it would protect me from retribution from the person who originally posted it...)

No worries. We are not draconian beasts of burden. We wont condemn you for a report.

Well, Derigin, you aren't the one who has had to deal with all of my misunderstood reports back to Diamhea's "request for input"...

Should I report for deletion the unofficial album covers made in the XXI century obviously in Paint or some graphic software like this one?
http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Ad ... 982/221608

As long as you can confirm it isn't actual for that specific version, definitely.

Diamhea, only because you know of my interest in these things, I'm just wondering if aeternus1990, as a Metal knight , or technically anyone of Metal knight level I guess, could not have deleted this himself, or is he being cautious? The access level descriptions don't make this clear to me. Thanks.

Knights can delete cover arts, so he is just trying to be careful - which I agree with. That is by no means a tiny edit, and once the image is gone its gone.

Thanks and thanks to aeternus1990 for both his caution and his caring!

I just added DOKKEN's "Back in the Street" Demo CD. It is not marked as a bootleg on discogs and also not on musik-sammler.de - The additional notes here on the archives was the only source that claimed that to be a bootleg.

The label has a couple of legit releases, TYGERS OF PAN TANG's "Spellbound" as an example which was also released 1989. The only difference is that T.O.P.T. has already a barcode whereas the DOKKEN release is without that identifier. Label-Code and Matrix look fine for me, so I wiped the additional notes info and flagged the authenticity of this Demo CD as "Disputed".

Take a look and decide if you prefer to do any modification here or even delete this version and post a reminder. Thanks

Manalishi69, oh great Metal Freak , I am but a lowly Metalhead (and I bow in truth!), but MY guess is that this WILL be considered an UNACCEPTABLE release. I find the following info info regarding this release on Wikipedia:



(EDIT: Oh, also it is not listed in the discography on their website...)

Of course, this decision is up to those who have earned a rank FAR higher than mine, but if I offend you not, I am glad you have asked this question...

-----

On a separate subject, something like this may will have been posted here somewhere before, but I have been looking for OTHER discography sites to use for cross reference purposes and these are what I have found that seem worthwhile:

http://www.discogs.com/
https://musicbrainz.org/
http://www.allmusic.com/
http://www.musik-sammler.de/
http://rateyourmusic.com/

Well, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Repertoire Records version is fine as a child entry, but that doesn't clarify what is going on with the "independent" version. A good question, and worth digging up some more dirt on. I can't say either way at this point personally.

MS.de is pretty consistent, but I would take the rest of those with a grain of salt. I use Discogs to fill in versions all of the time, and yes as cross-references these have their purposes, but always approach what they say with caution if you find some discrepancies.

Well, I wouldn't GENERALLY consider Wikipedia an unreliable source myself, but having revisited that page, I must admit that I find NO SOURCE listed for Don Dokken making that comment, so bad on me! I have MUCH to learn, oh wise one!

And the cross-references I only listed for THEIR PURPOSES, some are better than others, I ABSOLUTELY TRUST nothing that I don't hold in my hands myself... (I just added the Shakin' Brains cassette by Silver Mountain, but did not add a Catalog ID, because on NONE of THOSE sites, or others I searched, could I be SURE of what the Catalog ID was...)

Fair enough, let us know if you find out any more info on the demo. Otherwise, carry on. And you can always just PM me of course if it is concerning other versions.

The labels are often have these separate listings, for example, EMI:
http://www.metal-archives.com/search?se ... label_name

There are "EMI", "EMI America", "EMI Classics", "EMI Gold" etc.
Is it right thing or those ones and the other labels with the same seems-like duplicate entries should be merged into the big and only one "EMI"? Major labels often exist in the different countries.
Another example of this: http://www.metal-archives.com/search?se ... label_name
http://www.metal-archives.com/search?se ... label_name

OK or should be merged into one?

Unless it's an obvious misspelling, the ideal is to go with the label name as it is given on the release. So if it is "EMI America" on the release, then "EMI America" is its label.

It's important to keep in mind that like many big labels, they may have lots of subsidiary labels; stuff like "EMI America" "EMI Classics" etc. They may have the same parent company (which you can certainly link between them), but they operate as separate entities essentially.

Thanks, Derigin!

Another questions about the line-up entries and tracklists:

1) How to credit artists if they are participated only on some tracks?

Vocals (tracks 1-7, 9) or
Vocals (1-7, 9)?

2) In the booklets we often see: all songs written by (artist) X except track 8 written by (artist) Y.
Or: All music by (artist X), all lyrics by (artist Y).
Is it OK to credit both in the band members tab like:

X: "Songwriting (1-7, 9-10)"
Y: "Songwriting (8)"

X: "Songwriting"
Y: "Lyrics"

or it should be in the additional notes?

The main question: where should be the songwriting, lyrics, composing, arrangements, etc. etc., all that stuff, presented - in the line-up tabs or in the additional notes?

3) In the booklets: all songs written by (band) X. Is it OK to mention it in the additional notes or too obvious?

4) Where to put Lyrics in credits? In the band members tab or in the miscellaneous staff tab?

5) The band has a line-up of 5 members as stated in the booklet. 4 of them are participated on this album but the drums played by different drummer who also could be the past member. He is a band member, but -ex. Where he should be credited - in the guest/session tab or in the band members tab? Is he a guest on this album even if he was in the band before (and maybe after)?

6) The conceptual album often has roles for some band members and guests. For example, the band member X speaking "Devil" and the guest Y speaking "God". How to credit them? Additional notes or tabs? Is it OK to add credits for the band member X as Voice ("Devil") in the band members tab and for the guest Y as Voice ("God") in the guest/session tab?

7) For every track, the credits could be very detailed, like this: http://i62.tinypic.com/kai99u.jpg
Is it OK to put them just in the additional notes? I don't even mind how it will be in the line-up tabs with all that messing...

8) The guest on the album play not the guitars, but the concrete guitar solo on the concrete track, like, the first solo of the track 3. How to put it in the line-up guest/session tab?

9) The real CD has 11 tracks. But in the back cover of the booklet it's only 9 tracks because: a) some track has two parts; b) there is a hidden bonus track. How to form tracklist of the album in this case? 9 or 11 tracks?
Especially when it comes to Japanese versions: there is hidden "ghost" track and the bonus track after that hidden track. How to put bonus tracks in this case? In general, what to do with the hidden ghost tracks and tracks that are one in the booklet but two in the reality?

10) Which capitalization we should use when the track in the tracklist has the note to it in the brackets? For example, three possible variations:

- Breaking the Law (Edit Version)
- Breaking the Law (Edit version)
- Breaking the Law (edit version)

Thanks a lot!

1. Vocals (tracks 1, 3, 5, x, etc.)

Lower case on "track(s)" And I always try to specify each track, so instead of 1-5, go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Just to be consistent, and it is visually fluid and looks presentable when viewing the tab.

2. Some of these are givens, like when there is a cover. So it is kind of redundant to say "All songs written by band x, except for cover, written by band y. Just pointless.. Songwriting and lyrics can be credited in the misc. staff, sure. But remember: Songwriting (tracks 1, 7, 9, 10) - not Songwriting (1, 7, 9, 10). If it is a broader statement like, "All song written by Overkill" or the band as a collective, just put it in the notes...or just disregard it altogether since that is redundant.

3. See above, oftentimes it is too obvious.

4. Misc. staff.

5. I put in guest/session if I'm not sure.

6. Ugh... Maybe something like Narration (character role) (tracks x, y, x, etc.)

7. hmm.

8. I just put Guitars (lead) (track x) for solos. Someone's interpretation of what a "solo" is might differ from anothers, and it is very imprecise trying to handle it like that. I feel that sacrificing some specificity goes a long way to keeping it presentable. and consistent

9. No comment at moment.

10. I always use the third permutation.

Thanks, Diamhea. Will wait №7 and №9 answers

Is it possible for the staff to switch an order of releases in the discography somehow? Let's say an EP came out before full-length but this EP is listed below the full-length. Just for the correct chronology.

See discography and two 1999 releases: http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Skylark/1618

No, there is no way to manually do it. I'm sure it has been brought up before, might be a matter of difficulty concerning the code.

On behalf of having added two versions I'd like to deal with the promo topic and comment on the discrepancies of the W.A.S.P. release in order to know how to handle further contributions.

Generally I don't add CD promos which came in a cardboard sleeve.
The WARDOG album is the only jewel case full length promo-CD I have in my collection.
As I don't know the distribution quantity I let it up to you, to decide if you want this version to show up. I think the only difference to the regular release is the imprint on the CD itself, all the identifiers are the same (only a different Mould SID codecould occur).

Concerning the W.A.S.P. live album:
As I buy a lot of stuff second hand, all my Japanese pressings do not have the OBI strip anymore. The strips contain the barcode, which I did not enter because I don't like to just copy and paste from discogs or musik-sammler.de.
The question which bothers me the most is the release year. While musik-ammler.de says 1987, Discogs has 1990 and the traycard displays 90 · 12 · 5 at the bottom (left corner). I don't know if that reflects the release or whatever year.
The next discrepancy is that discogs calls this a promo, musik-sammler.de as a regulart Japanese release. My personal opinion here is that it is NO promo.
The original album release was in 1987 and a promo 3 years later, as discogs claims, makes no sense for me.
Generally I prefer to provide an appropriate picture, the cover I took is from the German database, the one from discogs has the OBI strip which should also appear here on MA, right ?
If anyone is able to change the picture in better quality than to be found on discogs it is highly appreciated.
So my main intention of this posting is to be more clever after a response which concerns Japan release dates (years).

You know me as a contributor trying to be as accurate as possible.
Everyone of us is gathering information and getting better daily, right ?

PS: I've got some more specials which I consider better to be discussed by mail.

A completely re-recorded album should be added on other versions or as a new album?

New album altogether.

Bandcamp link - official tab or official merchandising tab?

Although you can buy music, this is an option, since you can just listen. But I see it always on the official merchandising tab. Shit...

Doesn't matter much. Pros and cons for both, some prefer it this way, others that way. I add it under "official".

Given the fact that more and more bands are using it as their primary web presence. I just put it under "official."

I also put it under the official tab.

Right.

I saw that Azmodes deleted the information that I put concerning the fact that a musician became jew. Well, that personal info isn't relevant when it comes to ex-members from satanic or anti-christian bands?
No? So what explains this?

http://www.metal-archives.com/artists/K ... ilsen/1118

"Oh, but Mayhem is a mainstream/iconic/whatever band. It's an exception."

And this case here?

http://www.metal-archives.com/artists/Obscenus/41290

And if Mayhem is an exception, Sarcófago is too, right? So Wagner Antichrist converted to Christianity and I can prove it ...

Link to the artist in question?

Eh, don't know if that's really all that relevant and it was in broken English too. I don't remember deleting this or if there were other reasons, but I can sort of see why I did it. I won't mind much if it gets re-added, but how do you know anyway?

Also, I've deleted his personal FB page since those shouldn't be added to artist profiles.

info extracted from his facebook page

So I'll put the aforementioned information on the Wagner Antichrist page here, but I will not expose the proof because it's something personal. But if any moderator want it, send me an email: [email protected]

About "limited editions"...

I don't agree to place "limited edition" in the version descr. field in many cases.

Let me explain.

There are definitive limitation and temporary limitation. See the album below, for example:

http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Un ... hly/444337

Recently released and its first pressing is limited to 1000. Just the first pressing... This one can have other pressings as well as can have no... A simple repress deserves a new version? I don't think so. Majors, mainly in the old days, make and have made several identical pressings on demand. There is not even an announcement. Same catalog id, same barcode... as the example below (see additional notes), the only difference is that there is an identifier used by Brazilian labels that you can identify the limitation and if it's the 1st, 2nd, 3rd... press

http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Oc ... lis/155666

Represses are valid as far as I see it. Different release date on its own means a separate version. I'm looking at your second example, and since no dates are given, that seems OK as it is.

And you shouldn't be adding the country field unless you are separating two otherwise-identical versions (Japanese pressings notwithstanding).

I mean, should be placed "limited edition" just when the label or the band announces "LIMITED EDITION!" (and when it comes to newly released stuff), imo.

Btw, the examples above never were announced as limited editions.



That's the point there.

Well, the first one clearly has a pressing limitation, at least for that permutation of it, thus a "Limited" edition of the album. I don't see what is confusing about that. We are trying to set a precedent and consistent standard here, we can't become too abstruse with our requirements or we risk losing accuracy overall. I mean... "only" if the label announces as such? I suspect they would have had to, otherwise we wouldn't know the limit, so I am missing your point there.

And I think I see what you are saying with your final point, but as I already said, different release date means they are no longer identical versions.

Bam, repress and separate entry.

Hm, ok.



As I said, at least in Brazilian versions/releases there is an identifier that exposes the limitation...