resolved: DSKO Atlantic Disco Test Press 12", not a rock LP

Crosby, Stills & Nash / Average White Band, Ben E. King - Crosby, Stills & Nash / Star In The Ghetto
This item was an early artefact of the US disco scene, it's an early method of production and promotion of Disco 12" mixes serviced to the industry (DJs, press, radio etc)
The Test Pressing was cut using a spare disc of an unused rock record.
The rock record has no real significance and I believe should be relegated to a B-side note.
The Star In The Ghetto label does say Side Two, but that is clearly not the intention here.

It is in fact an early test of this promo: AWB* And Ben E. King - A Star In The Ghetto

Exactly the same situation exists on this record: C.J. & Co / Crosby, Stills & Nash - We Got Our Own Thing / CSN

I think on both of these the CSN listing should just be note material as an unintended b-side.
Any thoughts?

EDIT: here's another couple that cements the intention of using spare/throwaway lacquers to press a single sided promo
C.J. & Co / Led Zeppelin - Devil's Gun / Houses Of The Holy
The Impressions / Peter Gabriel - You'll Never Find / Peter Gabriel

*FINAL UPDATE:
I mailed Tom Moulton about this matter and he said:
"The reason for that they wanted something on the b side and not something that would interfere with the A side. Ciao,Tom"
So take from that what you will. Appears to not be a mystery error or mis-press.

I don’t know what to do here.
My gut says document them as is.

The 12” format is not correct for both sides. Regardless of intention. It’s a weird one.
Can it be Lp and 12”?
In looking at the linked example though, at a minimum, the tracklist needs to be updated for C.J. & Co / Crosby, Stills & Nash - We Got Our Own Thing / CSN and 1st press removed from the FTF.
Crosby, Stills & Nash / Average White Band, Ben E. King - Crosby, Stills & Nash / Star In The Ghetto isn’t various either.
Title looks wrong on C.J. & Co / Led Zeppelin - Devil's Gun / Houses Of The Holy and The Impressions / Peter Gabriel - You'll Never Find / Peter Gabriel (notes could be cleaned up in both too).

I do feel that these discs were specifically manufactured for the DSKO 12" side, so those details should lead what the product is.
I have no problem in documenting the recordings that appear on the other side, but think they should be relegated to secondary.
I'm not even sure they belong in the product title, it's a coincidental pairing, I'm sure CSN didn't agree to have half of their album get pressed back to back with a disco record.

I wanted to make sure that hoards of Crosy Stills & Nash fans didn't descend on the football pitch and start burning all my Tom Moulton Disco 12"s.

I still say document as is.
The information is there and anyone looking for it will find it.
You’re probably right, but we document what we see not what we think IMO.
Maybe ping some others for opinions.
There’s other easily solvable absolute errors in those subs as they sit. Let’s worry about that.

berothbr @uzimaki brunorepublic
Pinging some people who have some knowledge and opinions on early disco vinyl

uzumaki spell check

More if users with guideline knowledge.
Sorry to bother anyone.
BaldGhost Silvermo Opdiner TopCats45s LolH andygrayrecords Mr.Slut rdvriese j_lit donjorge avalon67
andrenafulva F104G

I don’t think Perer Gabriel should have been edited out of the PAN.
Again, document what is a there, don’t make assumptions on the intentions.
The Impressions / Peter Gabriel - You'll Never Find / Peter Gabriel

discosanddragons
I still say document as is.

+1

1st Press should be removed from the FTF

soulsal
intention

slippery slope…document the audio, prime directive

Document as is. Like someone without more knowlege then release in hand would.
Then the specifics can be explained in the notes.

Should matbe be taged as partally unofficial?

This is way out of my knowledge base.

But...
I'm having a hard time believing that 'The Test Pressing was cut using a spare disc of an unused rock record.'
Why couldn't they just cut a single sided record.

Are these even official?
Crosby, Stills & Nash / Average White Band, Ben E. King - Crosby, Stills & Nash / Star In The Ghetto
Why are Atlantic pairing half a rock album with a disco 12"?

Format should be LP IMO

discosanddragons
I still say document as is.

Agree. Totally.

andygrayrecords
Why couldn't they just cut a single sided record.

Sides are only cut one at a time ;-)

The question is why didn't they press a single sided record. Possibly to use up the other side testing half the CSN record.

Be nice to know exactly what this is

soulsal
The Test Pressing was cut using a spare disc of an unused rock record.

It was cut on the spare side of a one sided CSN acetate?

Whatever, we document what is factually there, not the intent.

AmazingDiscoveries
The question is why didn't they press a single sided record.

Saves the cost of a new blank I guess.

If consensus is document what is there, What is going to be the best title for the rock sides as it’s only half of the album?

respectfully, I would like to hear opinions from people familiar with the role that TM and JR played in mastering early 12" singles.

Many people have strong understanding of the database guidelines, but also some sympathetic understanding of the situation around 12" disco singles in 1976/1977 would be useful and more beneficial here then any reverance for the rock LPs that happened to be used.

On one of the singles the original submitter (who worked with Tom Moulton) had sp[ecified that the music on the 'other side' was scratched with white marker, clearly to define what the side of focus was.

discosanddragons
I don’t think Perer Gabriel should have been edited out of the PAN.
Again, document what is a there, don’t make assumptions on the intentions.
The Impressions - You'll Never Find

The record was created for the Impressions. Hence the product title.
It just happens to include Peter Gabriel, which is present in the listing. As you say, anyone who needs to search for it will find it.
That item is not a Peter Gabriel release. That album no doubt has it's own series of Test Pressings that were needed to check and approve the release.

double post

discosanddragons
If consensus is document what is there, What is going to be the best title for the rock sides as it’s only half of the album?

those tracks don't need to have a 'title'. Why not just document them in the track listing?

If it is because the used a spare side on an unused acetate, why would the have to press the record from both those sides? Not sure I quite get that. I mean obviously they could press a single sided record, or use two stampers for the disco cut. If the mothers and at least one stamper existed for the rock side they wouldn't need to use it. And if they didn't why would they make them?

I suppose if any of the rock cuts were used you could check the dates, if it's later than the TP then why would we be ceratin they weren't testing those as well? (I didn't see a match the the RL side 2 of Houses Of The Holy so I guess it was never used.)

soulsal
respectfully, I would like to hear opinions from people familiar with the role that TM and JR played in mastering early 12" singles.

Many people have strong understanding of the database guidelines, but also some sympathetic understanding of the situation around 12" disco singles in 1976/1977 would be useful and more beneficial here then any reverance for the rock LPs that happened to be used.

On one of the singles the original submitter (who worked with Tom Moulton) had sp[ecified that the music on the 'other side' was scratched with white marker, clearly to define what the side of focus was.

Again, you’re missing the point. We document the release, we don’t guess the intentions.
Sympathy for the genre has nothing to do with it.

This is weird to me, I'm not really getting what we're looking at actually. Some people here are claiming they were using up lacquers, some talking about using up pressing parts, so clearly others are just as confused even if they have more of a general idea of what's going in. For all I know, they're definitely not using up spare lacquers here. Acetates are one-sided and are used to make a metal master. There doesn't need to be a B-side. So where exactly in the process does an unrelated half album pop album end up there?

For all intent and purposes I'm leaning towards document as is. The end result is not different from a mispress with one half album ending up on one side, it can just be treated the same. Saying, "it doesn't belong in the other artist's discography" doesn't cut it, because it's the same thing with mispresses.

If there is an intent, then this can just be explained in the notes.

rdvriese
Acetates are one-sided and are used to make a metal master.

That's what I would have thought for master discs - however I have seen some alleged double sided acetates in the db

https://www.discogs.com/release/3246378-MFSB-The-Three-Degrees-Harold-Melvin-The-Blue-Notes-Love-Is-The-Message-Dont-Leave-Me-This-Way

But still, of course there is no reason to have to use both sides to press a record.

AmazingDiscoveries
But still, of course there is no reason to have to use both sides to press a record.

Yes, that's the main point. Technically you could make a double-sided acetate but if the "original" side is just a throwaway, there's no reason to proceed in making stampers from that. (Also, not sure, but would that really be ideal for making actual stampers from both sides?)

double post

soulsal
The record was created for the Impressions. Hence the product title.

Again, by the guidelines, the labels are blank and there is no clear A-side, so both artists should be listed.
That’s documenting the release in front of us.
Editing out Peter Gabriel was wrong.

discosanddragons
More if users with guideline knowledge.

Thx for the ping, but I'm afraid I've got no insight to something like this. Agreed with everyone else's comments, the data should reflect the release as it exists.

j_lit
Thx for the ping, but I'm afraid I've got no insight to something like this. Agreed with everyone else's comments, the data should reflect the release as it exists.

Same from me. I’ve never come across one of these in the wild.

discosanddragons
I still say document as is.

That’s what’s on the release’s audio so that’s what we document IMO.

soulsal
respectfully, I would like to hear opinions from people familiar with the role that TM and JR played in mastering early 12" singles.

That doesn’t really matter. We always document the physical release and the actual audio regardless. RSG §1.7.1 Error/weird pressings like this one are not exclusive to 12” Disco/TM+JR.

Having said that, BarnyardOrbit is a good person to ask about weird disco 12”s like this one.

A few more here, all from the Atlantic DSKO series of 12"s.
Johnny Bristol / Frannie Golde* - Do It To My Mind / Frannie Golde
Detroit Emeralds / Yes - Feel The Need / Yessongs
Manhattan Transfer* / Unknown Artist - Clap Your Hands / Untitled
Dennis Coffey / Don Ellis And Survival - Wings Of Fire / Music From Other Galaxies And Planets
Wing And A Prayer Fife And Drum Corps. / Fred Wesley & The Horny Horns - I'm Popeye The Sailor Man / A Blow For Me, A Toot To You

I mailed Tom about this matter and he said:
"The reason for that they wanted something on the b side and not something that would interfere with the A side. Ciao,Tom"
So take from that what you will. Appears to not be a mystery error or mis-press.

Also pinging Bklyn_Queens_Music as they have eyed on these subs in the past

Document as is

Relvet
Document as is

+1

soulsal is it ok if I make a few adjustments to Crosby, Stills & Nash / Average White Band, Ben E. King - Crosby, Stills & Nash / Star In The Ghetto?

berothbr
soulsal is it ok if I make a few adjustments to Various - CSN / Star In The Ghetto?

Of course, this thread is resolved so feel free to present it how you see fit.

The only opinion I'll add is that the label side seems like the leading side over the blank side, regardless that the label says 'B', there is no 'A' side to supersede it, but it's not a hill I'll be dying on.

Bringing the discussion here.
Regardless of the fact that the side is scratched out, if there is more than one track the track list needs to be entered.
Again, that is what is presented on the release.
I don’t get what you don’t understand about that soulsal.
We’re not documenting the alleged intention, we’re documenting the physical relaeae. Yes songs is not a track title. A proper tracklist needs to be entered.
https://www.discogs.com/release/3328859-Feel-The-Need-Yessongs/history#latest

discosanddragons
I don’t get what you don’t understand about that soulsal.

What are you talking about?
I'm just sharing a fact about the production of this disc.
I'm not blocking you from making any changes, I don't know myself what is on that blank scratched disc because I don't have it. That's why I'm not running to add those details.

discosanddragons
I don’t know what to do here.
My gut says document them as is.

Just go with your gut feeling, I'm not arguing against you. You've taken this on board as an issue that you feel the need to fix, so do what you feel.
All I am doing is sharing some info from the person present at the cut.

Your comment seemed like an argument against.
I may edit these if I have time.
You brought our attention to these and your the last editor on more than one of these and most have more than one error. I’m just pointing that out.
any votes on these errors (won’t be from me) will come your way, so you should consider correcting what’s wrong in case someone else doesn’t or can’t.

discosanddragons
any votes on these errors (won’t be from me) will come your way, so you should consider correcting what’s wrong

This shouldn't ever be the reason for editing, that you feel pressured into "responsibility" for the overall data.

No pressure, just pointing out the likelihood of what could happen to avoid the next thread about a vote.
I said consider I didn’t say you must.

hudsonia pinging you as you have good experience on how we handle Test Pressings here,
specifically having experience with audio cut onto the other side of a Test Pressing, scored out at the plant.

The general consensus is that the tracks are to be listed, but I wonder if you have come across sides that have been scratched out at the plant to avoid play.

soulsal
I'll add is that the label side seems like the leading side over the blank side,

It still says side two, so there’s no reason to overthink it.

berothbr
so there’s no reason to overthink it.

Same goes for the tracks on the scratched out side. They're there, so they need to be entered.
Again, the intention doesn't matter.
You don't need an expertise in test pressings, just follow the same guidelines as you would for any other release.
This situation is not special.
"Unknown LP Side" is not a track title.
Manhattan Transfer* / Unknown Artist - Clap Your Hands / Untitled
"Yessongs" is not a track title.
Detroit Emeralds / Yes - Feel The Need / Yessongs

For the record, I'm not shying away from this stuff and when I'm back at a PC I may edit when I have time, but I only have my phone right now for the holiday weekend and find it too difficult to take on at the moment. These subs were brought into the light and I'm commenting on what is wrong because of it.

discosanddragons
These subs were brought into the light and I'm commenting on what is wrong because of it.

I wonder if they’re actually eligible. Subbed 14 years ago and just one owner. Haven’t looked at or for others, on my phone and don’t really care, just thinking aloud.

avalon67
I wonder if they’re actually eligible. Subbed 14 years ago and just one owner.

Interesting theory. Wild even.

avalon67
I wonder if they’re actually eligible

Those are definitely valid.

berothbr
avalon67I wonder if they’re actually eligibleThose are definitely valid.

Expand please?

avalon67

don’t really care, just thinking aloud.

avalon67
I wonder if they’re actually eligible

Please expand out loud why you think they should be removed?
I can only guess "not eligible" means remove them from the database.

There are more than a handful of test pressings on discogs.
Also subs with 1 or zero owners.

Seems like a big drastic job but if you want to start with this group of releases then lets talk about it.

avalon67
Expand please?

They’re actual records with cat#s. Why wouldn’t they?

Apologies all, I’ve clearly been overly emotional about all of this.
Taking a break for a while, have fun see you soon.

berothbr
avalon67Expand please?They’re actual records with cat#s. Why wouldn’t they?

I think there’s some doubt as to what they actually are.
I’d compare them to a cassette which has been run off with mixes at the end of a session, then used again after another session.
It’s not a ‘release’, there’s nothing ‘definitely’ about it, used by someone to check mixes and sound quality. One owner doesn’t mean it was available to the public. Y’know, all those conditions in the guidelines. You know more?

avalon67
I’d compare them to a cassette which has been run off with mixes at the end of a session, then used again after another session.

How are those comparable? You can’t press a record to reusable media in a recording studio. You have to send it out a third party to have it manufactured. This isn't like a random lathe cut. It was even assigned a cat# from a major label.

They're obviously not intended for public issue and weee made solely for someone involved in the recording process: just like a cassette run off for personal use.

I think there's questions to be asked as to whether they're eligible, but as I said upthread, I don't really care.
It's rich you telling me what can and can't be done after I spent my life in the record business, and you keep asking me for advice.

berothbr
They’re actual records with cat#s.

Do you mean it is a disc with music on? There's no guideline which says it is *definitely* eligible.
Again, after 14 years it has one owner. Not available to the general public, clearly.

avalon67 I apologize if I offended you. You asked me to explain and I tried my best. What you are writing about whether these records are eligible just sounds totally bizarre to me. There are thousands of random records like these. I’ll leave it at that.

What they even are remains an open question as far as I can tell, but we allow TPs when they're in the wild anyway so eligibility is probably beside the point right now.

Unfortunately the reply from Mr Moulton sounds like it could have come from Discogs support ;-)

Definitely valid, it's a pressed record.

As for the format, it can't be both LP and 12" per the subform error. I'd keep it documented as LP and note the discrepancy in the release notes.

Diognes_The_Fox
Definitely valid, it's a pressed record.

Well you must obviously know more about these discs than me then. The guidelines don't mention 'pressed records' being eligible because they're pressed, just that they must have been available to the public. These are clearly different to a regular Test Pressing or White Label, which may have been sent out to various different people in some quantity and from there leaked out into the market.
What and who were these discs intended for? I can only guess that they were pressed in very small quantities for the producer and/or maybe the A&R man or band. There would be no point using these for normal TP use, apart from checking the cut.
Maybe add to the guidelines that 'pressed records are automatically eligible'?

Or… they could have been pressed because of a faulty side on a first TP, a little like this one Conflict (2) - The Ungovernable Force, although this wasn’t‘doubled up’ Again, extremely limited distribution

avalon67
Or… they could have been pressed because of a faulty side on a first TP, a little like this one Conflict (2) - The Ungovernable Force, although this wasn’t‘doubled up’ Again, extremely limited distribution

Old Nik ruling, always knew it this way: anything pressed is per definition eligible (if it also contains audio). This is made implicit by the guideline that says releases on recordable media are to be held to closer scrutiny.

rdvriese
releases on recordable media are to be held to closer scrutiny.

“Closer” than…?
Indicates that pressed releases can also be questioned.

Amusing though that so many are so worried about me thinking aloud…… not stating that they *should* be removed.

You’ll have a link to nik’s comment then?

avalon67
Amusing though that so many are so worried about me thinking aloud

It’s just bizarre. There are oodles of quasi-promo/TP records like this one (including many other Presswell 12”s like this one that aren’t listed above) that no one ever questions. I don’t see why anyone would not want these in the database. Alternately, if you are advocating for rewriting the second sentence of RSG §1.1.3, then that would make a lot more sense.