Re-issues - Am I doing this wrong?

Hi all,

Your opinions on this MR please: James - Sit Down specifically as a user is using personal standards (almost territorial) to EI vote any changes made without his permission (which he is also belligerently using to ignore other minor edits [i.e. release years] to make the release correct), then quoting rules that he clearly has misinterpreted (specifically "It can also be used where the content of the release is not the first issue of the work"). and denies multiple citation from fan/external sites as proof (not to mention common knowledge and the notes on the master page).

Effectively, the original release from the MR in question was in 1989, before a more well known 1991 release (the 1991 Gold Mother album itself being re-issued to include the song) and then a 1998 version.

If I am indeed being misguided on the term of re-issues please correct me...

Your thoughts.

If the thread below is correct then the tag isn;t applicable:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/340600

ApeAstbury is right. the '91 and '98 releases are not reissues. please check again the guidelines: "Reissue should not be used where the work does not appear in it's original form". the '91 releases have different b-sides, even the title track is a different recording. the '98 are new, previously unreleased remixes. they can't be reissues.

I'm getting very confused here then but Ok, so re-releases then, are they not the same as re-issue?? A re-issue can include altered track listing (albums get re-issued with extra tracks, like the Gold Mother album by James - which omitted two tracks and instead included Sit Down, Elbow's debut album was re-issued a year after it was released to include a newly recorded title song - are these also not reissues?).

Isn't the '91 release an edited version of the original '89 version??

The '98 remix also features the '91 version as a "B-Side" (the promo was even titled '98, but the commercial release wasn't - indicating a re-issue/remix).

Both Fontana releases carry a similar catalogue number.

By these standards of "re-recordings" should they not also be under separate MRs then??

In my view the content issue is more important. The links provided in the sub weren't from good reliable sources (band, label or trade journal). Some may disagree but I don;t feel that the 1998 issue of Sit down is a reissue under the discogs terms of the use as advised by Taalem.

I may not have cited from a more credible source (and I don't wish to resurrect a dead argument Eviltoastman, especially as we've made peace), but I've cited official band sites previously and a user has belittled it saying, it's "retrospective" and not credible!!! It does state in the discogs rules that fan sites are allowed. I may not have copied and pasted the five or six links I used in my initial edit, before editing the other 13 and only using the easiest link that immediately mentions the re-issue debacle, but the proof is out there about the song being re-released/re-issued. I don't know how more astute I can be with citations or reading rules. Please give me examples!

I did feel a bit put out though by aformentioned user quoting the full rules at me like I'm a beginner. I'm clearly getting confused and have brought this to the forums for clarification, not victimisation or grievance.

Like I said, other people may disagree with my opinion here. If it had largely the same content I;d side with you on this, but as the title track itself is different (a remix) it's difficult to reconcile.

As for the old MSP thing, a band looking back at its releases and sorting them according to a new method which was not done originally is revisionism and must not creep into the database.

_TheBeatles
A re-issue can include altered track listing (albums get re-issued with extra tracks, like the Gold Mother album by James - which omitted two tracks and instead included Sit Down, Elbow's debut album was re-issued a year after it was released to include a newly recorded title song - are these also not reissues?).

yes those ones are reissues, because most (if not all) of the original body of work is still present, the artwork is the same, etc.
regarding "sit down" '89 and '91, as far as i know, the recording is not the same (wikipedia says the '91 version was rerecorded, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit_Down ), the artwork is totally different and the b-sides too.
the '91 version is really too dissimilar from the '89 one to be considered as a reissue. apart from the the name of the main song, everything is different :-)

taalem
the '91 version is really too dissimilar from the '89 one to be considered as a reissue. apart from the the name of the main song, everything is different :-)

I've actually just had a listen to the '89 version on youtube. It's the same song, albeit the '91 recording punchier and with less verses, plus re-recorded of course (which I actually didn't know as I don't own it). So not everything is different, just the structure, length and artwork...

So where does this stand with multiple formats that contain an acoustic, demo version or a newly recorded version of the song then?? (i.e. released at the same time for marketing reasons), Artwork is usually different and the B-sides are too... Do I need to link examples to further explain this?

What about the fact that, as mentioned, the '98 version contains the '91 version [as a b-side and the other b-sides (and main remix/a-side) are versions of the '91 recording?? It's definitely a reissue and I bet ten to a penny James sites lists it as such too...

Artwork should also not matter since some re-issues contain the same/similar body of work ave altered/alternative artwork. They usually have some defining characteristic that links them to the original release. Travis' first album for some bizarre reason was released in the UK six months later with different artwork than the initial release, as was a band called TheSupernaturals' second album, are these not re-issues then?? They are both titled the same as the original releases and the tracklisting is identical, hell, even the catalogue numbers are only a digit or two different...

Eviltoastman
As for the old MSP thing, a band looking back at its releases and sorting them according to a new method which was not done originally is revisionism and must not creep into the database.

They were listed as such on previous versions of the site, but of course, I cannot link them as they no longer exist and unfortunately "heresay" (BIG speech marks) isn't grounds for solid argument. If the James site, or indeed a fan site, lists these releases as re-issues is this also not the same as the MSP site because it's been re-jigged/updated recently?

Have you tried the webarchive (though i think I did when we originally discussed this)? Anyway, that's pointless now as nik has since advised the sources are irrelevant for the CD1/2 issue, it has to say it on the release.

**THIS IS AN OPEN QUESTION TO ALL**

Eviltoastman
Have you tried the webarchive (though i think I did when we originally discussed this)? Anyway, that's pointless now as nik has since advised the sources are irrelevant for the CD1/2 issue, it has to say it on the release.

This discussion isn't about CD1/2, that's buried and I'm not resurrecting that.

I only mention this site issue to clarify my point of citing official sites and then being rubbished and now my further citations also being thrown out as they contain "hype", so I therefore feel backed into a corner and totally lost with how I can display evidence...I can't copy and paste emails I have received from bands, record label's, etc as this site doesn't support that and bands, labels, etc also aren't going to post info like this online (except in VERY exceptional circumstances).

There are also no links to archives on a lot of official sites and if there are they can usually be broken/incomplete...

So please, explain to me where concrete and acceptable citations can be obtained if now not from official or fan sites?? (even though the discogs rules say otherwise).