I've always understood the meaning of the 2nd part:
.. ... For most CDs, Cassettes, and Vinyl releases since approximately 1970, it is unnecessary to state they are stereo.
as: That means it is not unnecessary for releases before 1970.
Similar to LP where 33 1/3 RPM and 12" is unnecessary as it is standard - only other formats (10" or 45 RPM) are allowed.
As Mono was standard on most pre 1970 releases, I still think it's usefull to give the "extrordinary" Stereo for these releases, even if never released in Mono.
Any opinions?
I don't wont to discuss such interpretations of Guidelines in submission histories any more and a decision in this thread could help in further submissions.
seehaas
For most CDs, Cassettes, and Vinyl releases since approximately 1970
1st off >>> some clarifications here ... CD's were not made in 1970 and "Cassettes" were only issued in stereo >>> they did not make mono AND stereo Cassettes tapes at the same time.....
by 1968-69 most all major labels made only stereo as there was an "moratorium for mono" being pressed at the point.
Diognes_The_Fox
For the most part, I think Stereo on 1968-9 releases is silly, but we set the cutoff date for 1970, so I usually leave it alone when I see it.
+1 — that's my understanding. Diognes_The_Fox —I've been told that a similar rationale applies to mono releases from the 50s and earlier, e.g., it's unnecessary to add the mono tag to a 45 issued in 1952 because that's just assumed. Is that on par with your thought process when submitting those types of pre-stereo era releases too?
All the time there were stereo and mono releases from the label I think both tags are necessary when they are on the release. Although majority stereo in 1968-9 as there are so many mono releases I think it far from unnecessary for these tags at that time. After 1970 mono was a tiny minority so that cut off date is fine as long as it us not an absolute cut (e.g. 50's / 60s reissued in early 70s). Likewise mono before 1960 the other way round. I have seen some early 50s stereo.
Diognes_The_Fox —I've been told that a similar rationale applies to mono releases from the 50s and earlier, e.g., it's unnecessary to add the mono tag to a 45 issued in 1952 because that's just assumed. Is that on par with your thought process when submitting those types of pre-stereo era releases too?
nik
Mono - This tag can be used when a mono recording on any media format that can be either mono or stereo (for example, 33 1/3 RPM vinyl). It shouldn't be used for media formats that were only mono (for example, wax cylinders).
>this previous thread I have interpreted as "Any MONO release on Vinyl can and should have a MONO tag"
why not? MONO tag of interest to listeners, collectors, sellers and buyers [IMO and from casual viewing the MONO release is much more sought after and valuable than the Stereo, ie usually sells for a greater price], and research in general.
side note: maybe I am in the minority, but I want any pertinent data added. Who doesn't? does the portable media not want more than 50-100 characters on any release? does less text save time? maybe, but it adds confusion
d-of
maybe I am in the minority, but I want any pertinent data added.
I totally agree with this, but if it's essentially like adding the stereo tag to a tape irrespective of [6.13], i.e., superfluous because it's so obvious, then I wouldn't want to add it when submitting a new releases. However, I'm far less familiar with mono + pre-1960 submissions than with more modern pressings, which is why I asked. On the other hand, it's kind of off topic (sorry seehaas!).
In of the stereo tag for a late 1960s LP that lacks a mono version, if someone removed it while doing a larger edit, hypertechnically, RSG §14.1.4 advises against it. On the other hand, I don't see the benefit of adding the tag to the format on those releases being that it's implicit, but that's just me.
I think both tags should remain as there was a time when releasing both was the norm. Not very long but as discogs represents the whole history of physical music this is part of it. I add the stereo tag on a 1970 lp on parlophone as it was still in the bold lettering in the white strip at the top format, although the sleeve didn't state is was also released in mono, that print format suggests it could well have been with no immediate evidence it hasn't also been released in mono.
I believe this is an example of the 'otherwise important to point out' category.
In Classical music, it could be interesting to use "stereo" tag after 1970 as mentioned on release because we can have the case of same orchestra/director recorded first in mono, then re recorded later same opus in Stereo (potentially after 1970).
I don't have in mind a specific example, but this case is not just theoretical.
borderes
In Classical music, it could be interesting to use "stereo" tag after
I agree here also, this applies to jazz and blues too, I have a record released in the 1970s by Eddie "Guitar Slim" Jones that is 50% Stereo [half of the songs mono/half in stereo] and is way less collectable than if 100% Mono
this applies potentially to a huge amount of records where Mono originals much more desired [ie. classical music, Little Richard ]
d-of
nik's quote is valid, right Diognes_The_Fox? ty for your time :+)
Yes. I use 1958 as the cutoff date for mono. This should probably be updated into the guidelines.
d-of
I agree here also, this applies to jazz and blues too, I have a record released in the 1970s by Eddie "Guitar Slim" Jones that is 50% Stereo [half of the songs mono/half in stereo] and is way less collectable than if 100% Mono
Adding both the Stereo and Mono tags could apply in those situations. I'd limit this to where the individual mono/stereo tracks can be identified and documented in the notes. I wouldn't apply this to re-channeled stereo or 'compatible' stereo, though.
borderes
In Classical music, it could be interesting to use "stereo" tag after 1970 as mentioned on release because we can have the case of same orchestra/director recorded first in mono, then re recorded later same opus in Stereo (potentially after 1970).
Hmm! If the mono version is also a different recording, would it still qualify as being a version of that release?
Diognes_The_Fox
If the mono version is also a different recording, would it still qualify as being a version of that release?
No, if different recording, should be different release (and probably different master release).
Just means that for classical records of 60s/70s recordings Stereo tag could be a useful differentiator
I don't think many (if any) mono classical recordings have been 'artificially' moved to stereo (without re recording).
