8 replies to this topic

[Chase]

I have a question for everyone!
As we all know, Solaris Recordings digital releases have a number on the artwork. They also all have a catalog number in the format of SLRS0XX, with the XX being replaced with whatever number is on the cover.

My question is for Discogs purposes. Is the number on the artwork considered another separate catalog number in addition to the SLRS0XX one? If so, which catalog number should be considered the primary catalog number?

Please let me know! Thank you very much.

[MyStro023]

The number on the artwork follows the catalog number.

i.e. If a release's art shows 67, then the catalog number is SLRS067.

Beatport shows all Solaris releases this way as well. I don't frequent other shops to know if they show catalog numbers.

[Chase]

So I am to understand that for release #67 the only catalog number is SLRS067, and just 67 itself is not considered a catalog number?

[MyStro023]

Yes. The only catalog number on record is SLRS067 for that release. 67 is not a catalog number, but a way of showing the catalog number on the art.

Out of curiosity, where does this appear on Discogs?

As an alike, the solarSwarm releases are similar. We only show the number on the cover, not the full catalog number because in a digital environment it would be hard to read at low res or small sizes (100x100 for example)

[Chase]

I am having a discussion about it with someone on the release "Dark Eyes" by Luminary.
http://www.discogs.c...release/2952617

On this release and many other under Solaris Recordings, the 2-digit number itself is listed as a separate catalog number. Now that I have received confirmation that this is not correct, I am going to fix it on the releases that this mistake is made.

Thank you very much for your quick and kind help!

[MyStro023]

I'll comment there for you chase as Rich's rep.

[Chase]

Thank you very much, I really appreciate it! I don't think it will be necessary at this point since I can cite this thread as proof, but it certainly can't hurt.

[MyStro023]

I also put in a support ticket to have their guide updated. Not every label follows the general rule that was quoted. That's why it is a general rule, but apparently some individuals lack the ability to see it applied generally, not concretely.

[Chase]

That's a wonderful idea. They did include the word "usually," possibly to generalize the rule, but it is not quite clear that way. I sent you a Discogs message, by the way.