Does Discogs supersede printed discographies?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by sharedon, Aug 22, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neonbeam

    Neonbeam All Art Was Once Contemporary

    Location:
    Planet Earth
    I loved MC Strongs book back in the 90's. It was almost like a bible, especially when he started dedicated volumes and one was "Indie".

    I can obviously only speak for myself but since there is "the internet" books like that have been gathering dust. Still if its solid and reliable information we are talking about books are obviously much more trustworthy. A source like Discogs is great but one obviously has to know how to read it. There's a lot of bull**** and fake facts on there. Because everybody can contribute.
     
    sharedon and Man at C&A like this.
  2. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Fine with Discogs myself.
     
    klockwerk, shaboo and April Snow like this.
  3. owsley

    owsley Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston
    discogs is the best IMO. Yes there are errors here and there but viewers and contributors are pretty good about spotting mistakes and making corrections. The thing I like most about discogs is its entries for every known label, cover, matrix and even pressing variations (take a look at the Moodies 'Days Of Future Passed' for example, you'll be blown away). I certainly have discovered many variations and import pressings of some of my favorites that I never knew existed. The only thing I wish would be added would be some kind of indication of best sounding vinyl or cd pressing of a given title from a consensus of users and contributors but that would be highly subjective and not definitive. There are other on-line discographies like 45cat that are also very good but I think discogs is the best overall, attempting to catalog every known record and cd that exists. And since it's the world's biggest record store, with branches in almost every country, I'm hopelessly addicted and check it out almost every day. Oh yeah, they also list bootlegs as well but are only available (for viewing, not for purchasing) via search engine and not directly accessible (AFAIK)
     
  4. eddiel

    eddiel Senior Member

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Where do you think Discogs information comes from? Other sources. It's basically a summary of many sources of information.

    I use it as a main source but not my only source.
     
  5. eddiel

    eddiel Senior Member

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I think it would be useful to have something like iTunes Artist/Album Artist tag. You search for Red Garland and you get a listing for his entire discography, but you the detail based on band name is still there. I often find myself trying to search different variations. It can be annoying.
     
  6. eddiel

    eddiel Senior Member

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    It's the display, which, is a mess. Since I am not a Counting Crows fan it's one less mess that I need to see :)

    It's needs a major update on how the site displays information but I doubt that will ever happen. The database info is there but I expect it requires a huge amount of resources to redo it ie money. So it's likely going to stay as is.

    They seem to be concentrating on market place changes more than anything, though that is moving at a glacial pace and despite months of warning of different sales tax rules being implemented around the world, manage to miss deadlines by several months.

    Overall though, having Discogs, is as is, is better than not having it at all.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2021
  7. eddiel

    eddiel Senior Member

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Never understood that rule. Must be some weird hold over from the old days.

    If it specifically said country of manufacturing/pressing and also country of release, it would make more sense to have that rule. But really, the country should be where it was released and not pressed. So either show both or show only one, which should be where it was released. It's how the entire world looks at releases IMO.

    But I notice a lot of the time people put where it was released anyway and no one questions it because it goes unnoticed and when it is noticed, no one can be arsed to try and get it fixed.

    But for something that is essentially free to use, I'll live with it. Until the owners decide to commit major resources to redesigning it, not much anyone can do about it and since that won't actually ever happen, we work with what we have.
     
  8. radiophonic

    radiophonic Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    Discogs interface is in dire need of an overhaul. Very messy and the search functionality isn't great. It's mostly just a victim of its own success though. It's a really useful resource but as others have mentioned, riddled with omissions and errors. I think it's pretty good for modern releases but for archival stuff, there are so many 'Unknown' pressing dates listed and local pressing plant variants, overruns and overlaps between sleeve and pressing variants that it's often quite confusing as a buying guide. And that's before you get to the grading issues (which is not their fault to be fair).
     
  9. hammondjake

    hammondjake Forum Resident

    I need to attach a shelf to my wall. What is the definitive screwdriver that will enable me to successfully complete this task?
     
    ARK likes this.
  10. inaptitude

    inaptitude Forum Resident

    I’m reading a lot of complaints here about discogs that seem to be based on a misunderstanding about just what it is. For example, it’s not a discography website where you can have a simple list of albums clearly sorted by release date. It’s also not a site for HD images.

    The site is solely for buying, selling and valuing music. That’s why the site focuses on the minutia of pressing plants, minor variations and those tiny details that separate one pressing from another. It’s about differentiating release based on the tiniest detail so as to allow the user to find the exact pressing they have and to see what it is worth, with the sole intention of pushing the user to then sell the item so the website makes money. And because of this, the guiding reason for people to keep the website honest is money. Which, let’s be honest, can be a much better reason than altruism (aka Wikipedia).

    So for me the website is absolutely brilliant. I have my entire vinyl collection cataloged down to the etching in the run off groove. I have a pretty accurate estimate as to its worth and I’m easily able to fill in gaps by using its wantlist option.

    But yeah, if I’m looking to get a simple discography list I’ll go to fan webpages, all music or pull out a dusty old book.
     
    shaboo, goodiesguy, ARK and 7 others like this.
  11. Carl Swanson

    Carl Swanson Senior Member

    May take more than one . . .

    [​IMG]
     
    ARK and Chazzbo13 like this.
  12. Peter Mork

    Peter Mork Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston
    Anyone remember Phonolog?

    It was a loose-leaf reference guide to recorded music (or anything else that existed on record) - releases in all formats, data provided by the labels that released it. You'd find it in all the better record stores, and were welcome to flip through it to see what existed - "Oh look, there's a Reel-to-reel version of Nilsson Schmilsson, guess I'll order it". Updates were mailed to subscribers, as packets of pages - you'd remove the outdated pages and replace them. It was huge!
    [​IMG]
    Sadly went out of business long ago. Anyway, it could never have kept up with all the one-shot independent labels, and forget online distribution. But at least the information was official. Mistakes could happen, where do they not? But Discogs is a jungle of foulups. The problem is it rewards users who are more interested in high post counts, has lots of stumbling blocks that confuse infrequent posters. Do I sound like a discouraged occasional contributer? Indeed. (Probably not one anymore, since I got put in purgatory for reasons I don't understand and can't correct, or even address. God help you if you ask a question over there!)
     
  13. Chazzbo13

    Chazzbo13 Forum Resident

    Yup - took something like 6 weeks for the product to get to the record store...
     
  14. Peter Mork

    Peter Mork Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boston
    Yes it did. Instant gratification was not something that existed if you were interested in product that was older or obscure, thus not in the bins for you to grab. But somehow we survived.
     
    Greenalishi and sharedon like this.
  15. Vaughan

    Vaughan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    Discogs is accurate, up to date, and easy to access.

    But man, nothing beats trawling through those huge books for information. I loved my Jazz guides.
     
  16. Beatlened

    Beatlened Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    Discogs is great but I do have issues with the addition of electronic files to the database whether Flac mp3 or any other kind of file.

    They aren't a physical product and can't be sold or exchanged.
     
    goodiesguy, Dubmart and Atmospheric like this.
  17. April Snow

    April Snow Forum Resident

    I don't mind Discogs - it is not perfect but I use the site almost daily. I find it most valuable for reading LP reviews on pressings and flaws etc so I can select which pressing I may like to order.
    I also find that if I click on the image it is quite big and able to save the pic if I need to for some reason (mac user) - no issues with that really and seriously if you need a HQ image you can google it anyway.

    I also like to purchase on Discogs - not had any issues either...................it is my first place of reference - but not the be all end all.........
     
    shaboo likes this.
  18. citizensmurf

    citizensmurf Ambient postpunk will never die

    Location:
    Calgary
    I loved pouring over discographies when the internet was in its infancy. So much information not otherwise available to someone who wasn't an expert on some of the lessees know artists.

    I use Discogs all the time, but as a Discography of an artist, I tend to look at other resources on the net. The main problem with Discogs is stated above, not all albums are listed together if they happen to have been released as a band name variant that isn't accepted as such.

    Its slowly getting better, but for a while there, trying to look up the Sun Ra was about 100 different artist entries.

    The silliest thing about Discogs is their insistence or listing the artists real name under their groups, even if they have only ever used the stage name.

    Ringo Start in the Beatles? Sorry, it's Richard Starkey.
    Black Francis in Pixies? Guess again, it's Charles Michael Thompson.
     
    Greenalishi and uzn007 like this.
  19. uzn007

    uzn007 Pack Rat

    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C.
    LOL pull the other one.
     
    Dubmart likes this.
  20. uzn007

    uzn007 Pack Rat

    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C.
    What's weird is that on Discogs, you can catalog:
    * Officially-released physical media.
    * Bootleg/unofficial physical media
    * Officially-released downloads

    But you can't catalog bootleg downloads. That right there shows a distinction between physical product and virtual product that makes them more suitable to be tracked in separate databases.
     
    Beatlened likes this.
  21. Vaughan

    Vaughan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Essex, UK
    My experience is that it's pretty good. Are there mistakes? Sure. Ultimately it's a site relying on users to add detail, but it does a good job, imo. No doubt there are mistakes, but for the most part, it's good. Certainly good enough.

    I can't speak for Disogs, but I can see some logic here. Many unofficial or bootlegged physical media are copies of official releases, so having them listed is a good service, especially if you're not sure of what you've got. Bootleg Downloads on the other hand is a bottomless pit of material thrown together by anyone who fancies "releasing" something.
     
    shaboo likes this.
  22. ARK

    ARK Forum Miscreant

    Location:
    Charlton, MA, USA
    Didn't it though?
     
    rod likes this.
  23. Carl Swanson

    Carl Swanson Senior Member

    No. What a silly question.
     
  24. WHMusical

    WHMusical Chameleon Comedian Corinthian & Caricature

  25. ARK

    ARK Forum Miscreant

    Location:
    Charlton, MA, USA
    So you continue to use a traditional encyclopedia then? I’m just a sample of one, but I don’t know anybody who’s used one in decades.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine