Don Satz wrote:

>Dave Lampson writes:
>
>>[For those wishing to find this release, the Archiv catalog number is
>>474508-2]
>
>Dave is correct in that the Deutsche Grammophon website uses this number,
>and the number is the same for scanning purposes on the back of the cd
>case.
>
>In my review, I cited the number B0002998-2 that is twice on the spine
>of the cd case and the only number on the cd itself.

I honestly don't know what's going on with them.  I wish I did.  Since
the early 80s (I'm a little unclear on the exact timing on this), Philips
used a standard catalog numbering format: 1 "4" followed by five more
digits with a dash followed by the media identifier (i.e., 4xxxxxx-x).
The media identifiers were nicely standardized in the 80s, tough I can't
seem to find a definitive listing of what all of them mean, and have
been loosely followed by several labels (ex., 1=LP, 2=CD, 4=cassette,
9=DVD-A).  Philips, and then later all the Polygram labels (DG, London/Decca,
Argo, Mercury, L'Oiseau-Lyre, Archiv, etc.) followed this format
consistently.  Now that Universal owns these labels, we're seeing this
new "B" number creep in.  It's not like they have abandoned the old
catalog number format, as Don mentions, so all I can see is that this
must be something else.  The B number is too short to be an ISBN (those
are 10 digits/letters) or an Amazon system ID number (ASIN, also 10
digits/letters, and for the Wilms it's B00016OYNW).

Whatever the reason, it plays havoc with people who maintain databases
(like myself) or otherwise make use of the consistency of catalog numbers
to organize data.  For instance, I noticed years ago that most any release
from any label could be uniquely identified by just five digits and a
label code.  I've set up Classical Net along these lines using a file
naming system for thousands of CDs that has worked wonderfully for nearly
a decade now.  For instance, a review of Antal Dorati's performances of
Brahms symphonies (Mercury Living Presence catalog 434380-2) at the site
has the file name mrc34380a.html (with the "a" designating the first
review of this set - we have as many as three reviews of some CDs).  This
works well for any label, and after cataloging, etc.  thousands of CDs,
I've never had a problem with uniqueness.

That is, until this last month.  As discussed on the list, Mercury has
released their first batch of Living Presence recordings on SACD. Now what
they should have done (in my carefully considered and highly informed
opinion, of course) is to use the previous catalog number assigned to the
CD release and simply vary the media identifier part of the catalog
number.  So, for instance, for the Chabrier orchestral works CD by the
Detroit Symphony and Paul Paray the CD catalog number is 434303-2.  So,
the SACD version perhaps could have been released with a catalog number
of 434303-12, or whatever they decided the appropriate media identifier
should be after the dash.  But, no, they went with 475618-3 (I believe
the -3 means DAT under the old system, though I'm not sure).  This
wouldn't be a disaster, except for the fact that they have released the
SACD of Sousa's music ("Sound Off!" & "Sousa on Review") with the catalog
number 475618-2.  This matches the Chabrier release, except for the -2
part, which of course used to mean plain ol' CD.  Chaos ensues.:-)

>I also noticed that ArchivMusic and H & B recordings uses the (BO) number
>as well.

It's hard to tell whether this is intentional or just the result of
sloppiness.  H&B doesn't have a database, really, so I don't use them
for much.  But ArkivMusic has built a great hierarchical database, with
most of the catalog numbers following a similar basic scheme of just
using the most important 5 (or 6) digits.  For instance, the EMI catalog
number for Schumann's string quartets by the St.  Lawrence Quartet looks
like this: CDC556797-2.  But, really, the only important part of this
catalog number is the five digits just before the dash: 56797.  Sure
enough, ArkivMusic uses this in their page:

http://www.qksrv.net/click-1543315-10274126?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arkivmusic.com%2Fclassical%2Falbum.jsp%3Falbum_id%3D12165

But the more I've investigated their database, the more inconsistency
I've seen.  I attribute this to them having many different people doing
data input.  For what it's worth, the most consistent and useful classical
music database I've found on the Internet is Amazon UK.  They most often
list the catalog number correctly, and have complete disc details.  Amazon
Germany actually beats them on disc details sometimes, and has as good
or better cover images, but they don't list catalog numbers at all
(neither does Amazon France).

Here's a tip for Amazon users.  Amazon's IDs are nearly universal for
CDs across the six systems (US, UK, Germany, France, Japan & Canada).
For example, the ASIN for this Wilms disc is B00016OYNW, so if you find
the disc at Amazon UK:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00016OYNW/classicalnet-21/

The equivalent page at any other Amazon site can be found by just changing
slightly the domain in the address line of your browser:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00016OYNW/classicalnetA/
    http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00016OYNW/classicalne09-21/
    http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00016OYNW/classicalnet-20/
    http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00016OYNW/classicalne0a-21/
    http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00016OYNW/classicalnet-22/

(The codes at the very end of the addresses listed are not required, but
necessary if Classical Net is to earn a small commission on any sales
that result from the link.)

>This brings up a question I have.  Does anyone know why 2 separate numbers
>are being employed?  I'm assuming at this point that it has something
>to do with national markets, but that's just a hunch.

Perhaps that's true, but DG has been an international label for
decades.  Why are they having this problem only now?

Dave
http://www.classical.net/