Author Topic: Standard Catalog Numbers  (Read 303 times)

AbeFroman

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • Minas Tirith
Standard Catalog Numbers
« on: January 14, 2020, 05:53:56 AM »
I'm finishing up a project, and I'm trying to document the library tracks used.  The whole point is to hopefully allow others to get interested in library music as I am.

The problem comes with deciding how to label the source album.  I would like to use THE catalog number.

example:
KPM 1248 - Synthesis 2 - Andy Clark

apmmusic.com - If you search for "KPM 1248" or even "1248", you get nothing.  You need to search for "KPMK 1248".

music.copyright.com - In this example, the site is "powered by APM", but the track descriptions reference using the "KPMLP" format.  So, if you search for the number in the description, you won't find it - thanks APM! 

emipm.com - Searching for "KPM 1248" gets you nothing, although "1248" by itself gets you there.  The 'official' catalog number is "KPMLP 1248".

librarymusicthemes.net - Of course, none of the previous examples mention the fact that there is an entirely different and "real" KPM LP series.

amazon.com - And Amazon just calls it "KPM 1000 LP Series" and doesn't even let you search by any form of "1248" - you need to type "synthesis".

I have already decided to just do what I think is best and stick to the basics ("KPM 1248"), but is there any guidance on what is the best catalog number or identifier to use?  I just want people to be able to find these tracks/albums.  I know Google and YouTube are usually great on finding stuff, but buying it in one form or another is tougher.

Is dealing with the chaos just part of getting into library music?

Mr

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
Re: Standard Catalog Numbers
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2020, 08:44:49 AM »
I may be a bit biased here, but I go by the catalogue number on the original releases, which is what the labels themselves used at the time.
It's all about application, though. I'm sure KPM's main series (CD, digital) is much more relevant to the average customer than the LP digitizations, so it makes sense to catalogue these digitally with "LP", indicating 'vintage'. The cat.#s of the original 60's and 70's releases aren't of much importance to their current main segment of customers.

In my personal notes, I tend to use, for instance:
KPM 1248-B2
("Progress")

I think "chaos" is an exaggeration - it could be so much worse! :)

Retronic

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1409
Re: Standard Catalog Numbers
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2020, 09:14:32 AM »
I agree the original release is best. I like to use it as those who originally sourced it did.  Most people would twig to search for track name or composer of the album didnít show.

digdeeper

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: Standard Catalog Numbers
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2020, 09:07:37 PM »
Yes, go with Discogs and the original release. Anything else can't be very definitive either, as there can be yet another online database with people deciding to relabel stuff as they please. That having said, sometimes even data within Discogs has to be taken with a grain of salt. A notorious contender are year indications on library records. As they frequently lack a publication date, it seems some people have started inferring dates by looking at neighbouring releases, often making it worse because the neighbouring release was either guessed or inferred itself. When tagging and naming, I usually omit the year if I cannot be reasonably sure. Only in very evident cases I fill in the year. Not a big fan of adding something along the lines of "197x" either, that itself can be wrong (1969 vs. 1971) and people like us should be able to more or less guess the decade anyway.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 09:09:14 PM by digdeeper »

Mr

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2475
Re: Standard Catalog Numbers
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2020, 10:28:58 PM »
Yes, go with Discogs and the original release. Anything else can't be very definitive either, as there can be yet another online database with people deciding to relabel stuff as they please. That having said, sometimes even data within Discogs has to be taken with a grain of salt. A notorious contender are year indications on library records. As they frequently lack a publication date, it seems some people have started inferring dates by looking at neighbouring releases, often making it worse because the neighbouring release was either guessed or inferred itself. When tagging and naming, I usually omit the year if I cannot be reasonably sure. Only in very evident cases I fill in the year. Not a big fan of adding something along the lines of "197x" either, that itself can be wrong (1969 vs. 1971) and people like us should be able to more or less guess the decade anyway.
Second this, I have found the exact same thing. Pinch of salt, as you say.
This is a part of the reason why I'm very strict with adding dates to the on-site database. It's better to acknowledge that something is unclear or unknown, rather than perpetuating or instigating misinformation.