Multiple barcodes?

why not duplicate the same release with different barcode?

Agreed about the boxsets, although I'd put the disc barcodes on the annotation rather than ignore them ;)

Example of second barcode added for later re-issue in the US (maybe clearing out old stock?)
Example of second barcode added for roughly concurrent release in the US.[/url]

In each case I treated them as two "releases" even thought the media are physically identical. I tend to think of a distinct barcode as being a defining characteristic of a "release". I know there are cases where two (or more) physically distinct media share the same barcode, but haven't figured out how to fit that fact into my tiny worldview.

As for PhantomOTO's examples, my guess is that for the Black Mark one they could have just been "lazy" and left the US UPC on the release for both locations; when in fact they are really releases for different countries. One could also look at it being economical :D

For the Psychedelic Africa example - well, an ISBN is an ISBN, I guess that one's a valid example.

The wider problem is that if we kept modifying every single part of a release so you can have "multiple" of everything we end up an even vaguer definition of what a release is; and an extremely complicated Release <-> many barcodes <-> many countries  <-> many catalog/labels combinations <-> many dates. It starts to get ridiculous IMO, and what you actually end up with was the release event mess we had pre-NGS; which IMO was a lot worse.

I'm not sure what Black Mark's deal is. They're the only label I know of that frequently includes two different bar codes on one physical release. On a few albums I have, they even note that the EAN is for the European market and the UPC is for the U.S. I assume it's a cost saving measure from when they were doing their own distribution in America. In the early '90s they sometimes had small quantities pressed by an North American distributor, which were virtually identical to the European releases (including the same barcode) except for the addition of a logo and "Made in Canada" note. Towards the mid '90s you see two barcodes on most releases, which continues today (though I do have a couple more recent reissues of theirs with just one barcode). It's goofy.

Psychedelic Africa's second barcode is definitely an ISBN. It's explicitly identified as such. It didn't come with a book, so I assume it's for the liner notes.

I think allowing for multiple barcodes (and clearly explaining when it's appropriate to add them, i.e. not for barcode stickers applied over printed barcodes, not just a reprint with a new barcode, but only if there are multiple barcodes printed directly on one physical release) would actually clear up releases because it would enable the merging of legacy releases for which both barcodes were added, producing two NGS releases for one physical release. See this example, which is one physical release duplicated because of multiple barcodes thanks to Black Mark's weirdness: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/89 … 2025f3123a

I think it would make things look cleaner overall and help limit future duplications.

I guess this is where I differ in conclusion. :) I feel that this particular case is probably obscure enough to deal with a /small/ amount of "duplicates" for sake of keeping the release editor simpler. But that's me.

Well, yes, they're both cost saving measures, but that wasn't meant to distinguish Black Mark's practices from barcode stickers.

A barcode sticker to me seems like a replacement/substitution for the printed barcode (and they're usually applied over the original), something that invalidates the original and, in my estimation, would constitute a valid separate release. I think using the multiple barcodes option for sticker codes would cause confusion between original and regional releases. I know personally I've removed or lost plenty of barcode stickers, as well. You can't lose a printed second barcode without losing a portion of the package.

Then there are chains like FYE, which prints in-house barcodes for used (and maybe new?) merchandise, but I think those are irrelevant to this discussion.

My opinion is to use the one closest to the outside, being that is the one being scanned by the scanners when you purchase it.