Calvin Walton-2 wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote:
On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like
[none]
to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that
and
I don't
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Calvin Walton-2 wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote:
On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like
[none]
to show
2011/6/6, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Calvin Walton-2 wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote:
On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I was wondering if it
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I note that I've edited at least
five
releases (usually small, independent) that had no printed barcode, but
one
attributed to them online somewhere (Amazon, other retailer or label).
Yeah; in a some of these cases the barcode allocated this way seems to
swisschris wrote:
+1
having [none] as an option would make even more sense IMHO for the barcode
field: lots of early or auto-produced or small label releases come without
and this would spare us the time to search/ask for one where there isn't
;-)
2011/6/1 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote:
On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none]
to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and
I don't know if this has a cat#. Any
On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none]
to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and
I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter?
Are there examples of a Release
All of the Daytrotter Session releases use Daytrotter.com as the label
but have no cat#.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM, caller#6
meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM, caller#6
meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none]
to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and
I don't know
+1
having [none] as an option would make even more sense IMHO for the barcode
field: lots of early or auto-produced or small label releases come without
and this would spare us the time to search/ask for one where there isn't ;-)
2011/6/1 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com
On Wed,
I have numerous examples of small indie labels w/ no cat# (no UPC
either, especially for anything prior to 1980 or so).
+1
Rob..
On 6/1/2011 1:00 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none]
to show the difference
11 matches
Mail list logo