Bar Codes - What is the issue?

I know that the barcoding of Lp's started sometime in the early '80's. Aside from it screwing up the art work, what is the real issue? Is it the vinyl itself? Should these pressings be avoided? I'd hate to pass up a cheap copy of an LP simply because it has a bar code unless there is an underlying reason to do so.
Any thoughts? Thx

 

They are ugly, ruin album/cd art and mean that clerks don't have to memorize catalog numbers anymore. beep, beep beep

 

Not sure what you are calling an "issue" and according to whom?

What comes to my mind is that in some cases, with some LP's (and older CD's too) you can identify the earlier pressings of a given title by lack of a barcode.

 

An easy way to tell which Beatles vinyl to generally avoid.

 

People go out of their way to let you know the lp they are selling does not have a bar code. Is there a problem with the vinyl? I'm curious

 

Regarding the Beatles, it tells you that it's not a 1987.

 

My 1979 Joan Armatrading vinyl EP of How Cruel (A&M SP 3302) has a bar code:

It's to demonstrate they have an earlier release.

 

It's only useful when identifying later issues of LP's released prior to 1980. I have a Physical Graffiti album with a bar code, which tells me it wasn't made in 1975. Regarding anything released after the introduction of bar codes, it's meaningless.

 

I think it's true to say the date on the LP only tells you in what year the title originally appeared. It gives you no clue to the year your particular copy was pressed.

 

You're only focusing on one element. Yes, the [char]#0169[/char] date by itself doesn't reveal the actual pressing date, but there are additional factors:

1)...This recording has been in my possession since before it was released to the public.

2)...The promo stamp is a good indication of an early pressing.

3)...There were never any US copies of this title made without bar codes. Your reasoning would only work in cases where the title was issued with and without bar codes.

 

It's because the majority of records that are collectable were made before barcodes showed up, bar codes are reissues in a lot of cases.

Before anyone freaks out
1. Yes Some reissues sound better
2. Yes I know there are some great records made from the Early 80s-Present, and many of them are collectable too.

C

 

Fair enough - I have at least one promo which is a reissue but your other points seem conclusive. A&M must have been an early adopter.

 

The same issue as big ugly "parental Advisories"

 

They at least were around in 1980 - I seem to recall hearing the story that Graham Nash actually left Columbia Records over his upset at the barcode they had put on the cover of Earth & Sky.

 

Yes, in this clipping from the October 4, 1980 issue of Billboard, A&M is listed as one of the labels already using bar codes for all its new releases. It's a good snapshot in time of where the various record companies were at this particular moment...

Well, assuming the business decided to use the technology at all. We never did. People often thought it odd that a wholesale record distributor with a warehouse chocked full of recordings from every label didn't rely on bar code scanning for inventory control, even in the 21st century.

But you inadvertently brought up a related issue...bar codes that don't show valid catalog numbers. This was a constant source of irritation for us, and quickly lead to a rule we always followed: "Never look at the bar code to determine a recording's stock number...NEVER!"

The 3 main parts of a bar code on most US recording are...Vendor code/Title ID #/Configuration code. In many cases, the Title ID # and the valid stock # are the same...however there are so many cases where they are different, that we just completely ignored all bar codes. Here's an example where the ID # and the valid stock # are the same. If they were all like this, it would have been so much better...



In the above case (No Doubt's Tragic Kingdom), the title ID # from the bar code could be used in ordering this item from UNI. No problem. Even when requesting an R/A, the # itself was correct, although without the inclusion of the prefix (INTD) no R/A would be issued. That's a minor point compared to the next example, with a completely different title ID number from its valid stock number:



In the above case (Led Zeppelin pre-remastering), the title ID number from the bar code would be useless in ordering or returning this item. Either way, WEA would reply with "NSN" (no such number). By the way, the remastered issues of Zeppelin's catalog had matching ID & stock #'s.

There are many more examples of non-matching ID & stock #'s. Here are just a few...

Valid stock #...Bar code (with title ID # in bold):

Jackson Browne...The Pretender...Asylum 6E 107-2...7559-60513-2

Dread Zeppelin...Un-led-Ed...IRS IRSD-82048...4479-72048-2

Little Feat...Waiting for Columbus...Warner Bros 3140-2...7599-27344-2

Frank Zappa...Strictly Commercial...Ryko RCD 40500...1443-10500-2

Petty/Heartbreakers...You're Gonna Get it...MCA MCAD-31171...7673-11171-2

Maybe a better way to illustrate my point is to post a scan from WEA's Summer 1997 catalog. This shows the nine Eagles titles in print at the time. Eight of them have non-matching #'s. Only Greatest Hits Vol II has matching selection and ID #'s...

 

No tengo leche

 

I think Dave Davies of the Kinks had the right idea with his debut solo album in 1980.

 

Bar codes, otherwise known as the UPC, or Universal Product Code, is used for inventory purposes.

 

That is used to make the "moralistic" control freaks in our society happy.

 

What he said...

You'll thank me later...

http://www.upcdatabase.com

 

Agreed-

it is a way to get around catalog #'s. Around 1990, when SoundScan came on-board it became a way of tracking sales figures.

 

I was always curious as to why some labels also bar-coded 45s (like Columbia, Epic, etc.) and others didn't (like Arista, Capitol).