mjb wrote:

Continuing the discussion that began in the Bad Updates thread (now locked)...

Right now, MuzikJunky is on a controversial mission to reassign some London-branded releases from London Records over to the previously nonexistent-in-Discogs London Classics, which he insists is the proper place for London-branded / London Records-issued US releases, even though they don't say London Classics on them. fleshmeatdoll and I have been trying to explain how that's not really acceptable, but he's persisting. I believe he's editing in good faith and may have a case for setting up a London Records (2), but we just need to talk about this and have everyone get a better understanding of what the situation is (and was) with London, London Records 90, London Classics, etc.

Here are some previous threads about London:
* re: The London Gramophone Corporation
* re: London Records of Canada

Here's the Wikipedia article about London:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Records
I wouldn't consider it to be authoritative or complete, but it does have some interesting info.

Here's info about London Records of Canada:
* auto-converted long url

Anyone who can help sort out exactly how many Londons we should have in Discogs and how they should be organized, please chime in.

MuzikJunky wrote:

There should be two Londons. The Decca Record Company Limited was not allowed to use its name in the USA until 1999, when Universal Music was created through the merger of the MCA and PolyGram families of labels, so it used the London name in the USA for classical recordings. It should be noted, however, that the pop titles that Decca released were handed over to other PolyGram subsidiaries in 1990.

The other London Records, now called London Records 90, and with a subsidiary called FFRR Records, is a pop label that was run by Roger Ames. It, too, was part of PolyGram, but it became part of WEA when he was hired to run all of Warner Music. Also, those titles never had the legend “A PolyGram Company” written on them. It should be noted, however, that several titles released under this aegis are still controlled by Universal.

I switched the older London classical titles and the titles with the 0289 UPC prefix originally to London Records (USA), which caused a furor with some users, and got me banned from making edits for a while. When they were returned, I switched them to London Classics. These releases were pressed by Decca for the territory in which the company was not allowed to use its name. They also removed my recently granted voting rights, which have not been returned.

My proposal is to use London Records for the non-Decca pop titles and London Classics or London Records (2) for the repressed Decca titles. As it stands now, it’s still causing controversy.

A definitive history of the London/Decca mess is available in several articles published by Billboard magazine during the time that Roger Ames was hired by WEA and when the Universal merger was announced. If anyone has an online subscription to that magazine, which is very expensive, it provides evidence toward my proposal. Wikipedia isn’t verified, so it can’t be used as evidence.

What do you think? Peace.

nik wrote:

MuzikJunky - can you please give some examples from the database, preferably releases with good scans so we can see all the original info on them.

I am wondering if this is a branding / company issue, that can be solved with proper data entry rather than with creating multiple labels / companies / entities with the same name.

Gecks wrote:

since london records changed their name to london records 90, i presume that requires 2 separate discogs 'labels' (as is the situation now) alone, to ensure users get to enter as per the release in hand.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

the releases i cite in this post have london records in the release notes or images,
auto-converted long url

again, as i said i would think this makes at least for some release a strong case for London Records (2) if i follow muzikjunkys line of arguments.
he can always mention in the record labels profile the relaions to london classics etc.

mjb wrote:

I've got Billboard online archive access (don't ask how), and spent a good 2 hours searching last night for this, using all kinds of terms including London, Decca, London Records, and Roger Ames. I found the Roger Ames articles and a few general ones mainly about Universal Music Classics and related restructuring, but nothing resembling a comprehensive history or anything that helps us here.

mjb wrote:

What follows is the direction I'm leaning. So far it's based mainly on corporation registration searches and what's in Discogs already. I may edit this post as I learn more info. Please comment!

...

Non-North American Decca-branded releases from 1929 to the present: file under Decca, corresponding to the UK corporations Decca Ltd. (1929-present), The Decca Record Company Ltd. (1962-1999), Decca Recordings (Europe) Ltd. (1951-1998), the Dutch company Hollandsche Decca Distributie (HDD) (1929-1950), and possibly other corporations in other non-North American countries. Sometimes called "British Decca" or "Decca UK".

North American Decca-branded releases from 1934 to 1942: file under Decca, corresponding to the US corporation Decca Records Inc. (1934-1962) because at that time, it was just the US branch of the UK corporation Decca Ltd. (1929-present).

North American Decca-branded releases from 1943 to 1973: file under Decca (2), corresponding to the US corporations Decca Records Inc. (1934-1962) and MCA Inc. / MCA Records Inc. (1962-1973, although it wasn't until about 1966 that MCA started being explicitly mentioned on releases). Decca (2) excludes 1934-1942 releases because 1943 is when Decca Records Inc. was fully separated from the UK home office.

There shouldn't be any MCA-associated, North American Decca-branded releases from 1974 through 1998, but if there are, they should be filed under Decca (2). Examples include some 1989 Double Decker/Decca-branded reissues on MCA Classics, like Negro Folk Symphony and Serenade No. 1 In D Major, Op. 11.

Any Decca-branded releases, regardless of territory, from 1999 to the present: file under Decca, corresponding to the UK corporation Decca Music Group Ltd. (1999-present), which is part of Universal Music Group.

North American London-branded releases from 1947 through 1998: file under London Records (2). More research is needed for the relationship to companies. One thing is fairly certain: London Records Inc. was a PolyGram-owned company from 1980-1998, and PolyGram was merged into Universal Music Group in 1999.

North American London-branded releases from 1999 to present, and any non-North American London-branded releases: file under London Records, corresponding to the UK companies London Records Ltd. (1930-1991), Hammersmith Records Ltd. (1991-2004), London Recordings Ltd. (2004-present). Distributed by WEA 1999-present(?).

Non-North American London-branded releases: file under London Records, corresponding to the UK companies London Records Ltd. (1930-1991), Hammersmith Records Ltd. (1991-2004), London Recordings Ltd. (2004-present)

London Records 90: London Records 90 Ltd. (1990-present). I'm still unclear on how this label manifests in different territories in different eras (1990-1998 may be different than 1999-present). What branding do/did they use?

Non-North American FFRR-branded releases from 1985 to present: file under FFRR, corresponding to FFRR Records Ltd. (1986-present).

North American FFRR-branded releases from ? to present: file under FFRR (US) (which supposedly has some association with London Records 90, but that's not evident in the release scans I looked at)... this possibly needs to be rethought. Also note that FFRR was a hi-fi technology trademark that appeared on London and Decca-branded releases prior to the advent of FFRR as a label by Pete Tong c. 1985.

Argo-branded releases not related to Chicago jazz: file under Argo Records (2), corresponding to the UK company Argo Record Company Ltd. (1951-2004). This company was owned by Decca Ltd. from 1957 on.

And all of these need further investigation/scrutiny: Disques Decca, Decca Ovation, Decca Records, Decca Record Co Ltd., London Classics, London Globe Records, MCA / London, London Disques, London American Recordings, London Records (Argentina), London Records Of Canada, The London Gramophone Corporation, London Records K.K., Ducretet-Thomson Records (London), FFRR Records Ltd., FFRR Italia, FFRR (US), Payday/ffrr, Power Music Trax / FFRR ...

Regarding London Gramophone, I'm having trouble locating much info about this name. It's not clear when it was used as a brand, itself, and when it was just the name of a company using the London brand. Some info so far:

In the UK, Monogram Records Ltd. (1998-2003) was renamed London Gramophone Ltd. (2003-2007). In Canada, London Gramophone Corp. of Canada (1948-1967) was renamed London Records of Canada (1967-1980). From 1948-1954 it was the Canadian subsidiary of London Gramophone Corp. (USA), and from 1954-1980 it was the Canadian subsidiary of Decca Record Co. Ltd. (UK). From 1980-1998, PolyGram controlled the London brand in all its territories (pretty much worldwide, AFAIK), and from 1999 on, Universal Music Group, of course.

marcelrecords wrote:

Awesome, thanks!
We still need to rethink local branches strategy on Discogs. Why is there a London Records (Argentina), but no London Records (Brazil). Same could be said of every label (Island, A&M, HMV, you name it) that has some local branches accepted, while others are bunched together on the main label. Other labels, again, have no such local pages, although they are needed (Vertigo). How do we ever sort out this mess?

TomKay wrote:

Nice to see that the sort of work is afoot to resolve the kind of issues with London Records that I helped sort out with Colmbia/EMI Columbia. In regards to the countried, I've said this about 100 teimes now and I don't think anyone's interested, but the easiest way to sort out the local branches issue is for everything to be under the main brand, but sortable/searchable by country.

About London Records 90, I don't believe the branding actually caried from the ordinary London logo, at least at the beginning. London Records 90 was given as the copyright/production credit on these releases but the logo stated only London Records. The P & C was also credited to this label on some FFRR (US), and probably FFRR releases.

asylum27 wrote:

Just a point, as per the profile on London, Roger Ames had a fair bit to do with London. My understanding is that in the collapse of Decca (UK) he acquired the London brand...and it was under his control that it was revived with FFRR as a subsidiary. However Decca, now Universal own still the logos and branding (but not the imprints..the misuse of these terms has caused much confusion on Discogs) which they license to London / FFRR. When Ames moved to WMG he took his labels. He has since sold them to WMG who now own the London catalogue post 1983 or so. This includes much of the old Factory catalogue which Ames pursued in 1990 or so (hence London 90)..it was documented with some humour in 24hr Party People.

If he hadn't sold it, I guess it would've followed Ames to the EMI Group where he now is.

nik wrote:

Some great information here mjb. The most interesting part of it for me is the defining of the brand usage, for example between Decca and Decca (2). This aspect is the part that will cause the most confusion unless it is clearly researched and stated. I am still wondering if this brand is valid for being split here - IOW, is the brand name 'Decca' being split to represent the information 'Decca Ltd.' and 'Decca Records Inc.'? Is / was the brandname recognized as a totally separate entity in the USA during your stated period, or was it licensed for use or?? Wouldn't cataloging these releases all under one 'Decca' brand, with additional company information added as another label for the moment (for example 'Decca Ltd.' and 'Decca Records Inc.') be technically more correct?




There shouldn't be a local branches strategy. We should only transcribe what is written on the release, taking into account name variations and same name / different entity issues, basically in the same way as artists. Labels should not be split into false entities. The deeper company structure behind major labels should be entered to properly describe these releases. Different methods of viewing the data (for example, by country, or by subset of two or more entities) should be created so we can view things in a useful way.

BigTone wrote:

There is other Label information on a release which is relevant. Many labels/releases have key issue and marketplace differentiators based on label style. Motown/Tamla ("stripes", "globes" and "box") and Atlantic (Plum, Blue, Green) come to mind, and there are all sorts of others (Vertigo, RCA.... Virtually every sizeable label has many releases which were issued with different label designs in the same territory).

In all cases, this sort of "label design" information is just as important as what is WRITTEN on the Release, and often more so. In a perfect world, everyone would upload label images of every vinyl release they submit, but not many actually do.

No label image or style description = you don't know which version the submission is based on, and don't know whether you have a different release or not. (No information to validate things like Release dates, Reissue/Original, etc. either).

Have to agree with TomKay and nik though, It's probably better if "local branches" structure is the very much the exception rather than the rule...

mjb wrote:

No, at least for 1934-1998 material, Decca and Decca (2) are meant to represent the separate but identically-named brands and the separate catalogs & artist rosters managed by those different companies.

It's not quite so clear cut for post-1998, though, where yeah, choosing Decca was probably more of a decision based on how the corporations were restructured under Universal. I think just as much of a case could be made for filing under Decca (2).

See, I'm only adding some details for clarity & maybe some justification of other people's work, here, and providing a starting point for cleanup. This is mainly in an attempt to sort out, based on precedent, how London should be dealt with. I'm not really saying that this is an ideal system.




I don't know about "correctness", as we haven't established universal standards by which to measure that.

The definition of a brand, beyond its visual (as in a logo) and nominative (name) components, is an association between products and concepts (like a music catalog embodying certain qualities and philosophies) in the mind of the consumer. There's evidence that during the time that the two main Decca companies were independent (1943-1998), it was their intent to keep these psychological brands separate: the logos did use the same name and have a common ancestor, but were visually distinct and regionally isolated, to the point that Decca UK always used "London" in North America and Decca US always licensed its material to be marketed under non-Decca brands (perhaps including Decca UK's "London"?) outside North America.

So I am leaning toward maintaining a Decca and a Decca (2).

But I'm still kind of confused about London.

marcelrecords wrote:

I agree completely, but there IS one. Saying that there shouldn't be, doesn't solve anything. Unfortunately (as stated before) the creation of local pages has been inconsistently scattered over some labels, while others have been spared. If there should be no local branches strategy, then why not move over the releases that are on such a ''false entity'' to the main page?
It seems a bit silly to have the following text (bold) in the RCA label profile:
''Note: this label contains releases from multinational markets. Do NOT create imprints for different countries.''
when immediately below there is a big bunch of just these.



Of course, these are different labels with the same name, which you have concisely shown above.



A big yes to this too, but this seems a different topic to me.

TomKay wrote:

Well those should be edited to fit into the main RCA label. Happy to start work on that if you want. That said I, personally, am not completely against the local branches strategy, that is, until there's an opportunity to view country at a glance through another mechanism. Then again, I think this rule is confused in itself. Check out all the Aqua releases from different markets on Universal Music (Denmark)...

nik wrote:

I appreciate that mjb. I am questioning things to see if it is the best path to choose to take things forward.




Ok, my standard would be a) represents what is printed on the release, b) represents real history, and c) the simplest method that addresses a and b.




I think what I have highlighted above is the root of the issue. Ok, first up, I believe trademarks (brands) are, in general, and from a legal standing, regional. So it is entirely possible to have two or more entirely separate labels or companies with the same name in different parts of the world. This obviously is not an issue, we want to keep these separate.

For this case, as is the fractal and convoluted manner of record labels and companies, it may well be that the brand was a legally separate one for the time period you have outlined for Decca (2), OR it may be that it was legally still one brand, operated by two separate companies on different sides of the pond. As much as I think we need to avoid having to pick through legal issues, I think that would be the deciding factor in this case for me. It seems to me that this is probably the case, given that the respective companies released under different brands when in the others territory.

Still, I am hoping that examples such as this are not very common, and that we can rely more on cataloging two or more entities per release (label / brand / company) as a solution to the major label problem, as opposed to having the submitter have to work through logic (IF date of release = xyz AND company = abc, THEN file under def).




Label design has been brought up before. I don't think there are many examples of such a method on Discogs at the moment, is there? I am also not sure of the benefits of such a division, although I can understand the benefits of capturing such information in a secondary role, I still feel the primary branding should be cataloged all on the same page.





There was a strategy of creating false labels in the past, yes. We have a pile of things to solve and do to rectify this situation, indeed. It will probably take years to do. We do need to get organized and start with a solid methodology to get through it.

MuzikJunky wrote:

I don't agree with a flat as-on-the-release strategy because album artwork is often notorious for typos in all areas. In this case, I think that industry parlance would work best. It was called London Classics in the old PolyGram catalogs before the Universal merger, and that nomenclature seems to work best for distinguishing London-branded Decca releases. Peace.

nik wrote:

----------------




How does hearsay improve the situation?




How are submitters on all four corners of the globe supposed to know 'industry parlance'? They have the physical release in front of them, they should be expected to enter what is on it, no more, no less. If there is any detective work to be done, we can do that after the raw information is entered.

If there is a case for making a London Records (2) label, we need to see examples with label scans please.

BigTone wrote:

There aren't many examples, probably because hardly anyone bothers to upload label images of their vinyl (so nobody can tell whether their version is different or not !!!), and just assumes what they've got is "in the database". It then becomes incumbent upon sellers to deal with this sort of stuff outside the database (assuming they know there's "versions" out there).

From your statements in the past I believe it is the intention to better cater for collectors in Discogs. This sort of stuff is a definite plus in that regard, certainly for any release that is vaguely "collectable".

It is crucial for submitters to be able to see whether or not their version is different to existing database entries - then deal with the variation appropriately so that info on different variations & pressings of releases can gradually build up.

Examples from my own subs :-
http://www.discogs.com/release/606002
http://www.discogs.com/release/1392788

http://www.discogs.com/release/1406905
http://www.discogs.com/release/1406911

and, slightly different but same principle :-
http://www.discogs.com/release/874200
http://www.discogs.com/release/1406784

Variations were widespread in the real world of the 60's, 70's & 80's. Of course, many of them are not currently significant, but many are (or may become so in future years). Who knows, Discogs may turn up some that were previously unknown if the process is in place (starts with LABEL IMAGES).

You don't have to handle this by having separate "fake sublabels" for each variation - that's probably not the way to do it at all. Existing guidelines for entering variations of releases should suffice (possibly with the odd tweak) - but I guess it all goes back to label images in the final analysis.

TomKay wrote:

Something useful, although I guess it's not really related to this issue, would be an LNV (Label Name Variation) option. For example, i'm pretty sure London Records 90 is just an alternate name for the UK-based London Records, and some Carrere releases, especially those from english speaking countries are labelled Carrere Records. God knows this would help manage and group the EMI debacle...