Myriad wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=368845

Are we now allowed to add distributors to the label field? I didn't think so, and I haven't seen anything about it.

mirva wrote:

During the last 2 months, this has been one of the topics that keeps on popping up.

http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/185009
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/185507
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/179353

I have to be honest and say that I have no idea what the result was in those discussions, and I've read them more than twice.

rassel wrote:

Seconded.
I just list the distributors in the label field if they have their logo printed on the release.

jweijde wrote:

I remember a post by nik where he stated that distributors shouldn't be in the label field.

uzumaki wrote:

The simple answer is yes you can. It's been discussed many, many times and still people don't accept the outcome, again and again and again - I just don't understand the exclude mentality Discogs attracts.

mayday wrote:

A distrubutor is not a label tho, so it's plain wrong to put in it a field called "LABEL"

Why not use the notes?

mayday wrote:

@ uzumaki, do you read the same forums?

not the first time I've seen you get something label related like this a bit wrong, or put your own spin on things...

mayday wrote:

again, this is awful news for Discogs accuracy
WHY do this when you know that distributor is not the label?

The end result is lots of records on a LABEL page which are NOT on that label and DO NOT belong on that label page!!!

I can't understand any rational person sanctioning that logic.

mayday wrote:

I really hope that nik can make a comment or ruling on the above.

uzumaki wrote:

mayday, you can't be very active these days, you seem pretty out of touch with the way things have changed over the last couple of years - rightly or wrongly.

Yes, it's called a 'label' field but it has been used for more than just the label for quite some time now, instigated by previous editors, rightly or wrongly.

The motivation for adding a local record label/company/manufacturer/ distributor/whatever as well as the label is to document who has been responsible for bringing releases to the market.

Do people really read the word distributor, look it up in the dictionary and think they are just people putting things in boxes and vans? Perhaps that is the case sometimes but 99% of the time it means that company is instrumental in releasing the product in the market - something some people are interested in documenting. What possible purpose could there be in excluding this information - and what harm does it do at all even if you don't find it interesting yourself?

mayday wrote:

It's irrelevant whatever you said above

What I say is that by putting a DISTRIBUTOR or anothing other than the LABEL in the LABEL field you are messing up the label disography page. FACT.
That info is for the NOTES.


Considering this is more or less the whole point of this site, anyone with your view is clearly wrong or does not see the bigger picture. Of course in an ideal world, there would be a field for everything, so it would not be an issue then.

Let's see if nik can see sense, and if it's true what you say (that this has became a rule), let's get him to reverse that mad decision for the sake of sanity and accuracy.

squonk57 wrote:

I wouldn't want to exclude that information, but a label is a label and a distributor is a distributor. Maybe you can request a new field for that?

The point is that many distributors also run their own labels. See Rough Trade, for example. I can imagine that it must be very frustrating for a record collector who is looking for records released on Rough Trade, when the discography shows loads of releases that were only distributed through the Rough Trade distribution service but are in no way related to the Rough Trade label.

mayday wrote:

Put the info that does not have dedicated fields, into the notes.
It's what we have been doing since Day 1.


These desires to chuck as much info into a non dedicated fields is major OCD. It's a bad as those people writing an essay in the format fields leading to massive overkill and hard to read db.

sjcee wrote:

I dunno the current status of the forums activity on this topic,
but I agree at some point with uzumaki, that it is common use to discogs for a while now, that the LABEL field is used NOT ONLY for labels (wether that's good or not)
in that point mayday you definitly seem to be a step behind the current status (;-)
The guidelines clearly reads:
http://www.discogs.com/help/su...e-label-catalog.html
This field is used for the label or record company involved in the release. If there is more than one brand, label, or record company on the release, list them all.
so with all respect, for me that reads, that Distributors ARE allowed, when they are listed on the release, unless the guidelines are updated!

there are so many releases already in the DB with majorlabel names and "cataloguenumbers", which basically are ONLY distributed by the majorcompanies and marked with distributionnumbers (barcodes)... so don't tell us it's not common use already!

rassel wrote:

We had long discussions about this, but it turned out, that finding the label is quite often impossible, as there are so many kind of licence deals between labels/companies, you can't tell what's the correct label in the end or who did what.
So it turned out, that for the moment it would be the easiest way to add all labels/brands/whatsoever in the label field.

Nobody is happy with the current situation, but until the extra fields and credits for non-human credits are ready, this seems the way to go.

mayday wrote:

As it turns out, the only times I have ever had a problem in determining a label is when nothing is written on it.
Then NOL seems OK to use :)

I do think you missed my point or maybe I was unclear. I'm talking about the situations being discussed here, where the label IS known, and the distributor IS known and the distributor info is being put as a 2nd label. That is WRONG.


Imagine this example of Rush Hour Recordings
Rush Hour have done a lot of distribution ;)
Their name is on countless records as as distributor (even when they ARE NOT the only distrubutor!).......
EG. Convextion

Now, what you are saying here, is that you think that Rush Hour should be added as a 2nd label? then that will make the RH label page wrong! And then bear in mind they have distributed 1000's of records!

That makes zero sense which is why I'm gonna stick around here to ensure that nik sorts out this (potential) mess and consideres re-writing the guidelines accordingly.

squonk57 wrote:

People seem to feel like notes were second class information, while dedicated fields are first class. So give them extra fields for anything, and everybody's happy. *shrug*



Well, it is quite simple actually, at least for German releases. That's what the LC # is for after all. Look for Label Code on the release → Lookup label → done. No guessing around with logos and stuff. How are royalties handled in other countries, when nobody is able to find out who the rights owner is?

rassel wrote:

Sorry, to be precise:




Rush Hour Recordings isn't mentioned on the center label, so I personally wouldn't list them


I don't think it's that easy, e.g. Sister Sledge / Joe Cruz - Here To Stay ("Playing For Keeps" Anthem) EMI or Parlohpone?

squonk57 wrote:

I think especially that one is extremely easy. LC 0299 = Parlophone. Parlophone logos all over the release. Parlophone is a sublabel of EMI. I never heard of a rule that the sublabel and the parent label should both be entered in the label fields. So, there you are. Where's the problem?

squonk57 wrote:

And btw., in this particular case EMI is not merely a distributor, but the parent label. That's not what the original question was about.

rassel wrote:

1. The parent label of Parlophone is EMI Music, not EMI, EMI is a sister label of Parlophone.
2. EMI is holding the licence
3. EMI did the manufacturing and distribution
4. The EMI logo is on the center label

For me that's enough reason to credit EMI.

squonk57 wrote:

EMI is a shambles. I'd say you can put anything EMI-related in the label fields and it will always be wrong. :-P

But the LC for EMI would be 0542 — I can't find that anywhere on the scans. For me the EMI logo here stands for the EMI Group, not the label.

jweijde wrote:

The following, identical, topic has useful information:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/185009

jweijde wrote:

If only EMI was that consistent with using EMI and EMI Music...

squonk57 wrote:

To quote a quote from that thread:



Note the subjunctive. I don't understand this as an invitation to cram any entity that issues CAT#s into the label field right now, but as an idea how the label field can be extended in the future to allow more roles to be entered. Maybe similar to the credits, so that you can specify [Label][This company][CAT#], [Distributed By][That company][CAT#], [Mastered By][Another company][Matrix#], and so on. Until then, I still think that anything that is not a label should go into the notes.

jweijde wrote:

That's exactly what it is: something for the future. nik also said that in the same topic.

nik wrote:

In brief : If the distributor is needed to describe a unique release, or you beleive the distributor was acting more as a label, add it to the label field. Otherwise, leave it in the notes for the moment.

mjb wrote:

The original post is about a CD which has 3 cat#s on it. There's one cat# on the spine (NIHIL 12CD) and only one main label whose contact info is given on the inlay (Cacophonous Records). I don't know where SPV GmbH is on this release; no one has clarified in the edits or scans. Then there's the fine print below the label contact info saying Distributed in the UK by Draconis and there's a Draconis cat# below the barcode. The scans also make it look like there's an EFA number above the barcode so perhaps there's some confusion here; where's SPV? The previous thread about SPV made it clear there are sometimes separate editions of releases specially printed to reflect distribution differences (SPV maybe appears on some and EFA appears on others), and we should be filing those separately in Discogs. This could be one of those cases. So those of you who have the release, please sort that out among yourselves. If there is a Draconis & EFA distributed edition and a Draconis & SPV distributed edition, and the artwork & printing on the release reflects those differences, file them separately.

As for what to put in the label field and what to put in the Notes, I believe nik's take was along the lines of entering the distributor as a 'label' when it's significant, and this could be one of those times. But if every single release on Cacophonous bears the same distribution info, that weighs less favorably.

In the meantime, mayday, would you like to take up the cause of removing Intercord Tonträger GmbH from all those Mute branded releases, changing the label to Mute, assigning their cat# as none, and putting Intercord and the Intercord cat# in the notes? I'd like to see how well that goes over.

Lest we forget, cat#s are assigned by distributors, not brands...

mayday wrote:

But it is on the back of the cover :)




IMHO it should be expanded to say "if no definitive label can be concluded then add them all", or something along those lines..

Of course I do understand that if the release doesn't match conclusively with anything already in the db, and no definitive label can be concluded, then it's probably better to put more rather than less in the label fields.






Thanks nik!!
But can you please consider updating the RSG? It's too vague!

Btw, I know this thread was about the distributor being added, but I do often see people adding PARENT labels as a 2nd label, even when the actual label is easily concluded.


nik Can you please explain why parent labels are being added as a 2nd label? It's again causing the wrong record to be listed on a Parent label. Is this RSG being bent or a conscious decision?








I'm not looking to disturb any particular label, and I haven't examined that label for along time, so cannot comment on that at the moment. But I must mention now that it's not always distributors that decide cat#, at least for smaller labels. I know as I help with a small label and have decided some cat# myself!

DaveRowat wrote:

I just tried finding a thread where I believe nik said something like "that relationship should be represented on the label pages with the sub/parent function."

Sorry, I can't seem to find it though, maybe someone else remembers this?

marcelrecords wrote:

I think you mean this:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/180575

rassel wrote:

It really seems to me, that we are not any closer to a solution regarding the allmighty "label field" than before, somehow the status is still "work in progress" without any obvious progress.

Maybe it's time to discuss another proposal, it took me some time to think about it, but maybe this could be a possibility.

Basics:
- We should allow the submitter to enter the data as on release. This may sound quite trivial, but it ain't! At the end, the submitter should be allowed to enter all the data on a release without need to tweak it or to have a deep insider knowledge of the company/brand/label/whatsoever structure printed on his release
- The differentiation between labels/brands and companies is not easy and leads to many discussions here. The basic question is: Do we need to differentiate at all?
- In many cases it's not obvious, which label/brand/company did what or was responsible for what on this release, as there's just the logo of them printed on the release
- We should avoid guessing: Guessing, that label x is THE label, because the cat# matches to their numbering pattern is wrong. Sometimes the small independent label decides the cat#, sometimes the distributor, it's not obvious at all.
- We should get rid of the idea of the 1:1 relation of a label and the cat#, quite often a release has country specific cat#, all printed on the same release. A cat# is a number like any other and there may be a bunch of numbers without any evidence which number belongs to what brand.
- Data entry for artists and for credited non-human organisations should be similar

So here's my proposal:
1. We should get rid of the label field at all. The label field was usefull in the beginning of this database because it seemed important to list the label, but it turned into a nightmare when we tried to define what's the label. There's no use of the label field.
2. It's of no importance for us here, if it's a company, brand, label or whatever, the structure in the database is the same for all these, so it's not really important here. This doesn't mean, that it's of no importance for the real life, but for cataloging purposes it's of no importance.
3. We apply the same logic for entering artists as brands/organisations. This means: We have credits for non-human being as e.g. Distributor, Pressing Plant, Studio, Publisher and so on. If the organisation/brand/label is credited on the release with a credit/role, we use the appropriate role(s) for them.
4. If it's not obvious, what a company/label/brand did on a release, if it acted as umbrella company, "bank" or label, we apply the same logic as for human artists, we use a general credit as "Labelled" or something similar, to indicate, that this company/brand/label appears on the relase.
5. The cat#(s) should be entered as on release, but they shouldn't be the primary key for label/company pages no mores because there are many cases where you have the same cat# on more than one release (that's a contradiction of a primary key) and/or you have several cat#s, on a release. The cat#(s) entry should be like any other data entry. So you should be able to add more than one cat# fields, using the (+) sign, without need to have a sorting which is the most important. The cat#(s) should be part of the release, not the labels/companies pages.

Maybe this could solve some problems here, but maybe I overlooked something?

nik wrote:

Willdo!




Parent labels should not be added as a second label IMO.




The whole label / company thing is certainly noted to be done, but I cannot say when it will happen.

Your proposal is broadly similar to one I have in mind. However, it still needs database changes to make it happen.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

???
The label field isn't a discogs concept, but a universal concept, existing for as long as records do exist, and probably longer.

A label doesn't exist as something touchable. It's the a name to group releases from a certain range of source(s)
(This can be a person up to various companies)

There is this hierarchy
Label -> Release -> Credits
Label = abstract group (a name, nothing more)
Release = an object with content
Credits = list of persons/institutions/companies... who's work resulted in the existance of the release


Removing the label thing, or expanding it to companies would destroy all work that has been done here over years...
It's a universal concept, everywhere in the world releases are classified per label, if not per artist or per content...

The only thing that made the label thing confusing, is the label/company mix-up... (due to often very similar, or exact same, names)
A label is abstract,
A company is a human-credit-role,
such as artists, but not artistic at all.

All that is not label, should be treated as a credit:
The recording -> Artistic and technical credits
The artwork -> Artistic and technical credits
The release (physical existence of the above) -> Company and technical credits

Companies, artists and technicians are all Credits on a Record.
Within the as-on-release philosophy, keep them credits.

Labels are 'marketing names' to be recognised by the listener and buyers.
Labels are always (=99,8% of the cases) represented by a logo (not by plain text, artists and company credits don't have (necessarilly) a certain font or drawing associated, for labels this is a basic rule)
The labels should always be represented by a logo. Seldom there are two labels. Visual hierarchy makes in 99.99% of the cases clear what the label is.

Some say the label concept isn't good because "there are records where it is difficult to know which the label is, no logo or clear mentioning"...
When creating general rules, such extreme exceptions shouldn't be taken into account. I've seen 1000's of releases passing... I don't think I can say I've met more than 5 cases like that...
Should we throw away a strong label concept for these few exceptions???
I would rather tend to find a workaround for the exceptions: case per case (through forum & release discussion). And for such cases, it would be good to have a more open mentality here towards 'overruling standard guidelines in favor of being loyal to an exceptional release' and if it gets really difficult, please be a little bit creative with the fields and especially the release notes... (and, voters: allow some creativity too)

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

Oh yea to be more clear about the BIG difference (in a database) between label & company: Label + Cat# is enough to know to find the release with the right content.
Company credits (without an associated cat#) don't say no thing. With company info alone, you cannot find what you are looking for.

This difference (cat# or not) is so basic that you can impossible merge the label/company concept.

Label+cat# is a unique identifier (except for some very minor variations ofcourse)
Company info is just extra information to extend the above. (It can differentiate the minor variations, but only after the label+cat# have done it's work)

It would be REAL great to have linked company credits.
But the idea of merging label/company concept... HELL MATE!!!
The notes are fine for me!!! 99% of the work is done by the existing label concept. Most variations within the same label+cat# are country variations: the country field does the other 0.9% of the work.
Just for the last 0.09% we need company information in a linkable field...
Would be nice, but not that important that the label concept should be thrown away!!!

This label/company problem only exists in the minds of those who are thinking deeper and further than the existing reality concerning this goes... There has come a knot in the nerve paths, emphasing the small complex part, but blinding the big, most important & simple part...

sjcee wrote:

good suggestion rassel.

just think point five should be a bit different, as cat# is a good sorting method for listing on the new label pages. although smaller labels usually only have at least one cataloguenumber, which definitly belongs to the label.

rassel wrote:

Ok, nice, so we may look forward for a solution of the today label field dilemma, thanks.



Yes, I thought about other sorting criterias too, but I couldn't figure out any good option. Maybe we could sort by release date as the default sort criteria, but the user should have the possibility to sort by cat#(s) too?

@Dr.SultanAszazin: I never wrote that we should get rid of the label, I just wrote, that we should get rid of the label field and replace it with the appropriate non-human credits :)

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

You mean there will be a credit 'Label' where a cat# can be associated with?

Like: all credits/labels/companies/... can be entered in the credit section. Discogs will afterwards sort and place this data in a readable way, the displayed result will be ±the same???

This idea sounds better. Sounds like more work for the developers too... (especially the way a cat# or distro# will be attached)

Can non-human roles be entered in the same credit section on the subform?
Or will there be 2 sections?
(I like one credit section better, letting discogs split it automaticly in the right place depending on the credit defenition)

rassel wrote:

Yes and no,
Yes, because there will be a credit like "Labelled" (or label if you prefer) if there's no credit role at all for this brand/label on the release.
No, because we should get rid of the tight relation between label and cat#. Cat#s should be associated with the release, on the label page you will see the release and (if you wish) all the cat#(s) of this release.
I always talk about cat#s, not cat#, because the todays concept of cat# works fine, if you have one cat# and one label, but it stretches the boundary if you have several cat#s and several labels.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

Ok, but what with releases on different labels, with the same cat#? (I mean total different, the cat# is the same by 'coincidence')
Cat# 808 has 100 search results...

Can a release be associated with a Logo? (I mean a submitted image on discogs of the corresponding logo, so there will be a 100% water-tight identifier for the correct 'label' for a release, and also, if a logo is wrongly associated, it can be moved to the correct one and correct all related entries at once with it)

The 'label-cat#'-combination is a universal, wide used identifier for records, that is used already before music-records were released (books & scores).
Will this combination keep existing for the majority of records that have a simple 1-label & 1-cat#??

rassel wrote:

As today, this won't matter, as cat#s will be associated to releases. Imagine the cat#s like some kind of format tag, andwe have several 12" here :)


Never thought about that, but I think the association to a company/brand/label will work as today, so the logo will be part of the company/label/brand page.


Yep, but we have many cases like
Label = LabelX
Cat#1(UK):AB123
Cat#2(F):DX432-2
Cat#3(Germany):2-23232-5483

So we don't have a 1:1 relation cat#/label, but a 1:n already now. Imagine, we have a second "label" involved, that's already six combinations to enter and so on.
This won't be necessary no more, if you can just add the labelled brands using a credit field and all cat# appearing on the release using an expandable cat# field :)


Yes

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

I'm curious!