pastysurprise wrote:

Dr.SultanAszazin is now in CIP, partly because of:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/185441

Quite a large number of releases were affected by his label edit from RCA Schallplatten GmbH to RCA. Presently these edits have received not many supporting votes. So it's important to resolve these.

Should they be:
1. EI'd
2. Modified to include both RCA and RCA Schallplatten GmbH (both label and company in the label fields)
3. Voted correct

?

jweijde wrote:

Depends on the affected releases. There's no way we can say something general about it.
In my opinion they shouldn't be EI voted since they're based on a 6 months old discussion and are atleast 50% correct.
(I'll come back to this later)

hafler3o wrote:

No he was placed on CIP for edits/veiw-points/attitude/whatever on this subject matter - Disregard of current RSG involving "Crediting Non-Specific Groups"
http://www.discogs.com/help/fo...topic/198017#2485031

His placement in CIP has no bearing on those RCA updates and should not be used to accidentally sway opinion (I'm not accusing you of this btw, just clearing up a point in the original posting here).

Edit 'those updates' → 'those RCA updates'

mirva wrote:

Is the company information relevant to identify a unique release? (In the case of an old multinational label like RCA I can imagine that it probably is)... IMHO if a company has already a relevantly large entry in the database, and it is a valid company, it shouldn't be removed from the label field/database. There has been several users removing companies from the label field lately, just stating "company information belongs to Notes".

And, Deutsche Grammophon GmbH was also removed from the database, a question I'd still like to get an answer to: http://www.discogs.com/help/fo...topic/196924#2486732 ;)

pastysurprise wrote:

I personally don't think EI is the right choice, either. But I agree that there's been a trend (not just one user) to do similar label updates. Since companies and labels are both eligible for the label field, the safest bet might be to edit RCA Schallplatten GmbH back into a secondary label field. This approach assumes that this label name is relevant information for the release. But I don't know if any should actually receive a "correct" vote.
Should the affected releases just be re-edited, without bothering to vote? It may not help the CIP, but at least theyl'll get resolved.

mirva wrote:

If the company is a valid addition/is mentioned on the release, I'd give the user the change to edit them himself, leave a comment and maybe a link to discussion. I'm sure Dr. has learned his lesson, and there is no reason to punish him further.

Probably just every release should be checked individually, the RCA Schallplatten GmbH entry might have been used for German RCA releases even when the company is not mentioned on the release.

Obviously the matter was discussed, but not fully: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/185441

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

The RCA Schallplatten edits is a correction from edits I did about half a year ago.

I then removed that information. Now I added it again.

Many of the records edited then have errors btw.

They all listed the company RCA Schallplatten GmbH as label. Companies are allowed to be used as an addition to a label, but never alone, as label itself. However, the notes are enough for these companies.

I found a few where the image even didn't show any RCA-label at all. Mostly posted comments on these, when I found out, but a few without image might have another label as well, but manufactured by RCA Shallplatten GmbH.

That's why I think these things should be kept in the notes as much as possible, new users doing a label search on submitting get all the company names with it, and mistake it as the RCA they're dealing with.
I hope there will be indexed companies another way someday...

Concerning a vote on these: I prefer these being in voteless state as long as no owner rechecked them...

A lot of these are dubious submissions concerning the label.

mirva wrote:

(emphasis mine, I wish I could make the "In all other cases" dazzle and sparkle, and color it with pink XD)

Listing the company is not necessary and even logical for small labels, but major labels are a totally different story, as stated in the guidelines. And as long as the guidelines allow companies in the label field in these cases, IMHO moving the company from the Label field to the Notes is basically totally redundant, the same way than moving credits from the ExtraArtist field to the Credits section just because of someone's own preferences.

The fact that some users tend to think that adding companies to the label field is wrong, is just an opinion, and based on a subjective view of what is a "label", and what the Label field is for.

If you don't like adding the company, don't add it, it's not mandatory. But don't try to force others to go along with your own personal preferences, especially when the guidelines state the opposite. As long as the guidelines are like that, adding the companies, in the cases stated in the guidelines, is acceptable. Guidelines, guidelines, guidelines. More? ;)

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

RCA Schallplatten GMBH is as far as I know only present as distributor or manufacturer.
Also it's seldom required to describe the record as unique release. If you look at the MR : label + year + format + country is all shown, seldom you'll see two releases with the same for these four.
For me this is:




When it's relevant ofcourse, it can be in the label field.
I don't understand what's wrong with the notes-field in thr other cases?



I agree,

The purpose of these edits was not forcing anythin, just putting back information that was previously there...

In fact I should never bothered those releases.

hafler3o wrote:

One benefit of the clearout is to actually force people to add the 'company' (if required) as found, rather than "assuming" everything is ok with a generic best fit 'non-label', so there is a silver lining in this instance. Don't forget every time you brush your teeth you lose some enamel!

mirva wrote:

First, most of those releases have been in the database for a long time. The company shouldn't be removed just because the guideline was added. It should be discussed, and the releases should be updated based on the actual release, and what the actual label is on the release. Quick search shows me that RCA Schallplatten GmbH has been involved with other labels too than just RCA, so updating every release to RCA would be assuming too much. Don't you think that it's worse to have an incorrect label in the label field than actually something that is mentioned on the release?

Second, there are a lot of cases where two releases are otherwise identical except for the manufacturer/distributor information. The fact that there are such cases, also makes it possible that there are such releases among the releases manufactured/distributed by RCA Schallplatten GmbH.

I don't see any reason why all releases should be just blindly updated to RCA, or why the company should be moved from all releases. Safest way is always to update everything according to the release itself. :)


:D

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

Agree,

As I said, I should never edited them half a year ago...
But just leaving comment, and vote if needed if I saw the info provided was dubious, incomplete or incorrect.

pastysurprise wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=994966

Indeed, many of the releases do list RCA Schallplatten GMBH as the manufacturer. But how can a submitter distinguish the "manufacturing" from the "company" accurately, in cases where the word "Manufactured" is not used. Just because the guidelines suggest that manufacturers can be listed in the notes, does not automatically mean that they should be moved away from the label slot. The plans for development include space for manufacturers amongst label fields. It makes sense to leave the manufacturer there pending future site improvements.



Adding RCA to the label field was not the problem, I think. The conflict is in moving/removing the other information (except in cases where the submission was wrong already).

It's not an ideal situation. I'm just trying to figure out how to make the best of what we've got presently. It's hard to judge these submission updates without having the releases. It's not logical to wait for owners of the affected releases to review and vote on them, because if the recent edits were made without having the release present, then there is no difference anyway.
Having them "sit" is just a headache for any voter who has to grapple with the situation. Wasted time is no good for anyone.

I'd like to see the RCA Schallplatten GmbH title restored to any releases where there exists doubt.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

^^

Well, the problem is discussed before.

A record company is not a distributing or manufacturing company...

RCA Schallplatten is not a record company, but a local division of RCA that is responsible for the manufacturing and distribution of RCA records in Germany.

RSG clearly states:


If we have a mass of records with RCA Schallplatten gmbh in the labels field, we're going to invoke extra errors...



this little sentence has made a lot of confusion.

it says 'may be necessary': As I read it, this means there must be a good reason to do so. in other cases: don't.

I could restore RCA Schallplatten GmbH into the label field.
But this will also restore the confusion that has given us a situation were non-mandatory company info will be replaced by the mandatory label info.

I have all of those edits I have done once kept together in my email. If we are lucky, discogs might provide a better system to keep track of those companies. Did a proposition here: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199066 (The Credits System - Depreciating Non-Linked Credits)

I'm ready to go commenting on all of them. So that owners can really check again.

I don't see any sense in putting RCA Sch. gmbh back into the label field. Except if a majority here thinks it's necessary?

I do see sense in taking all these edit over again, but more detailed, one by one. Commenting/questioning the (label)data present, untill an owner shows up.
As I started this situation. I'll take the job on me to do this.
It will take time, cannot do them all at once, and depends on reactions on those comments.

But at least the absurd situation of companies wrongly in label fields due some vague old guideline 'permitting it in limited situations' will be resolved over time. And those dubious info will be cleared out.

On previous discussion, discogs staff let know that it's possible the company-situation will get resolved, but that the time wasn't ripe. (other stuff was more important)

Problem here is:
- try to use 'Bali' as artist -> comments will be: Bali= region, not artist, so shouldn't be credited as such

and that's right!

-try to make clear companies are not labels -> comment will be a quote of the vague guideline permitting it in certain situations.
It should be the same as above: RCA Schallplatten GmbH is not a label, so it shouldn't be credited as such.

Sometimes discogs is really confusing. At one point they are very puristic (region cannot be artist) and at the other point, it takes the opposite approach (company, label: just throw them together...)

Such opposing 'forces' do invoke confusion and wrong errors, not only with me.
The pure approach can be more difficult, and sometimes frustrating in finding a way in how to solve more exceptional issues, both does work the best on the long run.
The "throw-together, don't mind too much about the differences"-approach creates a lot of confusion and vague submissions.
(for example: RCA Schallpl. gmbh is almost alway the manufacturer and/or distributor, those who listed RCA Sch. gmbh in the label field, did not include the needed info, the company-role (distributor, manufacturer, or both)
So by using the label field: subs get filled with half information)



In fact, I think we landed in a problem situation,
-started by a bad RSG (limited situations allowing companies in label field: RSG is interpretted very different from person to person, companies quickly are treated as real labels, resulting in dubious information)
-I who did a too overhasty edit (I better kept it in discussion, untill the majority did understand how bad the current situation in fact is...)
-Now I halfly 'repaired' those edits (placed back removed info), but the subs still need as much work as before I started thos stupid edits...


Best I can do is: I will (over time ofcourse) do anything to get these right (not by editing, but by commenting, questioning, and in worst cases, by voting NMC's)
(That's what I should have done: NMaC all those who used RCA schallplatten as only label..., because that is the only right thing to do -> label info invalid = NMaC)

Does anyone agree with the slow (but this time rightful) approach I'm willing to take?

jweijde wrote:

Totally right. What exactly should be considered a 'record company' or 'record company branch'? It can't be the manufacturer or distributor because of the other guideline. Picking the copyright holder for this can also be tricky, for example with licensed releases. The involment of a copyright holder is always vague. It holds the rights, but that doesn't mean it had any active involvement in releasing the record.
Another thing that bothers me is the question how we're going to make sure people will enter both the label and the company and not only the company? Companies will have a page with the same layout as labels and also turn up as labels in search results. Because of this, many people will think the company is a label. Many people also don't check the label, ehm company, profiles.
Another thing to take into account is the fact that many entries on these legacy-labels-that-might-actually-represent-a-real-one have been put there because wrong assumptions have been made in the past. For example:
- put there because record was made in Germany
- put there because artist was from Germany
- put there because owner was from Germany
- put there because item was bought in Germany
- etc.

I think it's best to put this issue on hold until we got this new label system which nik announced.
There's no harm in having all those releases listed under RCA at the moment as that's probably the correct label anyway.

mirva wrote:

I agree, and that's what I've been meaning when I've been saying that the companies that are currently in the database, should not be removed, because it serves no purpose. It would be just moving the companies around, without actually fixing information.


If the RCA Schallplatten GmbH has been picked from the back cover, there are actually releases on other labels too, RCA Victor, Salsoul Records, Cheapskate Records, Regard Records, 20th Century Fox Records, even Motown, etc. Of course it might be that these have been fixed already, but without pictures/comments there is no way to be sure what the actual label is.

pastysurprise wrote:

It's an exercise in futility to "correct" things that evidently cannot be corrected in the present system. It's like trying to put various shapes into envelopes, but many of the shapes won't fit.

The carrot-and-stick approach to database management is really confusing: "Cram the label fields with information... because there will be a future update..." (Circular reasoning)

So, I'll also agree to back off from voting on these. It's too bad that no edits and votes on these can be cast to help the CIP situation.




It sure would be nice if there was a system in place to prevent confusion of label names. (Inc, Ltd, GmbH, Records, Schallplatten, usw, etc...) I'd prefer if there was a pool of collected name terms for a given organization (for a label), that would list each ones function.

For example, if I want to submit a German RCA release, I fill in the submission form with "RCA," and the country code with "Germany." Upon preview, a suggestion is presented that a known entity of "RCA Schallplatten, GmbH" is known to exist. Then a prompt: "Did I mean RCA Schallplatten? Y/N" Also, "Is it manufactured by, and distributed by RCA Schallplatten?" Y/N tick boxes... and so forth. It can be very confusing to enter a foreign release due to the language barrier, and also due to the change in label/business terminology. Discogs ought to maintain lists of related terms that pertain to any given label, and the roles of those terms (manufacturer, distributor, etc...).



That sounds like dedication to me.

jweijde wrote:

Well you're already mixing up label and company names, so you prove your point very well ;)
I'm curious what the new system will be like, but from what I've already heard I don't expect it to bring much clarity when it comes to distinctions between labels and companies. I don't believe it will help people much in submitting their stuff to the right entries.

nik wrote:

A record company can absolutely be a manufacturer or distributor. Businesses can do more than one thing at a time. Please don't try to over simplify what can be quite complex relationships in real life.




Inc, Ltd, GmbH are company marks.

Records and Schallplatten are names commonly part of a record label or company name, and often used / left out without much care by the companies / labels themselves, and everyone else.




The system itself cannot in any way decide what is a label and what is a company, that data is for us to input.

In the real world, the distinction can be clear or very murky.

We should primarily be concerned with transferring the data, intact, from record to database. After we do that, we can figure out the relationships and roles for various entities, but that is not the primary goal. It can be very simple if we enter every entity as on release, and avoid joining things up unless we have proof of that.

pastysurprise wrote:

I'm just requesting some automated system help when submission forms are previewed... to help a submitter pick the most relevant "name."


It sounds like you may be right.


The problem with the RCA / RCA Schallplatten GmbH submissions is simply that a submitter doesn't know any better which name to submit. I'm not saying that they're following guideline in all cases... but I can't resolve the present situation here with any vote. There's no right way to fix these. The problem is in the ambiguity itself. Dr.Saszy and JWeijde are quite right in pointing out that the more companies that are listed in a label search, the greater the confusion.


But there has to be a better way to suggest the best options.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

Yes indeed.

That would spare us from stupid edits (like I've done) trying to settle things right when companies are mistaken as labels, and the actual label is missing.



Yes, I meant that when a company is only mentioned as manufacturer or distributor, then it's not the publishing company, but rather a local unit of a bigger record company, that never publishes records on it's own and uses the bigger record companies' label(s), not it's own associated label(s).
Ofcourse there are manufacturers & distributors who also act like record company, or a are one and the same as the label or record company.
(Dangerous to generalise:) every company has it's own structure)

Concerning RCA Schallplatten GmbH: I've never seen any case where RCA Schallplatten GmbH had another company-role than local manufacture and/or distribution.
(Anyone did see another role of this RCA company?)




I'm looking forward to a system where we can lay open different structures of labels & companies and their relations, by gathering all info that's known about them.

In the meantime I try to get the needed info from owners for the releases I've edited half a year ago. With all patience needed...
That way my bad job might turn out in an improvement after all...

djindio wrote:

That line is complete nonsense, it is never nessassary to add record company branch info or the 'full company name' info to a label field in order to uniquely identify a release, as a release can be uniquely identified by adding the exact same info to the release notes! The label should be the label. Whoever pushed for the inclusion of that in the RSG must have talked a good game.

EDIT: They just makin' "busy work" for all of us who are hooked on the site but are running out of releases to submit. :-)

EDITEDIT: A record was released by RCA, the 'label' is RCA, the branch of RCA that did the work in a specific country isn't the 'label' and isn't even 'a label', ...

mirva wrote:

℗


Naah, companies used to more acceptable in the label field than they are now. That second part of the guideline wasn't added until very recently.

There was also a time, when the company was the only thing added to the label field... XD That is the reason why there are so many companies in the database in the first place.

djindio wrote:

If there wasn't the language difference would fine print like "RCA Records, company with limited liability" really be enterable as a seperate label?! That's what RCA Schallplatten GmbH means. :-D

It might helpful in finding a particular release when poking around a master release page, but it's never really 'nessassary' to enter such label name variations in a secondary label field in order to prove the uniqueness of a release.

jweijde wrote:

Don't really think so. There's never been a time when only companies were put in the label field. In the past it was quite common to enter a company but this didn't happen always. People used companies as labels because the entries already existed. And they came to exist because in general people didn't have as much knowledge about labels as currently. They assumed it was a label because the name appeared on a record. Therefore company entries should never have been created in the first place (like the label (country) entries), but nobody has ever been willing to do anything about it. Mainly because the entries have grown big and it would take too much work to fix it.
In the early days people just seemed to care less about it than now. Actually, people thought they were doing the right thing.


Totally agree. Besides, usually these local branches act as the manufacturer and distributor and we're not allowed to add those to the label field. So nice guideline on paper but totally useless in practice.

pastysurprise wrote:

I see that Dr.SultanAszazin has added the RCA Schallplatten GmbH back into the notes for many of the submissions. They now seem valid. Until the database itself is upgraded, there does not seem to be any further point in disputing these entries.
I don't think that sections of release notes containing "℗" were affected much by the edits at any time.



That's really part of the problem. It would be nice if this language aspect were built in to the database's structure. It's a conceptual barrier, like the company / label problem is.

nik wrote:

That is somewhat splitting hairs though. Listing the record company branch *somewhere* may be necessary to describe a unique release. One of the reasons it is allowed in the label field is:







Of course. It has nothing to do with language, most people know that 'GMbH', 'Ltd', 'Inc' etc after a name indicates a limited company / corporation. That can absolutely define the difference between a brand and a business division.

djindio wrote:

Splitting hairs is listing a label under RCA Records Ltd instead of RCA, for no other reason than to keep the pseudo label system that we were trying to do away with in the first place. Just so that the catalog numbers look 'pretty' and 'tidy' on that pseudo label page? All based on a CNV, Company Name Variation? Release Notes work just fine IMO.

nik wrote:

The 'pseudo label system' we moved away from would have taken 'RCA' and 'RCA Records Ltd' and created 'RCA (UK)', that is what we moved away from.




It's not either / or, it should be both (if necessary to describe the unique release), or just RCA if not.




It doesn't have anything to do with catalog numbers though?




It's not a company name variation, it is a brand versus a company, they are totally different things, especially for larger 'labels'. Please search the forums here if you need filled in on the past discussion on all of this.




The reason release notes weren't used is partly due to the legacy of companies being entered in the label field in any case, and also due to the ambiguous nature of the definition of labels, both WRT Discogs foundation, and in general terms.

pastysurprise wrote:

So, in order to express both entities (label & company), are you Nik recommending that the RCA Schallplatten GmbH be added to the /label/ field alongside RCA?

nik wrote:

Yes, companies will probably appear on a release along with the brand, which should be added separately if deemed necessary.

jweijde wrote:

All we're doing now is struggling to keep data that was incorrectly entered in the past, in a place where it doesn't belong.
Yes, I know the proposed 'solution' but I just have fundamental issues with it from a cataloging point of view.

It's so refreshing to see how RateYourMusic is handling this. Look for example at their entry for the WEA label http://rateyourmusic.com/label/wea_records/ . Things can be so damn easy...

mirva wrote:

There was a time when the branding didn't mean a thing. I remember clearly how I was asked repeatedly to check the fine print for the "correct label". Also a lot of the labels were named after the company. It probably didn't happen all the time, but it was very common around the time I joined. It was years ago, but still most of those entries are in the database.


But WEA is not the same thing as any of the companies listed, so the "Also Known As" is incorrect. RYM tries to keep things simple, they are not working on a fully cross-referenced database with credits.

And, if we're getting a new system to enter the companies "more properly" soonish, is there really any reason to remove all the companies from the database and then have to add everything again?

jweijde wrote:

I think you're a bit misinterpreting my use of the word 'always'. I meant that sometimes the company name was used and sometimes the label name. Not that there was a time when we did not add companies to the label field at all.
Back in the days people thought it was the right thing to do, but we now know it definitely wasn't. Well, atleast I do.


Depends on your viewpoint and how specific you want things to be. The average Joe will refer to each of those record companies as WEA regardless of the country they are in. The companies might have a different name, the label hasn't.
(I'm not saying Discogs should do it this way, I was just posting it as an example of how easy things could be)


No there isn't. But nobody ever said there was.
Lets not steer too much offtopic here. We're not talking about every company in this topic. We're only talking about RCA Schallplatten GmbH. It was removed from some items. This was not correct by current RSG but understandable given the circumstances. Besides, it hasn't been completely removed from the database: http://www.discogs.com/label/RCA+Schallplatten+GmbH
I totally agree with djindio that the release notes work fine, but we've had that discussion before and its clear the Discogs managment thinks differently. There has always been only one label called 'RCA' so things would be so much easier for submitters and voters if there was only one Label entry for RCA on Discogs. (I'm referring to how Discogs presents the data and not to my opinion about what should be in the label field and what not)
I'll just wait and see how things turn out but honestly I don't have high hopes for the new 'system'.

mirva wrote:

I understood you perfectly, I was just sayin'. :)


There has been a recent "trend" of users moving the company information from the label field to the Notes, that is why I said what I said. No one has really talked about specifically, and if these edits should be voted correct or not. Personally I think these edits are useless, but the people editing always seem to disagree, very strongly.


Of course, and I really wish things were that simple. But we have to work also with the data already entered to the database, and those murky exceptions that don't have a label printed on them, just some company with a similar name to a label. I also wish we could safely assume that RCA Schallplatten GmbH was only printed on RCA branded releases, but it was not.

I don't know if the new system will be the "perfect system", but I'm sure it will be a better system than the current.

jweijde wrote:

But that's something different than "removing it from the database" ;)

mirva wrote:

it = the company entry, not the name ;)

djindio wrote:

My biggest concern here is the tendency for releases to be added (and voted correct) with the only the 'company' from the fine print as the label (mostly occuring on CD release entries, mainly due to the label branding not being obivous to some or not being obivous at all). I've voted on thousands of corrections in support of many of the clean up processes where the acutal label added to added as a second label or, in somes cases, where the label was completely different than the 'company' entered in the label field (as I'm sure many others here have also), where the acual label had been omitted from the release entry simply because the submitter found a 'company entered as label' entry in the database that equalled some of the fine print found on the release they were entering. I've also had to vote on hundreds of release removals of duplicates, all caused by this same, preventable syndrome.

jweijde wrote:

That's exactly one of the things I don't believe will change with the upcoming new system.

nik wrote:

That isn't the fault of the system though, is it? I'm sure that the label (brand) was also in the database, but the submitter choose to only enter the company. This harks back to one of the roots of the problem, which is the mistaken belief (for major labels especially) that only one entity is the 'proper' one to describe the release. By forcing people to choose, some of the time they will end up making the wrong choice. Better to err on the side of entering more information than guessing what to leave out (and why).







We want things to be correct. What we moved away from was a dumbing down of things because a) it added more complication, and b) it messed up the data. For example, releases are presses and distributed in territories by specific company country branches. The label (brand) could be one name, and the company a totally different one. The release could be released by the label in other territories under its own name, and yet other territories under other companies. This is why, on these larger releases, we need to enter both the brand and the company to fully describe the release, and avoid duplicates or one item standing in for two or more unique releases.







It's not something that can be fully remedied systematically. Incorrect data will always be entered into the database. What we need to do is make it as straightforward for users as possible to directly transfer the data on the release into the database, and not have to worry about interpreting the data or figuring out what to leave out.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

Why in the label-field (and obviously creating confusion and errors) and not just always in the notes...



Anytime this company/label thing comes up, a big majority seems to be annoyed by the company-in-label-field thing.
The majority is always in facour for the notes, and if it needs to be indexed, or linked, the majority always agreed it should be done in a field separate from the label field.

A company mentioned is a 'credit' (not an artist credit), tommorrow we can start putting artist credits in the title. That would be the same thing.

also imo: IF it is allowed to enter a company in the label field, at least it should be mandatory to enter the exact company credit in the notes, as-on-record.


It's about time something changes on this domain.
Or at least: the RSG on this gets rewritten:
Interpretation on this one is too dificult.


As I read it: it shouldn't be in the label field if it's a only there as a distributor or manufacturer + it should only be done IF really necessary to describe a unique release (and because companies can be in the notes and describe the uniqueness there, this means Never, in fact.)

But in practice it's interpretated often like: It never hurts putting a company as extra in the label-field...

I don't know, but is my English so bad that I interpret this so wrongly, or is it some people so desperate in willing to create indexed company credits, that they make from this rule what they want...

Also in this particular case (RCA Schallplatten GmbH) -> I haven't met yet an MR where it was needed to add this German distributor/manufacturer of RCA-label records in the label field in order to describe a release unique.
There really aren't a lot of cases were 2 different local distributors and/or manufacturers were used to distribute or press 1 and the same release by the same label. That would be a rather absurd happening...

Can anyone show me a case where such a company is needed in the label field in order to describe a unique release???
I've seen a lot, but never met an example somewhere...

I really want to question the use of what's described in RSG 4.1.2.

The cost is -> confusion and numerous errors (often voted correct due to confusion) that are made, and information being left out (the company role is as important as the company itself..., the Real Label is left out often, cases where cover & disc involve different companies aren't declared, in short: lot of people will always go for a dumb company filled in the label field, skipping additional notes etc...)
The gain is -> ???? (Can someone fill this in for me, don't know any gain for this particular RSG, except not having to do a revision of the information posted in numerous submissions...)

nik wrote:

The first page / MR I look at (not RCA, but WEA / Sire):

Madonna - Madonna
Madonna - Madonna




This has been explained before in this thread: a) for legacy entries, b) because the strict definition of 'label' as brand was not intended or defined for the site c) it is easier to manage if they are links to pages, rather than just text notes.




Confusion and errors were endemic before we made the change, you shouldn't ascribe cause and effect to details in the current guidelines. I would ascribe more cause and effect to our older data entry methods (i.e. "pick just one 'label'") than the current more direct methods.




Indeed, that is what I said above. Better to err on the side or more information than less.




You cannot ascribe a majority to some people in a forum. The same vocal users do tend to voice their opposition to something they don't agree with.

The bottom line is, it is very very unlikely we will be altering the data entry requirements (guidelines) to forbid the entry of companies. I understand not everyone can agree to the current methods, but it doesn't seem positive to continue to debate this detail. I request that everyone follows the current guidelines, and I especially request that record companies are *not* moved to the notes field from the label field.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

That's what I mean: You'll have to explain:
I cannot see any release in this MR that needs a company in the label field to describe a unique release: country, label, cat#, year and/or format are different for all releases: adding the company to the label field is not needed here...




The RSG should be formulated so that this errors dissapear.

Instead of: add company to label field... -> It's mandatory to enter all mentioned companies in the notes. (or, but that's development: into the company-fields)
Adding company to label field strips of the important role of the company. (except ofcourse if also entered in the notes: but nowhere in the RSG is something about the importance of the correct role for these companies)




If you mean this: I'd forbid it right away: information is cut out when entered into the labelfield: namely the role of the company

I can live in a certain way with the current system, but with some slight changes:
-RSG should put more emphasis that it should be entered additionally
-RSG should make it mandatory to include all info present about a company in the notes, and not just add it as 'extra label'
-It should be mandatory to add to a company profile that it is a company profile and should never be used alone, but always accompagnied by the publishing label.




Also: I saw in the past different attempts to document labels, but as long as companies are indexed through label-pages, we can never give a correct association: parent/sub would be wrong (as far as I know, this is also the discogs way: no parent/sub for companies).
I really think it's better to enter them separated...




:) You're right on this!
There's also the quiet mass...

At the other hand it is dangerous to decide based on the silent mass, but don't gonna discuss this: that's just personal flavour: where you base decisions on!




I understand this very well: if work is put into the companies: better work out a special field for them, the work that it takes to do little changes into RSG etc, on this, will not solve the problem enough: better is to work out a system that implements companies in the database, the same way artists & labels are implemented... when the time is ripe.




I agree, correcting errors that way is just creating new errors. I experienced that!



personally, I think it's a major flaw worth discussing for sure.
We should have a system that Helps people understanding the difference between the label and the companies, not one that encourages not seeing the difference...

But indeed, we shouldn't discuss the details: just the general handling of companies credited on releases.

Also, I agree in leaving this to rest (again) for a while.

I hope once insight comes over discogs, and that they will see what many others have seen: current handling of companies is insufficient & too untransparant, compared to other domains documented&catalogued by discogs...

jweijde wrote:

And I don't?


Still I see no valid argument to why entering those companies in the label field would be better than having separate fields for them. You say it would make things easier, but compared to what? Compared to the current system, it might. But compared to the solution of having separate fields and pages I doubt it will.
You keep repeating the theory behind the change, without actually discussing the change itself. Many of us do agree that we should move away from past data entry methods. I do too. Question remains though what's the best direction to move in. I personally doubt the current direction is the right one. Tried discussing this numerous times but it seems that you've already made up your mind for a long time. So whatever others say or think about it doesn't matter anymore. You will go on anyway. That's how I feel about it at least.


I don't think people have such a big problem with this. They can usually make a choice out of the information available quite easily, as is proven by thousands of entries that are already on Discogs. It's about making sure people will make the right choices. As I see it currently, the new system won't bring an improvement to this. Especially because it relies on tagging which can be and usually will be left up to someone else than the submitter to do.


Not the best example I'd say, because WEA Musik GmbH is one of the most inaccurate labels on Discogs. I know, because I've gone through hundreds of entries on that one.
So it might very well be that WEA Musik GmbH was incorrectly added there. There's no way to tell because no manufacturing or distribution details have been added.

Fact is that most people who do post are opposed to your ideas or atleast have some reservations. We can't take people into account who don't speak up. If it was the other way around and everybody who posted would applaud your ideas, would you ascribe a majority to those people? I think you probably would.


Sigh. How many times do I have to repeat nobody wants to forbid that... It has always been about WHERE to enter that information.


I feel it's the most important detail of the whole matter. What's a label and what's a company and how do you properly catalogue the difference. That's the essential question here.


Yep, and thats exactly the thing I doubt the new system will address.



Wisest words I've read in this topic.
I just hope the last bit won't apply to the future handling of companies, but at this moment I very much doubt it will not.

pastysurprise wrote:

I can think of one general case where having the company listed would help distinguish two releases on the same label. Czechoslovakia has offered good cheap pressing plants, used by people all the world over (even people in the US get records pressed there). A submission could wrongly list the country as Czech because of the manufacturing message, but actually the record company could be any different international branch of a major label.

But "where" to put the company information...is the real dispute.
"How" can Discogs guide submitters to be more conscious of the difference between companies and their labels, and their usage?

At least the present label fields allow either use, so the labels and companies can be linked and documented; albeit in a way that allows confusion to also exist.

I think the "Notes" area is the worst catchall zone, though. There is much room for improvements to classify notes fields.

Master release worst case (two releases appear identical):
================================
Artist: Dog Yodelers, The.......
Label: Hundhaus.................
Cat#: K9........................
Country: Czechoslovakia.........
================================
notes:..(German release)........
Hundhaus GmbH...................
================================
notes:..(British release).......
Hundhaus, Ltd...................
================================

This can usually occur when a submitter picks the wrong country, or does not know which country to choose. Many times a catalog number is repeated, although it's true that international divisions usually modify the number. But not in every case.
Any clarification of how to tell a label from a company helps submitters to make the correct choice.

mirva wrote:

A lot of times, especially when it comes to older releases, the company information is the only source for the country information. And while we have a dedicated field for the country, we don't have the same for the companies, even though the information is equally important. And now it's being hidden in the Notes.

Whether adding the company to the label field is wrong or not, depends on the user's view of what a label is. If we consider label to be same as a brand, then it's obviously wrong. But if we consider label to be something that was responsible or involved in releasing the record, it's not that wrong anymore.

And, when it comes to separating unique releases, it is nowhere said that the company has to be the only thing separating two (or more) releases for it to be allowed in the label field. It is just said that adding the company "may be necessary to describe the unique release". Is Digipak always the only thing separating two (or more) releases from each other? No, but it's still allowed in the FTF as long as the title and format are the same than on another release.


In the beginning, most users seem to have no idea that there is a difference between a label and a record company, or any other company for that matter. That is why the information in the profiles is hardly helpful for new users, but those profiles are helpful for most users that have been around for a while, but might not be familiar with the label.

For some reason, it's easier to notice the name printed in the fine print of the record than the huge logo... and that is how the companies end up in the database in the first place. To make submitters more conscious should start from the beginning, that is the submission form. That is why any system that is implemented in it will be a step to the right direction.

Leaving the company to the Notes is hardly helpful to anyone, and IMHO is oversimplifying things. Sometimes what is a label and what is a company is not that clear. The Notes do not define what it is, and why it has been entered there, especially confusing when in some cases it has been entered to the label field (due to past entry methods, incorrect entries, has been required to describe a unique release etc.), and there is no proper profile because the entry shouldn't be there.

jweijde wrote:

http://wiki.discogs.com/index....orming#Agreed_Points


In the current system it is the best thing to do. For future it might be another story.


The times I've seen company names in the notes, it was pretty clear what they were: copyright holder, distributor, manufacturer or marketeer. Company names are hardly ever put in the release notes without that information.


I don't see how that can be a reason to not put companies in the Release notes. Just because companies have been entered in the label field in the past for wrong reasons, we should hold on to that and even extend that? That's basically what we're doing now.
I really gotta see how this tagging system is going to work out first, but my impression is that it will rely too much on other users to make the data right. It will require a lot of extra interaction between submitters and voters. Simply because people usually don't or won't supply all the details needed for correct tagging. Others will base their submissions on already existing, incorrect entries. For example, currently there are still people who hold on to the out-of-date 'Label (Country)' entries and use those for their new submissions. Off course you can cast some NMiC votes on those, but these kind are avoidable if only the system was a bit more intuitive. I'm afraid the new system will also lack this intuitiveness.
Extra fields would be way more intuitive than a tagging system, because people will then see straight away what they are expected to enter. This won't be the case when tagging is needed. And voters will be less able to point submitters in the right directions with tagging. I'm convinced the difference between label entries and company entries will be much clearer when they are put in separate fields. How are users supposed to understand they are different if Discogs treats them as if they are the same?
But I guess we'll just have to wait and see. nik has made it clear that discussing it won't matter anymore, if it ever has.

mirva wrote:

Yeah, I know that discussing this won't result in any changes, but that shouldn't be the purpose of any discussion. :D

But to put it short: There are releases with company names printed without any roles given to those companies. You can't make up a role for these, they are undefined on the release, and they should stay undefined in the information entered to the database.

With the addition of the second part of the guideline, the amount of companies has been actually limited, so we're not holding on to the old system, and not extending it. But, since we know that there is a new system coming, I don't understand why to limit it even further, just to allow it again later. When the new system gets implemented, we have to move the companies again, create the entries again, and for what? Give me a good reason and maybe I'll agree.

I'm aware of what the D Wiki says, the same information is in the guidelines, btw, but that was not my point. My point was that there will be always different views on the matter, which usually only manifest when we have a release without a logo or clear branding.


But doesn't this apply to all information entered, and even when there are designated fields?


I blame as much the people who are aware of the existence of the fake entry and do not get rid of it. ;)

pastysurprise wrote:

Agreed.


...Though some of the development ideas are really pretty good.

I'm going to go off topic a bit here, but I think it relates:
"Fine print" is usually always a legal notification notifying buyers of companies' rights regarding licensing & duplication.
Generally no one likes reading this type of stuff, which is why it's printed in small typesize. It's there for lawyers and to protect against infringement. This is a perfect environment for computing: small boring facts, that computers handle very well. If Discogs handled this information categorically, it would be better. And it would help control the anarchic situation.

Dateline 21st century: illegal downloads, ripping and burning, lawsuits against music buyers for unauthorized copying, etc... General disregard for intellectual/creative property rights.

And here this thread concerns where to put the darned company info... Shouldn't it have a formal location????? Shouldn't copyrighting and licensing also be given a real status?????

My main point here though, is that if the annoying "fine print" were transcribed into data structures, then a lot of relevant legal knowledge would be preserved... not just the tracklists of a bunch of 12" house mixes. Who knows, maybe that kind of detailed attention to the small print would attract the attention of major labels to Discogs.


Still, the notes section has so many other facts; it's really a shame to treat company names trivially.
And is this the best way to show public domain content?: DP (5)

jweijde wrote:

I'm all for entering them into the database, no question about that. But should an undefined entity be entered in a defined field like 'Label'? I don't think so. By doing so one would essentially say that it is a label, especially because it will stay untagged. The person who entered it might not mean that, but it will be how the general public will interpret it.
Its simple: in a database, the name of the field is what defines the value of the field and vise-versa. So an undefined/unknown entity can never be put in a 'Label' field. I just don't buy the excuse that the field was never defined that strictly.


It's not. The Wiki only mentions it was agreed upon that the companies should be entered as they appear on the release. Not that they should be entered in the label field. Which wouldn't be logical anyway when you consider labels to be brands.


An example: if there was a field called 'Copyright holder' I'm sure people would think twice about entering that company in the label field. Currently however, its quite common to have copyright holders in the label field. For me it's common sense that these are not labels and should therefore not be in a field called Label. Offcourse they could be labels but they're branded 'copyright holder' so everything else is guesswork.
The system should not rely on others to make things right, its goal should be to make submitters supply the information correctly first hand. This means less interaction and rework will be needed and would therefore save lots of time (and frustration probably). This can be done much more effectively when you have well defined, properly named fields and not some catch all area that just happens to be called 'Label'.


Definitely agree with that.

Just had a quick read through http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/189577 - another reason for us to sit and wait for the things to come.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

It would be more clear if the companies weren't listed along with the labels...
I think the notes don't oversimple anything, they rather give the ability to document the credited company as it appears on the release.
The label field filters it and provoces many 'labelless'-entries!

The problem is simple: Companies are not implemented in discogs and a workaround stays a workaround with many disadvantages.
By putting the company credit into the notes, as it appears on the release, in the future, when companies are implemented, they can be properly transferred to their correct role.
If there is no role: they can be transferred under a general 'Company'-credit role





Exactly!
and no problematic workarounds would be used no more!

mirva wrote:

I agree, it is. But we shouldn't assume something that isn't necessarily true. :)


I meant that it's in the guidelines that label = brand/logo (emphasis mine):
RSG: 4.1.2. Normally, listing the main label (brand or logo) on the release is sufficient for cataloguing purposes.


Should an undefined entity be assumed that it's not a label? Undefined entity shouldn't be assumed to be anything without proper proof.


The "Label" field is mainly for the label, but throughout the existence of Discogs, a lot more than the label has been entered to that field, for various reasons, as has been stated. We should not only think of the current practice and the future, we have to remember what is already in the database, and how that needs to be changed. Removing all company entries, and providing those releases also a proper label would be an enormous task, which is probably an understatement (just looking at Virgin makes me wanna run and hide). And then with the new system, we would have to go through all those releases again? No, thanks.

And, again: But, since we know that there is a new system coming, I don't understand why to limit it even further, just to allow it again later. When the new system gets implemented, we have to move the companies again, create the entries again, and for what? Give me a good reason and maybe I'll agree.


Of course, and I agree with this. The submission form and the guidelines in general are not an easy thing to handle, and if you look at the releases on the first page, very few of them are 100% according to guidelines in general. But, anyone who sees these mistakes, can also fix them, which is something that should be encouraged even more than it is know.

If we had a "Copyright holder" field (and others), it's equally up to the submitter to enter the correct entity to that field than it would be to tag the label/company with the correct role. In both cases the user is able to provide exactly the same information. In both cases the user is able to enter the information as on release, which is important.

Whether a field would be clearer than a tag, honestly, I don't know, I don't think there's a real difference. I just think that having a separate field for every company type is a bit too much, probably. Not saying that I like the tagging system either. Personally I would have gone with a credit role type of solution. But in the end, these are all just different ways to enter the exactly same information, and the possibility to enter that information is the thing that counts the most, IMO.


I agree with this, but both workarounds have their disadvantages. IMVHO entering the company information in the Notes is hardly the perfect solution taking into account the current situation in general.


No matter if we have a designated field, or tags, there needs to be an "Undefined" field/tag. Why? Because we can't assume an entity is a label/company unless otherwise indicated so.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

I think for the 'undefined' ones, things can be discussed in the forum, but I think in most cases drawing the line between company or label isn't that difficult. (GmbH, Ltd. SA, ... are not really part of a 'label-name' which is supposed to be a name recognisable by the public)

Small labels where the company and the label are the same (one has a Gmbh or Ltd. or whatever, the other one not), there isn't a need for a special company page. If a company does nothing more than owning the label, mentioning the company name on the label-page is all we need.

But labels like RCA, Deutsche Grammophon/Polydor, EMI, ...
They are divided in smaller companies, or use external companies (Printing for DG LP's, for instance) to do all work needed or do work locally (especially vinyl is heavy to tranport in large quantities, so major labels do local manufacture). All these companies (often bearing the label name like the RCA Schallplatten GmbH) are in need to be indexed and associated.

But I think we have no choice right now than following current guidelines, and agree that a better system should be developed...

cheers!

cvalda44 wrote:

hehe, the same old discussion again.
it amazes me how some people did not get it yet: "a company is often needed in the label field in order to describe a unique release", despite nik explains it again and again and again and again. we do not have tag system at this moment, so companies have the same right to be in label field as the brand.
label brand + releasing company is the key to distinguish similar releases handled by major labels. when the new system will be implemented they get proper tags on release page, but i hope the MR and collection pages will still show the combination of label brand + releasing company.

moving companies to notes is just a nonsense... i don't want to open 10 pages to compare releases and, hello, I may want to see releases by some company on its page.
i have read the whole discussion. verdict:
nik is totally right, mirva is right, pastysurprise i usually right, jweijde is sometimes right, Dr.SultanAszazin and djindio are totally wrong :))

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

You don't want me to put all companies on my subs in the label field believe me!
(btw: they'll be voted as wrong anyway when you try to put "Gebrüder Jänecke, Hannover" or "Beroset, Berlin" in the label field, at least that's my experience)

But to be clear, it's not about moving them. What's in the database is here. Should not be changed (doesn't improve anything in fact)

The point here is: implement a better system than this.
And at least: put all details of a company in the notes (including all details present), instead of 'just adding as label', as long as the current system is in the run.
That's what everybody says: wanting to index companies, but why it's allowed to put a credited company in the label field, and why can't we put a company as artist credit (photography is an example: if it's a person it's a credit, if it's a studio or company, it's not a credit and belongs to the notes)
Or why not using Bali as credit?
It's a country, but if companies can be in label fields... why not countries and regions as artists?

this data needs a decent place.
The current system is an emergency solution that has run too long.

In fact, now 90% of the releases don't have the company added anyway, if there are fields for this, more people will include them, and your list of releases by company will at least represent something realistic instead of a list that misses more than half of it's content.

The only thing I want to say: Discogs: that's crappy, your company implementation

And I continue adding them to the notes for now, it's both allowed, but as long as people like me don't add the companies to the label-field: your lists will just be incomplete. Tell yourself what you want.
If you really want to list releases by company: go for improvement on this.



seldom needed would be better said, at least since the invention of the MR.
Also, the essence is: "Company information is sometimes helpful in describing a unique release, rare cases require it"
There are 1000 other options beside the label-field that outrule it's downsides.

But using the label field,I say again, ok for me! but all details present should be included in the notes too, imo.
If that little requirement is added in the RSG, we would be way further in this problem.

Also: http://www.discogs.com/Beethov...storale/master/30013

There are 2 releases here who only have "tulip borders" or "straight borders" (center-labels) as only difference (companies are the same, the different title of the two German SLPM's are submission errors as the covers are from the exact same print, only the centerlabels differ)

Shall I add "Tulip Borders" and "Straight Borders to the label field in order to describe the unique release??
We can be inventive if that's the system...
Add anything that helps in describing the unique release somewhere, so that you don't need to click on the release.

Probably you say: would be a mess
Indeed!
Just as the current sloppy RSG that serves as lazy solution for something that everyone seems to agree on: indexing companies.
That system works OK for insiders and experienced discoggers, but the majority doesn't belong to that elite.

And the elite should realise that... and do something about it...

cvalda44 wrote:

Shhhh! There's no need to say so many words. A field called "Country" has "Asia", so what ? A problem ? Please try to learn to live in peace with current meaning of "Label" field as well. It explained in GL pretty well, so there's no need of these childish arguments; "Tulip Borders" and cat.numbers help to identify the release but do not bring the release to the market :).
Record company determines the release. It's the record company runs the Label and draws a logo. If the record company is behind the brand - that's fine, we use brand in Label field, and company name may be ignored and mentioned in Notes. But what if the original company gives it to another record company for release in other country ? Now we have 2 companies involved: original company is represented by brand, but releasing company may be presented as distributor or licensed local branch of major label, sometimes with its logo. If we see logo we use 2nd label and everyone is happy. But it doesn't always happen! If releasing company did not add their own branding to release it doesn't mean it can't be in Label field as company.

pastysurprise wrote:

This is why it should be the primary entity. It's actually more important information than the label is.


Basically, true, but there are a lot more complications.

The improved way a submission form should appear in my opinion is to have a field for
(c): Copyright holder, the company (or person) who owns the creative rights.
(p): Manufacturing rights holder for the release.
label: the labels/logos shown on the release

The great majority of music releases carry a (C) and (P) logo with very specific information. This is the most important information on the release! I can't even type the (c) (p) characters without doing a cut and paste into the notes. This is why these should be dedicated fields. Releases not showing these legal imprints should be termed either independent or unofficial.

jweijde wrote:

That's not what the RSG mentions:

It 'may be necessary'. So it leaves things open. It's neiter 'often needed' nor mandatory to enter it.


What surprises me is that some people think that these rights holders are the releasing companies. Who knows? They might be, but especially with major labels and older releases this doesn't have to be true. For example Warner Bros. releases often have a rights holder for the US and one for Europe mentioned on them. Does that mean that the item is released by two companies? Answering that question would just be guessing.
Let's just stick to the facts and call them what the releases call them: (copy)right holders.
That would be much better than going down the road of assumptions again.


Well, basically you'll need only 5 additional fields: manufacturer, distributor, marketeer, copyrights holder, manufacturing rights holder. Not that much, I'd say.


Well, I won't be.

But anyway, we're going too far offtopic I think.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

It's even easier: 1 field is enough: one the fill in the role, one to fill in the company name.
(We don't have a field for every different artist credit as far as I know.
(5 is not enough I think: Manufacture, distribute, cover printing, label printing (if done by different company), copyright holder, photography & artwork studio, ... it just needs a 'credit list' just as with artists)

the label or brand or whatever can not be treated the same as a company: a label is no more than a 'logo' or 'brandname' that is USED by one or more companies holding the right of the label name and it's associated logo. These rights can be granted to other companies, sub-companies, they can be sold out,...

A company is a legal entity, just like a person is. It can create and invent as many labels as it wants.
A label cannot create companies.

Because that difference wasn't drawn from start here, companies are often seen as something complex behind the labels.
But it's too simple to be true to handle them correct in fact: instead of doing it in a label-wise way -> we should use the way we credit artists.
A label is abstract
companies, artists, band, ... these are real entities, not just names that refer to a certain 'collection'

And on this point, discogs' fundamentals are missing from the start, it's too attractive to trhrow labels & companies together (RCA or RCA LTd, sounds like the same, but the one is no more than a logo printed on records, the other is a group of peoples)
I understand this is misleading, but it's really not that difficult in fact.
You can communicate with a company or a label owner, but not with the label itself as it's no more than a logo in fact: the records are 'labeled'. (how easy is that...)

The ones who got used to the current discogs system, have slowly deformed the whole simple concept to something nobody understands. The system has mislead them and they followed the discogs way as guideline.
A good creator has one key-word: "Kill your own darlings"
Discogs sometimes needs that.

pastysurprise wrote:

To plumb the depths of this concept a bit further, I've got a general question:

If a new ("role" / "name") system gets implemented for companies and labels, etc..., what would the "label" page look like???

Would a company page look similar to a label page? copyright page? printer page? .... and so forth? Are they structurally the same?

I'm asking because if the answer is "yes," then by setting up label pages and company pages now, they can be maintained after the upgrade without much effort. So, if RCA is listed as the label, and "RCA Schallplatten GmbH" is also listed as a "label," then it the latter (RCA S.GmbH) can be highlighted later as being a company, though the structure of the display page is the same.

If this is true, then I can't see any protest against using companies in the "label" position right now. The only real complaint is that it's putting the "cart before the horse.." i.e. the changes are planned, but not certain. I think and hope that upgrades will be achieved, but this is an act of faith.



Good point! This is important to work out.

About a label, I think it's like a key that fits a lock. "RCA" key fits the lock of several international companies which manufacture RCA products. A non-RCA key might also fit the lock of an RCA affiliated company, if that company manufactures (or other role) releases by this non-RCA company as well. So, what's needed, I think, is a list of companies for each key (label). The master list is companies (locks), and the keys are the labels. A user should be able to see all RCA-related companies, or alternately, all labels that RCA Schallplatten is affiliated with, which might not be the same list!




Agreed! So, is there now a valid argument to reintroduce RCA Schallplatten GmbH back into the label field?

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

I think that's the essence.

It's like a release if "Iggy & the stooges"
Band name is like the label name.

the members are credited individually in the release,
non-members can appear on the release
a member might be missing on some release
band name might be based on name of an individual member

same with label-company relation a little bit:
Label has companies credited
label-associated companies appear most likely
sometimes a non-associated company appears
sometimes a company is missing where other releases of the label don't miss it




Except for the current RSG, no, imo, or at least not without using the notes (or a future field) that explains the exact company role (for RCA Schallplatten this is limited so far to: ℗, manufacturing & distributing, the recorded material itself is in most cases released by RCA Records (read the note on center-labels of those German RCA's)

labels are abstract entities, if an entity at all, they only exist through appearing on a release (or any product, or commercial)

companies are human (non-artistic) credit roles.
Human roles are catched with credit fields... companies should be catched as such too.
just as bands & artists, companies just exist: even if they have't done anything yet. (well yea: they're human roles)




Answer is simple: the rights holder isn't releasing the record, but is holdng the rights of the recorded work:)

I'd rather ask: Does that mean two companies are involved in releasing this item?
answer is: probably more, but they're not all mentioned probably.
(vinyl/CD manufacture, rights owners, printing, distribution, ... -> if 1 company does that all, it (mostly) means the company is outsourcing the work and not mentioning all specific involved companies on the release)




Yes, that easy so far.
but if no extra notes are present: we can guess afterwards what the exact role is...

The label field would apply for companies (imho) if a role can be defined for them (just as we do with credits)
'label' (or just nothing filled in) counts as label, apart from that we can fill in a role.
In that case: the label field would be great, imvho:)

(but we lose the simple label field we have now, probably annoying new users?)


I see companies as an advanced feature: I prefer to have a separate place for them (or just as a credit ofcourse! That would be effective...)


The describing a unique release? -> a free field that is displayed (similar to free format field) can be used for any kind of uniqueness (I once met a release with as main difference: runout cutting credit... that, (and the tulip/straight borders) are examples where a total different thing than a company describes uniqueness: for that feature I'd go for a general catch it all where you can put any info needed for uniqueness. (but only to be used when necessary not to introduce over-use of such free field)

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

btw: I'm thinking about restoring all the stupid edits I've done just as they were before (except those that have been really corrected by an owner by now)

-> this means: RCA Schallplatten back as label (I mean one-and-only label)

The submissions will be incorrect, but by replacing RCA Schallplatten by just RCA: there are some more severe errors introduced in a few of these (who in fact are not on RCA at all)

but before I do anything now -> I wait for some confirmations first:)

cheers!

pastysurprise wrote:

So the releasing company should be a different field from the rights holders? ...or is it the same as the "label?" If all of the rights holders are listed, and only one of them is the releasing company, should the "label" of the releasing company be indicated, or should the releasing company be named again?

cvalda44 wrote:

hehe, in fact it's the primary entity, it just usually wears the clothes of some brand :) but sometimes it's naked...i see why some people are uncomfortable with naked companies here :)



I agree with this very much. There's should be the same system as for credits, just possibly a drop-down menu for roles instead of manual entering, plus ability to tick the brands/companies which you want to be displayed in MR pages and lists. And I think there can be much more than just 5 roles.



The Label is something more than just a logo, it's a catalogue. The "naked" company entries here also work as catalogue, just unbranded. That's why i see nothing wrong with mixing them in structure and although I agree with you on some of your other statements, I see advantages where you see disadvantage.

The Label is something more than just a logo, i have many releases where the Label has no logo printed but we use Label anyway and the opposite, where the logo is ignored and considered as just part of artwork.

cvalda44 wrote:

Exactly, labels and companies can be highlighted in some different way later, it's just displaying issue, but the proper structure tree can be set up right now.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

Yes indeed, it's more complex: very often the label and the company owning the label is one and the same.
Some labels (especially smaller ones) even don't bother by a logo, they just print a company name.
that's where my stated 'disadvantages' may actually become advantages...





the actual company owning the 'label' might be the same as the company holding the rights (very common I think:)

Like I see it, I'd do the same as for main_artist-credited_artist relation. (easiest to notice on classical, where main artists most often are mandatory to have there roles specified in the credits)
The label is the field where you put logo/brand-name
The company credits mention the companies credited on the release (using 'company' where we would use 'performer' for undifined credits)
If the companies mentioned are the same as the one actually owning the label, we just mention the company name again in the company credits (difference is that label names don't have a GmbH, Ltd., SA, bvba, ... attached)

small labels using the company name as labelname alltogether shouldn't form a big problem: it's enough if present as label alone, and if doubled in company credits: no harm at all.

I agree with company pages being very similar to label pages, when a 'company' credit is given, discogs might create an actual label page that has indexes as we have now with artists pages: (remixes, production, appears on, ...) but for company roles (manufacturing, distributing, ℗, ©, Printing, pressing, ...)
That way such smaller labels also don't create duplicate entries (one as 'label' and one as 'company')




that would be nice!
another option for describing uniqueness could be a separate note field within an MR for every release to describe any important 'uniqueness'


I think best is to see companies as a tree, with branches and leaves, and the label is the fruit that gets the attention.
Labels are invented to be recognised.
Companies do the actual work, but behind the scene.

(That's what I mainly mean when I say label=logo, logo is a bit limited as expression (although it covers what a label is for most releases): It's the branding that's meant to get all attention, the mark brought onto the release)




yes, that's right, but for that RSG should ask to describe the role in the notes for companies in the label field. (I think most of us talking here do that anyway, but it's not always common practice)

cvalda44 wrote:

I think there should be an ability to attach multiple roles to an entity taken from release. Also, the first role for first entered entity should be "Label" and ticked by default. You may add all other entities then and attach to them all kinds of roles, but tick only one of companies additionaly to Label, i.e. the one which is releasing company, that infamous "local company branch". So MR, collection and other list pages will show:

Artist - Release Title (Entity 1, Entity 3) - exactly as it shows it now, but the release page will show:

Label: Entity 1 [ticked by default]
© Holder: Entity 2
℗Holder, Distributor: Entity 3 [ticked by user]
Role 5, Role 6: Entity 4
Unidentified Role: Entity 5

I don't know how this system will be implemented in reality of course, but I hope to see something similar. The main purpose is to have all roles displayed properly on Release page, so we will not have a company in Label field anymore. At the same time the MR and list pages will display also releasing company in addition to original brand (of course there is no need to tick the company usually, especially those running small labels).
I believe the Label should be just one of the roles, because we may want to add 2nd and 3rd Label.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

I support this completely.
I think it takes care of almost all concerns that were expressed here by different peoples. It's also not very complicated to handle.
I hope discoggers developers will pick this up soon:)

jweijde wrote:

What do you mean by 'releasing company'? How would such a thing be mentioned on a release?
We should only focus on the information given. If the companies are mentioned on the release ONLY as copyright holders, then they are copyright holders and nothing more. Let's just not start guessing. Let's start calling things what they are and not invent new entities.

cvalda44 wrote:

Dr.SultanAszazin i will not comment to the statements of your last big message simply because i agree with most of them. it is nice we came to an agreement :)

jweijde, i have tried to explain "releasing company" thing above. this is the company which may be worth to be ticked if it differs from original company which runs the original brand and of course is not an original copyright holder in this case. the copyright holder will be original company or even artist's own company.

Although, I have to say, certain releasing companies mark themselves with © sign on releases. But this mark belongs to the "licensed copyright" in particular country and the original copyright is usually mentioned as well. I may give an example of such release: Björk - Selmasongs. You may see the original Polydor brand owned by Universal Music company and also "© Вирджиния Рекърдс under license of Universal Music". At the same time it mentions original copyright holder © Bjork Overseas. This release is a clear example when a 2nd entity should be ticked although it is presented as 2nd copyright holder, not as "distributor/marketer" as it usually happens with outside releasing companies. I hope no one has doubts Вирджиния Рекърдс can be added as 2nd entity.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

© -> this is a tricky one: it's actual meaning might differ depending on where on the release it appears:
© can be liner notes copyright
© can be artwork copyright
© can be cover design copyright
© can be songtext copyright
© can be photograph copyright
© can be copyright for the whole release

I'm happy ℗ is always for the sound content:)




no problem on it's own, but to be complete "© Вирджиния Рекърдс under license of Universal Music" should be added in the notes, imho.




I agree on that one too:)

cvalda44 wrote:

yeah really, © can be used for everything.
and you are right i will update the Notes.

Ok, I would go a little bit further in this oh so much discussed company/label issue and claim Вирджиния Рекърдс is actually more important in determining this release than Polydor and has more weight to be "on top" in this "wrongly named" Label field. Someone may think this is Polydor release, because the label is Polydor. Sorry, this is not that much correct way of thinking: this album is Polydor release originally in mainland Europe, but this particular cassette is Вирджиния Рекърдс release, because the company behind Polydor is not in the game anymore. It's Вирджиния who handles this MC and decides what to print on it. Why should they care about so called "branding" :) ? On the next album they simply did not print Polydor logo. Now tell me which "label" page is more suitable to get info on Bjork Bulgarian releases ? You can find them on Polydor label page after some sorting by artist/country but it still misses one MC. The answer is crystal clear: Вирджиния company page is more suitable.

Most of people have just one copy of each title in their collections, so can't see these things. I have 20 different variations of the same albums so can see the games local companies play with logos. But the releasing company is always printed: sure, because it releases them actually

I'm not trying to say the releasing company is more important than the brand. They are equally important and only for such kind of releases. I'm just trying to say unindexing companies and moving them to Notes in a mass-update approach is a complete disaster.

pastysurprise wrote:

I'm not sure of the best term, which is why I've asked. Here's an example of what I mean:
http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1025311
Roger Waters Music Ltd. holds both ℗ and © here, giving the artist complete control. But Roger Waters Music Ltd. is not acting as a label at all. What I've referred to as the "Releasing Company" (maybe inappropriately) is the COMPANY most responsible for creating the actual product. In this case EMI Records Ltd has licensed the recordings, but "EMI" is the label, since there's a logo. But under what field do we list EMI Records Ltd.? Licensee? But it's also the company issuing the product with the brand EMI. However, the regional company directly responsible for issuing the product is a Dutch EMI company. What name do we designate for the Dutch "releasing company." Is it simply a manufacturer? The terminology here seems kind of vague.

So is it still necessary to list a company name for the Dutch company to describe the release? The label and country are known. My apologies for picking an image without clear small print on the covers - just examine the record labels. There may be a Dutch EMI company listed in the illegible notes, but I'm inferring it's existence from the STEMRA information.



Right. The point of all this is to eliminate the guesswork.


Cvalda's given some good examples.

pastysurprise wrote:

I think this one statement gives the most useful suggestion to this thread. Until anything changes, just having this information will prevent a lot of voting confusion in the future.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

If I had to submit your example in the system cvalda44 described, I'd do it like this:

1-Label: EMI (For the moment EMI has a dupe entry in the database: EMI & EMI Records)
2-Licenced from, © [1987], ℗ [1987]: Roger Waters Music Ltd. (Just as with credits, I put 3 roles in 1 line here and use the brackets for additional info present)
3-Publisher [Licensed To]: EMI Records Ltd.
4-Copyright holder: GEMA
5-Copyright holder: STEMRA

I cannot see the Dutch EMI credited somewhere. but, I propose to only use roles as they appear on release, just as we do now with artists. No role, but just a name: just use 'Company'.

Now the release is on EMI Music (Netherlands)
As far as I know this isn't an eligable label no more since dicogs stopped with country-specific labelnames.

As hafler3o said in history, imo this should go to EMI, because that's how it's on the release.

pastysurprise wrote:

It looks like a good way to classify the release parts.

I'll have to look into the EMI reorganization threads again too. Thanks for all the input to all who have contributed to this thread. It's been fairly enlightening to compare concepts.

jweijde wrote:

EMI Records is in the db, because at some point in time somebody renamed EMI Records Ltd. to EMI Records.
In my opinion it should go, or maybe should only be used for the UK EMI releases with the circular EMI logo. This logo seems to be only used for UK based releases, whereas the more common rectangular EMI logo seems to be only used for every non-UK release. On the other hand, for the sake of simplicity, it might be better to to get rid of EMI Records and only have EMI.



Wouldn't this be making things up? BIEM/STEMRA aren't copyright holders, EMI Records Ltd. isn't mentioned as publisher.
Lets stick to what the release mentions:

1. Label: EMI
2. copyright holder (c): Roger Waters Music Ltd.
3. phonographic rights holder (p): Roger Waters Music Ltd.
4. Licensee: EMI Records Ltd.
5. Copyright collecting society: BIEM/STEMRA (could probably be split also)



Listing this release on EMI Music (Netherlands) is absolutely incorrect. It seems to be only based on the presence of BIEM/STEMRA (BIEM/STEMRA = Dutch -> this should be a dutch release -> Dutch branch of EMI). This happens a lot, but in my opinion is very inaccurate. The entry for this release should not have any dutch EMI branch mentioned in it, simply because its not present on the release.


Absolutely.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

yep, this is better! Agree!
thanks!

pastysurprise wrote:

6. Manufacturer: (whatever the fine print on the cover says)
etc... there should be another thread to discuss exactly which company roles should be available in the future. I've seen a few lists proposed here and there in other forums.

The roles mentioned would be great as selectable company credits!
... along with whichever others are required.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

I did make one: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/199606

cheers!

cvalda44 wrote:

It looks like there are will be much more than 5 roles :) Interesting how this will be done: as a drop-down menu or just like credits system ?

If we are going to index BIEM/STEMRA societies as well I may want to tick them, haha. I know at least one album which has two completely similar versions, except one is BIEM/STEMRA and the other is BIEM/MCPS :)

Btw, about country-specific labelnames, I assume not ALL of them are illegal, but only fake ones, no ? I assume this one One Little Indian US is legal, because it is a sublabel as well as major label branches, Warner and Universal for example, eh ?

jweijde wrote:

Probably all of them are incorrect indeed.


I checked some releases on that label and it doesn't look like 'One Little Indian US' was used as label name or company name in any way. So that means it's an incorrect entry aswell.

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

It doesn't seem so: the label is created after the US web-address (www.onelittleindian-us.com)
Can't find any release that's actually on a separate US label...




especially those with country between ()brackets are nothing more than strange inventions.

jweijde wrote:

Think it's comparable to Mute Corporation (the company) and Mute (the label). OLI does have a US branch if you look at their website: http://www.onelittleindian-us.com/new/ (click Contact)

cvalda44 wrote:

But why we should make the things more complicated if One Little Indian itself keeps everything separate ? Separate catalog ! US Cat.numbers begin with OLI prefix. UK releases use TP suffix instead. The logos are different, although they mix them sometimes. US releases always mention onelittleindian-us.com near logo. Different artists - an artists signed to US branch may not release on OLI in UK. I think we should not go too far in merging everything and draw a line between sublabels which happen to have "unlucky" name and real fake entries.

It wasn't created "after the US web-address" - it was created when it was established and started releasing records and signing artists.

Universal branches are clear labels, no question:
http://new.umusic.com/Labels.aspx?Group=2
And here are some releases:
http://www.discogs.com/release/1574815
http://www.discogs.com/release/1195610

Draw a line guys, draw a line. Each Universal branch has its own history, its own local artists and often additional local sublabels. Merging all Universal releases into one page will create a clumsy monster.
If some local branch has "lucky" name, let's say Ukrainian branch of Universal is called "Ukrainian Records" but Universal Music Australia has "unlucky" name, that doesn't mean one is legal and other is not.

mirva wrote:

I'm not sure if they are all labels, I know the Finnish one isn't, for sure. There is no label called "Universal Music Finland" - never seen a logo of that on a release, and their website doesn't list it as a brand they use, and well, my friend used to work for them. The Universal Music Finland, at least, is referring just to the Finnish Universal Music branch, the company is called irl Universal Music Oy. It is sometimes called Universal Music Finland, because "Finland" is more informative than "Oy", but it's not a separate label.

cvalda44 wrote:

Sure, some of them are not labels, especially European. At least Finnish and German divisions do not run labels - they use general Universal Music Group logo even for local promos. But there are local Universal companies in each country and a bunch of companies run labels. At least, I'm sure about Australian, Russian and few others. The local branding is usually used for local artists and local promos. If they release an international album coming from other label the branding may be different each time. Sometimes just general Universal logo sometimes again local branding, sometimes local label name is separated from logo.
Universal sublabels may release outside its country: EU release:
t.A.T.u. - Not Gonna Get Us
Universal Music Russia releases in Belarus, Universal Music Australia in New Zealand etc., so merging them into one Big page will not help to sort all Universal Music Russia by country.
Btw, Universal Muzik Yapim (Turkey division) use a separate cat.number system but doesn't bother about proper logo, so we should not refer to logo only.
We should improve the current system very accurately and discuss each change, unfortunately some hyperactive voters may think the opposite.

mirva wrote:

I'm not even sure if the Russian one is a label, a lot of major label companies have a logo. In addition, that release has an Interscope logo... but, Universal is totally another issue, I think stretching this thread there is a bit too far.

jweijde wrote:

I don't really get what you're trying to say cvalda44, but usually all that those local branches do is market releases in their own territory, using worldwide branding (EMI, Parlophone, Universal, Interscope, etc.) They are companies who are allowed to use these brands on their releases.
Those Universal Music Russa and Universal Music Australia releases might end up on the same label page because of the branding, but when companies will be added aswell one would still have a page which lists all releases that were marketed by Universal Music Russia for example.
Fact is that all local branches in the discogs database need to be reviewed. Some might need to be renamed, merged or deleted. But this needs to be done case-by-case. I wasn't saying all are incorrect and should therefore be merged into one entry.

jweijde wrote:

Think so too. These kind of discussions seem more appropiate in label reorganisation topics. Otherwise we'll end up discussing 101 things here.

cvalda44 wrote:

hmm, that's a fresh way of thinking - consider Universal Music Russia as logo of company :) Well call it's company, we can have companies in Label field :) Although, Russian company in fine print is OOO "Юниверсал Мьюзик".
I think the country imprints for major labels were not that much incorrect i still think they can be treated as sublabels. Universal Music Australia brand exists and I think should have separate page from Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd. company. Just remove those brackets around country.
Ok, let's shut up in this thread :)

pastysurprise wrote:

Maybe the future discogs shouldn't list releases on the company pages. Perhaps searching by brand/label or other feature (artist or title) from the company page would be more manageable. The sheer number of releases on majors make is kind of monstrous.



Having a set of numbered images for label logos that could be referenced on a submission form might be useful (ex: has logo #3 featuring Nipper).

If a company release (example: promotional CD issued without catalog numbers from main company office) does not show a label at all, there ought to be a "generic-label" so that these releases can be associated with company pages, not label pages.

mirva wrote:

Yeah, if there is a need to discuss other issues, separate topics should be started.


Agreed. :)

Dr.SultanAszazin wrote:

To me it seems just to be an American office.
not a separate company or label.
Probably because not the whole catalog is the same.
But this is just an assumption, in fact: I don't know...


Looking at this it should be on Universal Music Russia (but not on Universal Music (Russia) as this is an old discogs system to categorize russian releases on "Universal Music" separate)

Safest thing is to repeat how things are on the release, too much interpretation and thinking doesn't do any good.
That's the main point when discogs says: we catalog releases...
the label & artist lists are created by what's appearing on the releases.
Trying to import knowledge into this catalog doesn't work, because discogs should be as fool-proof as possible...
(Knowledge might work in a personal catalog, or in a catalog that uses artists, or labels or companies as starting point, instead of the releases, but imo, using releases as base is the best thing for a public catalog -> repeating info is just easy)

With the info -> associations based on knowledge can be made in the profile etc...
Apart from that, I would not interpretate too much and just repeat things as they appear.