• el_duro over 3 years ago

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=4994420#latest

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=4894917#latest

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=130646#latest

    Based on 4.7.2., I think that "TORSO CD161" must be added to the Solar Lodge Records cat# field. I also believe that Solar Lodge Records is entered correctly as "label" here. Both the address and the logo appear on the artwork and the imprint is not credited for any specific role such as licensing on the release.

    Opinions, please
  • MusicNutter over 3 years ago

    Cat number in my opinion.

    Is CD 14271 90 also a cat number?

    Including CD 14271-90
  • el_duro over 3 years ago

    MusicNutter
    Is CD 14271 90 also a cat number?

    Including CD 14271-90


    EFA distribution no., see LCCN
  • excel21 over 3 years ago

    Only use none if no there's no catalog number whatsoever. In cases of multiple labels and one (or more) without a cat#, the first cat# in alphabetical order is used for the cat#-less ones.
  • Mr.Slut over 3 years ago

    My problem with the item being listed as a multiple label release is a more general one. This CD was made by Torso who licensed it from Solar Lodge, who published the 10" version before.
    It is no credited that way on the release, that is for sure. It is common sense.
    The same common sense is used when NOT listing EFA as a label, although their logo also appears on the release.

    The current way of handling these things in discogs unfortunately results in data being simply wrong.
    Just because a logo appears, does not automatically make this a multiple label release in my opinion.
    Yet that is the way it is handled right now.

    So technically, listing Solar Lodge Records as a secondary label is wrong, but it is the accepted way on discogs for the time being.
  • perlator over 3 years ago

    excel21
    In cases of multiple labels and one (or more) without a cat#, the first cat# in alphabetical order is used for the cat#-less ones.

    A label without a catalog number will trigger a "Missing Catalog Number" warning and will prevent the submission. That is the only reason why that 'none'-placeholder is needed at all. RSG §4.8.3 states that "If all labels used the same catalog number this should be added to all catalog number fields". So none is only used in case there is no catalog number available at all. The ambiguity of RSG §4.7.2 regarding this has been pointed out time and time again, but to no avail.
    In case of multiple catalog numbers with one label, the first catalog number entered is used for all other companies on the release page. In case of multiple catalog number with multiple labels, the catalog number that appears first with the alphabetically first label name is used for all other companies.
  • el_duro over 3 years ago

    MusicNutter
    Cat number in my opinion.


    excel21
    Only use none if no there's no catalog number whatsoever.


    perlator
    RSG §4.8.3 states that "If all labels used the same catalog number this should be added to all catalog number fields". So none is only used in case there is no catalog number available at all.


    Thanks

    Mr.Slut
    The current way of handling these things in discogs unfortunately results in data being simply wrong.


    Mr.Slut
    So technically, listing Solar Lodge Records as a secondary label is wrong


    4.6.2. The label on a release can usually be identified by having a prominent logo. Labels are usually important to enter in a submission - if a release has a label or labels mentioned, they are required to be entered.


    You may want to start a thread in the development forum if you feel that the label / cat# guidelines should be changed. Until then, please add the Torso cat# to the Solar Lodge entry. Thanks

  • EricLanzillotta over 3 years ago

    Logo does not automatically mean label. Lack of a catalog number from one label doesn't mean that they automatically use the other label's catalog number. 4.8.3 basically relates to the fact that the catalog number field cannot be empty. "none" is a valid entry. 4.7.2 confirms this. It also says, "For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a sequential identifying number that relates directly to the company."

    In this case, boebie58 provides evidence that Solar Lodge Records is not a label in this case. This external evidence should be given more weight that simply making assumptions about the situation. I think in this case, the burden should be on someone finding some external source showing that Solar Lodge Records used the Torso catalog number. Until that time, the Torso number should not be inherited by Solar Lodge Records

Log In You must be logged in to post.