• doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    I think the database is incorrect in the Out Records listings. I have found that after 1987, this logo and reference to Out Records stopped:

    From '88 on, there was either no reference to Out other than the catalog number, or the actual Discomagic boot logo:


    In my opinion, any releases after '87, or after OUT 3123 should be under Discomagic. The dropping of the Out logo and name occurred sometime between OUT 3123 and OUT 3129, as there aren't photos in Discogs for those in between to see when it actually started.

    I can't see how releases after the Out name was dropped like this can still be under the Out label, when lots of them clearly show the name and logo Discomagic and not Out:

  • _jules over 9 years ago

    _jules edited over 9 years ago
    wish you good luck with that

    italo disco labels are a mess

    and italo heads response usually is "yes italo labels are a mess but this is how it is and how it should be" (usually with worse grammar)

    also see:

    there's what the release appear to be saying, and then there's what italo experts claim to know - the two stories tending to be quite different ...
  • Jogi over 9 years ago

    well, its the same like with other things in life...many people, different opinions = confusion and open questions.
    all i can say to this big discussion about the italo-sleeves is..
    most postings which i have red are simply speculations and assertions without substance.

    ok, you can say "hey, there is just another mr. wisenheimer"...
    but i ask the other way round: how many of you guys collect italo for 20-25 years? who have ever been in italy for records? who has visited discomagic or other companies? who knows lombardoni, producers or artists personally? who ever had longer talks about music, labels and artists with those persons?

    i think this facts say more than enough. and its a good base for a wide range of italo knowledge and experiences. of course...its impossible to know everything..but can´t you imagine that guys like me asked questions about label-misterys 15-20 years ago?
    pfff...be sure about it, i did!
    its always a pleasure to share all the things i know after this long time of collecting with other freaks.
    but it really exhaust me to "fight" against this "disbelievers"...uahhh....

    what kind of supposition is that??
    Out-Label has started as a sub-label of Discomagic and this fact never changed until the label ended.
    in 87/88 lombardoni just wanted to give more freshness to some of his labels (like out, sensation, lombardoni, technology..)..and started to resign the old full colored label/label background..he did it step by step.
    labels like Lombardoni and Sensation disappeared, Out and Techno became nice house-labels.
    you get wet eyes if you could see SNS8078 without the typical Sensation-outfit! also the background of Out changed into simple white...same for lombardoni (with colored label logo at least..!)...further more the technology label changed in boring white. and...thats all.
    i can see nothing special relating this story...
    so, and now please ask your question again...
    why in hell should OUT after 3123 be under Discomagic???

  • hysteric over 9 years ago

    If the cat# starts with OUT..., I think it's better to leave it where it is, regardless of the picture on the label.
    In other words, it makes no sense to me to have an OUT catalog record under the discomagic label.
  • ITALO-neon- over 9 years ago

    I agree !!!!!

    Jogi I have collect Italo Disco from 1984 until now
    Aad have ask many questions about labels e.d.

    But one question I asked I've had never a good answer
    and this is the question :-)

    Why is that some labels (like for exsample American Disco)
    skip a release number AMD 013, AMD 016, AMD 017 they don't exist ????

    thanks in advance


  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    doctor_trance edited over 9 years ago
    I guess you guys are missing the point somewhat. This website is about cataloguing what is found on releases, for people to have a database to come back and search for releases.

    The records after catalog number OUT 3123 do not have an Out logo on them anymore. In fact, a lot of them, as in the example I pointed out, have the Discomagic logo clearly displayed on them:

    They do not say distributed by, or licensed through, rather the large, prominent Discomagic logo on them. In all other releases in Discogs, this is what we go by. While Jogi, you may know personally how Lombardoni chose to keep the Out label going with these types of releases, this database is an example and record of what is clearly shown on releases, for users, collectors, buyers, etc to be able to find and identify a release.

    Therefore, if the OUT logo is dropped, and especially when an old label logo is reapplied to a record, regardless if the catalog system or order of another sub-label is used, for Discogs purposes, it should go under the correct label as per the release info.

    If someone's bought a Discomagic logo record starting with the OUT catalog number, they are not going to know any shred of what Jogi is mentioning. They are going to classify it according to what they see on their record. And what they will see is no reference to the OUT label.

    IMO, we really should be going by what is shown on the release, as we do with all other things in Discogs, and not the back story of how the label boss wanted to keep the sub-label going, by mysteriously dropping the logo, making the background white, keeping the same catalog number, but on some of them, deciding to reuse the main label logo.

    It's just too confusing and open for opinion. If we stick to what's on the release, it's safest. We do this for all other releases in Discogs, so why should the OUT label be one of the few exceptions? On all those later release, the OUT label/logo is no longer mentioned or used.

    @julesparis - you were exactly right!
  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    From the Discogs guidelines for entering labels:

    "If the name may reflect changes to the label or company, different periods in time, or other such information, the names should not be combined."

    It's not that I'm a "disbeliever" Jogi, it's just there are guidelines in place here that do not necessarily fit the history of Italo Disco.
  • waxHead over 9 years ago

    wish you good luck with that

    Same here. Lots of the italo-disco labels need work, but you're going to be met with quite a bit of resistance if you try changing them around.
  • Jogi over 9 years ago

    well, guidelines are important for a database like discogs.
    Its good to take care of it.
    but not everything is really optimal or correct.

    otherwise i cannot see a relation between your mentioned "guideline example" and OUT label. the label has never changed...and the important fact is the label code (most important: the code-marking on vinyl). its OUT until the end, not Discomagic. there is no need to spend a lousy thought for any kind of changes on the database. really nuts.

    with the beginning of house-music labels like OUT and Technology were released without a PS for 99%. Lombardoni did nothing else than this: sometimes he put a small Discomagic Logo on those labels to make clear that Discomagic company is the distributor. man, see it as a kind of promotion for this company (finally there were no sleeves with address/contact infos or something else!). Discomagic had a big time in the first part of the 90´s.
    and fact is: the labels never changed. Discomagic-Label went its own separate way -- same for OUT and Technology. once again: SEE THE LABELCODES..other things are out of question.

    its really true, the HISS numbers you mentioned were never released. this numbers were reserved for any kind of songs, but finally followed no production, no song...
    strange but there are many examples for things like this.
    take a look at ASIA Rec....ARD 1004 "Future 1980" and ARD 1017 "Tony D."...in this case we even have names..but hey...they never were produced! this records do not exist. Mauro himself wanted to sing "Tony D. - Dance around the world"- but anyway he did not like this song and decided against the idea to release it.
    man, i asked 200 questions when i was member of the ASIA-Fan Club in 1990.:-))
    a handful of questions were answered by Mauro himself...nowadays its unbelievable...

  • ITALO-neon- over 9 years ago

    Thanks for the info Jogi :-)
  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    the label has never changed

    In spirit maybe not, but technically It's changed appearance by losing the Out logo and putting the Discomagic logo in it's place. We identify records by what is listed on them. It's a consistency that has to remain for any label in this database.

    However, just as we don't give credits for something not listed on a record, even if we know 7 musicians who played on it, we can't try to add label tags to records that simply do not have the label printed on them. If it has Discomagic printed on it, and not Out, then it goes under Discomagic. It's simple and applies to every label in Discogs. Stories about why Lombardoni did this and why he did that are irrelevant.
  • Jogi over 9 years ago

    we can discuss a few weeks more if you like.
    but your mind is working exactly that way as i supposed before when i read words like "Stories about why Lombardoni did this and why he did that are irrelevant." Bla, bla..
    you are not a man from the practical side..you come along to me like a boring book-keeper.
    well, if you are a book-keeper -- please, then make a good work..
    and don´t bring us disaster...

    what is about
    MAX "Day by day"?

    what is about
    LOUIS "Bad times"?

    what is about
    FIRE "you got fire"?

    and this one shows exactly what i mean

    we already have reached OUT-No.3389, its still OUT-label...
    and the small logo you can see above is nearly the same
    as we already had concerning your example: "A divison of Discomagic".
    This is NOT a label-logo and it never should be something like this (its a bit like promotion for the company..nothing more!).

    i also can read guidelines and its not correct what you are saying. because a label does not need a logo to be a label...
    its simply enough to see OUT31xx...
    please tell me: where can you see a discomagic-"logo" for the label??
    on a "handful" of out-records is the small DISCOMAGIC-design of the 90s to make clear that Discomagic is the distributor.

    IMO its better to stop this discussion now. because there is no reason to change anything.
    i´m really a nice and friendly guy..but this crazy discussion and most of the arguments pump out my kindness...

    over and out...

  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    please tell me: where can you see a discomagic-"logo" for the label??

    Umm, how about on the example I have kept pointing out since the start of this thread:


    And you mention about "boring bookkeeper" well that's sort of what this place is. It's for collectors, and more importantly as of late, buyers and sellers. It's not meant to be flashy, open to interpretation, or a history of when and how labels change names. It's supposed to follow a concrete bookkeeping order.

  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    doctor_trance edited over 9 years ago
    Also, here it seems to have gone through a name change at some point, to Out Music Bank:





    Again, in case you missed it:
    "If the name may reflect changes to the label or company, different periods in time, or other such information, the names should not be combined."

    The above listings are clearly a name change to Out during this time period and belong under a separate label name. Any label that even simply adds Ltd. or International to the end or any slight change needs a separate label name.

    You seem to be concerned with whether all these are all suppose to be Out releases or not, and I'm not questioning that, but if there are different times where the Out label changed, it needs to be separate in Discogs. If we create a new label called Out Music Bank, you can still write on it's bio page that it is part of Out/Discomagic. You seem to worried that it's going to be broken off into space or something. It's just for classification and identification purposes on this site.

  • Jogi over 9 years ago

    hm, what is about this part of the guidelines..?

    ++"For smaller 'independent' labels, such a variation is usually unintentional, so you can usually adjust the label name to match the existing Discogs entry. Please make a note of any adjustments in the release notes and the submission notes.

    For larger 'major' labels, any difference may be significant, in terms of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These should be entered as on the release, UNLESS there is good reason to think it is simply a VARIATION for the exact SAME brand or company."++

  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    The larger label would be Discomagic, and if they switch from calling it Out to Out Music Bank, then it's separate branches and as stated, should be entered as on the release. Neither Out nor Out Music are the same as Discomagic, they are sub-labels and not the major label here.

    If we made a new label, Out Music Bank, it would still be under the parent label Discomagic and correctly entered in Discogs as what is written on the release.

    As far as the Out releases with no other logo's or name changes and only including the OUT catalog number, I would say those should stay under Out.

    The ones with the Discomagic label are questionable, as we have some like my example that clearly show just the Discomagic "boots" logo, and others like the one you pointed out, that say "a division of" without the Discomagic logo.

    For the ones that say Out Music Bank, those should do under Out Music Bank.
  • hysteric over 9 years ago

    Please don't mess around with the Out catalog :)

    It looks fine as it is, with all the consecutive Out catalogued records in the right sequence.
    As was proved with the Il Disc/Crash discussion, the cat# is more important than whatever the logo is.
  • ITALO-neon- over 9 years ago

    the cat# is more important than whatever the logo is.

    You are right there Hysteric
  • Jogi over 9 years ago

    sorry, doctor-trance...
    you can explain what you want...everything you say is not logical to me...its book-keeper-behavior..

    we still have OUT-numbers until the label has ended, thats a fact. and if you can see sometimes things like a small "discomagic-design" or "the save music bank".. then its just a promotion-adding, a slogan ...nothing else.
    i cannot see a new label.
    the italians did funny and crazy things in the 80s..maybe its not easy to understand everything...but you are blended by some things...sometimes its not that way as it seems..;-)

    i have many records which different label logos, but the numbers do belong to one label.
    example: ALEPH - Fly to me 7inch (Discomagic Logo but TRD-Number), BEN BRUCE - Eye to eye rmx/ 7inch (Technology Label but London records number), P.Lion "Happy children" 12inch (Discomagic-Logo but American Disco number), IMS "Hymn" 12" (has no label-logo but its a Sensation-number)...just to mention a few. :-)
    just keep cool and do not try to change anything.

  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    I'm not going to change anything, I was just pointing out there were some changes in the label that should be listed according to the Discogs "bookkeeping" method. If you don't think it should be changed, that's fine. Yes, they are bookkeeping rules, but they are not my rules.

    The key comment here in the last few posts is "It looks fine as it is". Discogs has tried to change that over the years, because there were too many inaccuracies due to people wanting something to "look right". Everyone used to combine, alter, and fix catalog numbers; and even change release titles, so they could all look pretty and match up nicely on one page. However, that is not the intention of this site. It's to portray releases exactly how they are when someone is looking at them.

    Just keep in mind that several major labels in this database that go through name changes over the years, yet continued to have a similar cataloguing numbers and ongoing sequences. This means that if EMI becomes EMI Ltd. and EMI ended with XR899, and then EMI Ltd's first release is XR900, it doesn't matter. Yes, they are all under EMI, but XR900 onward is under a new name and should be listed as such.

    there's what the release appear to be saying, and then there's what italo experts claim to know - the two stories tending to be quite different ...

    I swear, Jules is like the Nostradamus of this site ...

    Lots of the italo-disco labels need work, but you're going to be met with quite a bit of resistance if you try changing them around.

    Yah, you weren't kidding.

  • swattan over 9 years ago

    Just to say 2 words.. in the past i've seen many "hystorical" moderators messing up the db with their opinions, and don't try to say anything different!! But after that.. results were catastrophic.

    Lately, for example, i don't why people removed this (added by me some months ago) http://www.discogs.com/history?label=Discomagic+Records#latest
    Ok, there will be the "magical strange algorithm" that will sort all cat#, but until that don't know why we should have all records put in a wrong order... just an example.

    Ah, for me OUT is ok :) (there is some rec with wrong date btw)

  • wiz_of_oz over 9 years ago

    Would it be a good idea of explaining a few italolabel-things/history (as in this thread) in the profile of labels like Crash, American Disco, Out etc. to prevent italo-"newbies" trying to change the catalogue of these labels with discogs-rules?
  • s1ingshot over 9 years ago

    FULL ACK to doctor_trance.
    the "boring book-keepers" make you find records/books/journals/whatever by applying rules and following reasonable standards

    from the library background:
    identifiers like cat# (and especially the persistent IDs like DOI) are usually handled as being "dumb" = meaningless

    a librarian would index what s/he actually sees on the record/book/whatever and that would go into the catalog because that's what is being searched.

    librarians look back to some centuries of experience in cataloging media and they try to convince all the newbies out on the net that it makes sense following certain standards : ]

    not that I'd agree with every rule on discogs but they did a pretty good job
  • Jogi over 9 years ago

    FULL ACK to doctor_trance.
    the "boring book-keepers" make you find records/books/journals/whatever by applying rules and following reasonable standards

    never critized the whole system. Discogs is great, they make a good job..without a doubt. :-)
    we are talking about a special label, in this case..OUT Rec. Italy. the italians made some confusing things in the past..hardly to understand. sure i know.
    but i don´t think that a librarian would not care about the cat#. he can see it on the record the same way as any kind of logo.
    so i think your comment does not hit the point.

  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    I think he means most people will come here and look up the record by the titled and printed words on the record (song title, artist, label, etc.) before they would search via catalog number.
  • swattan over 9 years ago

    For me instead, could be great (but i think it's not permitted by SG) to have, for example, for this kind of release


    2 labels, Hi Tech music and Out (because the cat# belong obviously to Out), with the same cat#.
  • doctor_trance over 9 years ago

    Good example of it having the Out catalog number but belonging under another label. It should not be dual labels for that release, only under Hi Tech.

Log In You must be logged in to post.