The end of "Not On Label"?

Hi folks - I have something for you to ponder over the weekend!

For our label / company update, we are looking at the best way to use the new information we will be able to enter. One thing we are looking at is what to do when there is no label. As we have many more possibilities for entering companies, and as these will be very useful when defining the release, we are considering using a hierarchy and simply picking the top one or two entries from that hierarchy to display on the top of the release, and on artist and Master Release pages.

So, for example, imagine (for the sake of a simple example) the hierarchy is:

Label
Series
Record Company
Copyright (c)
Phonographic Copyright (p)
Published By

Now, if there was a label and series entered, these would be displayed on the top of the release page (where label is at the moment), and on the artist and master release pages, again where label is at the moment.

Imagine if there was no label or series, but there was a record company and publisher on the release. Now we could imagine displaying those instead of 'label' in all the aforementioned places.

I hope I am making sense so far!

Now, with the above concept in mind, we can see there are now numerous opportunities to define a release by entities other than its label, where a label doesn't exist.

The most obvious example is some releases don't have a label, but have a record company. In this case, we don't want to or need to tag the release as 'Not On Label'.

Taking this further, we can see that even if a release only have a manufacturer, a studio etc etc, it makes sense to show these in lieu of the label. Indeed, there are some examples in the database already where we have entered the manufacturer as the 'label' (some flexi discs IIRC).

So, all of this would point to the Not On Label concept being depreciated. I'm not sure exactly how much though. We can imaging a few different outcomes. We could leave things as they are, and only require that Not On Label is used when there is no other label, company, studio, or other business. I am wondering how many NOL releases that would affect - how many NOL releases have other entities that we can enter into the release? Is NOL going to end up blocking legitimate and factual companies from being displayed optimally?

What if we made the NOL concept to be it's own entity, and put that right at the bottom of the hierarchy, and convert all the NOL data into that. We could then use that to organize artists releases that don't have a label, but keep it out of the way of the factual entities on the release. Only when there is no factual entities to choose from, would we fall back to the NOL for display.

This is me very much thinking out loud here - I was discussing the label / company update with the developers yesterday, and we unearthed this issue.

I am interested in your view of the problem, maybe there is a more obvious way to deal with it, or maybe there are deeper problems I haven't thought about. In any case, I felt that the more people giving input to this, the better chance we have of making the right decision and avoiding potential pitfalls, so your input, questions, and ideas would be most welcome!

post removed, i'll rethink my question about

Not On Label (ArtistName) &
Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released)

Not to forget "Not On Label (SeriesName Series)".

What happens with, for example, Bandcamp releases where there may be no label, no company, only an artist Copyright?

Does it default to that then?

nik
we are considering using a hierarchy and simply picking the top one or two entries from that hierarchy to display on the top of the release

Very Good Thing!™

nik
What if we made the NOL concept to be it's own entity, and put that right at the bottom of the hierarchy, and convert all the NOL data into that.

I like that idea. I'd also welcome some automation of the data entry, at least to some degree. Like the string would be set by default as "Not On Label (Artist_Name Self-released)"

However, there should be an option to override the default string if necessary.
Here's a recent example: Vltava - Beat
It's self-released de facto by the band, but on the release it apparently clearly states "released by Petr Venkrbec" who was a group member and obviously also sort of a manager then.

cellularsmoke
What happens with, for example, Bandcamp releases where there may be no label, no company, only an artist Copyright?
Does it default to that then?

We currently use...

8m2stereo
Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released)

nik
We could leave things as they are, and only require that Not On Label is used when there is no other label, company, studio, or other business

I have many a ultra-white label releases (i.e. 1950's stag party records) and plenty of weird outliers that definitely have no company, series or label let alone identified artist.

Are we quite sure another major change to how we submit data is a good idea right now? There are still releases in the database that have credits in the notes section from the good old days. Our collective track record with keeping entries in the DB up to current standard is not so good.

Once again, http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/group/1872 needs everyone's help!

InDaMode

We currently use...

Er... yeah - but I'm asking in reference to the proposal of removing Not On Label... kinda irrelevant as to what we currently use. I have no idea what you're even attempting to state here.

nik
depreciated

You mean deprecated, not depreciated. Sounds good otherwise.

Clark* - Dead Shark Eyes would be back to NoL then ? there's no Label, Series, Record Company, Copyright (c), Phonographic Copyright (p), Published By to add on it.
"Only when there is no factual entities to choose from, would we fall back to the NOL for display."

For self-released titles (without any label/company/anythingsuch as for instance a lot of punk demo releases), can there be a global "Self-released" placeholder entry?

I think that's much more convenient than using NOL (artist-self-released)
The artist & self refer to the same, and the NOL is just there because of the concept (which now dissapears). A self-released page for each artist is not needed because one can easily find self-released titles when typing "self-released" in the search on their artist page.

One page to access the world of self-released titles would be much more interesting imo, than creating a self-release page for each artist individually. (especially if label pages would have their own search function like the artist pages)

^ I like this idea. I've never seen the point in creating thousands of ArtistName Selfreleased label pages that will mostly only have one entry each. How does it help?

I think it's a good idea as well, it will also hopefully reduce the number of errors and other miscellanea in the database to have a universal method of entering self-released titles.

Dr.SultanAszazin
can there be a global "Self-released" placeholder entry?

BINGO (or is it "House"). I like that better, it's "keepitsimplestupid™"tastic!

Although personally I like the idea of that hierarchy, by looking on how some people have problems with just adding the right info to one label field I assume the introduction of 5 or 6 fields will give new meaning to the abbreviation "EI"

Diognes_The_Fox
I have many a ultra-white label releases (i.e. 1950's stag party records) and plenty of weird outliers that definitely have no company, series or label

Many bootlegs also have no mention of any entity that could be put in a label/company/copyright/publisher/whatever field.

Not On Label is a relic of discogs at a different time. A time when you could fit the entire page on a excel spreadsheet and browse it for dupes XD

Dr.SultanAszazin
For self-released titles (without any label/company/anythingsuch as for instance a lot of punk demo releases), can there be a global "Self-released" placeholder entry?

Sir, I like your idea and wish to subscribe to your newsletter :D

But this is all well and good for self-released stuff but what about featureless white labels which usually have compiled bootlegged tracks like these:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/Various-The-Revenge-EP/release/651616
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/Various-Untitled/release/956167
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/Various-Untitled/release/604432
If NOL goes we cant use 'Self-Released' as we dont know who the 'Self' is.

We *could* use this:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/label/White+Label
but hey, that page has got enough problems as it is as you can see :S

nik, I'm not convinced this will work as simple as you suggest. We need to know at all times what the information represents, you can't just amalgamate 5 different types of information into 1 field and have people guessing what it means.

I hope you can provide some convincing example artist pages to see what the results will look like.

Jayfive
what about featureless white labels which usually have compiled bootlegged tracks like these:

maybe we need an 'Unknown Bootlegger' entry as well:) named after our dear friend Unknown Artist

Diognes_The_Fox
Once again, http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/group/1872 needs everyone's help!

i just get an error when i try to open that link.

anyway, if the copyright is to one artist, and there is no label, why not just link to the normal artist page and create a section "copyright"?

on the down side, who will edit the more than 2,5 million releases already in the db?

Thanks for all the replies folks.

DonHergeFan
Not to forget "Not On Label (SeriesName Series)".

Yeh, those examples can just be updated to Series - Seriesname.

cellularsmoke
What happens with, for example, Bandcamp releases where there may be no label, no company, only an artist Copyright?

Does it default to that then?

That is a good question. These releases are in the database under NOL at the moment. But 'Bandcamp' also need to be mentioned here IMHO, thay are a company involved in the release. This brings up an interesting question (one of the many we'll have to broach, I suspect), what is Bandcamp? They call themselves a "publishing platform for bands". Hmm, well yes that makes sense in of the web, but they are not a Music Publisher in the established sense of someone who manages the use of the musical score. They are more like a Distributor.

Diognes_The_Fox
I have many a ultra-white label releases (i.e. 1950's stag party records) and plenty of weird outliers that definitely have no company, series or label let alone identified artist.

For sure, the white label with no information on it is not unheard of, and we need to deal with them.

Diognes_The_Fox
Are we quite sure another major change to how we submit data is a good idea right now? There are still releases in the database that have credits in the notes section from the good old days. Our collective track record with keeping entries in the DB up to current standard is not so good.

As long as it doesn't break the database, it is ok. Legacy data is part and parcel of such a large website - it can get updated eventually.

hafler3o
Clark* - Dead Shark Eyes would be back to NoL then ? there's no Label, Series, Record Company, Copyright (c), Phonographic Copyright (p), Published By to add on it.

Do you mean that "Not On Label (Chris Clark Self-released)" would be changed to "Not On Label"? No, I don't think we necessarily need to do that change, no.

Dr.SultanAszazin
For self-released titles (without any label/company/anythingsuch as for instance a lot of punk demo releases), can there be a global "Self-released" placeholder entry?

I think that's much more convenient than using NOL (artist-self-released)

Some people find the NOL (Artistname Self-Released) pages useful though. We'd have to look at this in more depth I think.

Marleen_Records
Although personally I like the idea of that hierarchy, by looking on how some people have problems with just adding the right info to one label field I assume the introduction of 5 or 6 fields will give new meaning to the abbreviation "EI"

It will still just be one field, with 'Label' as the default. It just means we can enter more information using the [+] button and a dropdown. It shouldn't make basic data entry more complicated, and it should open up thing so that it is less complicated in a way (just enter what is on the release, no more "was this distributor acting as a record company on this release").

Articuno
nik, I'm not convinced this will work as simple as you suggest. We need to know at all times what the information represents, you can't just amalgamate 5 different types of information into 1 field and have people guessing what it means.

I hope you can provide some convincing example artist pages to see what the results will look like.

I don't think it is that problematic. It is the same general concept as credits. All entities will be tagged as what they are on the release page. The exact layout on the artist / master release pages it TBC, but we will have to accept that sometimes when 'Label' doesn't exist, we will need to substitute something else (record company or whatever).

syke
if the copyright is to one artist, and there is no label, why not just link to the normal artist page and create a section "copyright"?

Well, on Discogs at the moment, there are two linked entities, Artists and Labels. We are expanding the label concept to include companies, series, copyright, and studios. These cannot link to an Artist page. One idea is to eventually merge artist and labels into one universal 'entity', then that would be possible, but this is not happening right now.

Ok, as it stands, what I am most concerned about is making releases such as Ken Ishii = ケン・イシイ* - Jelly Tones = ジェリー・トーンズ work in the database, where there doesn't appear to be a label, just a record company. There wouldn't be any sense in making that "Not On Label", so at least that needs addressed in the guidelines.

cellularsmoke
Er... yeah - but I'm asking in reference to the proposal of removing Not On Label... kinda irrelevant as to what we currently use. I have no idea what you're even attempting to state here.

??

cellularsmoke
What happens with...

= present tense, hence my reply to what we currently use. What will happen = future tense. :)

nik
I don't think it is that problematic. It is the same general concept as credits. All entities will be tagged as what they are on the release page.

That's good. Still about worried about how the info will be differentiated on 1 line on the artist/label pages and in the title.

nik
But 'Bandcamp' also need to be mentioned here IMHO, thay are a company involved in the release.

But how do you define "involved in the release"? What about ISPs, etc. What about Mediafire and suchlike? Or Archive.com. Could these adhere to your same definition?
And what about Royal Mail who delivery physical media, are they "involved in the release"? :)

nik
They are more like a Distributor.

I agree. Although they may at some point start acting like a label; using the attributes of what most may define as a label. They are, of course, also vendors, like Juno, Beatport, iTunes, etc. They convert files into various formats and sell them on behalf of the artists. Should these kind of vendors/distributers be treated as labels?

I've submitted a fair few releases taken from Bandcamp, I tend to mention in the notes "ed from the artist's Bandcamp page." Or Soundcloud page for that matter. Grouping all these release onto a Bandcamp Label Page, would seem to provide any further use, IMO. One could go to bandcamp.com for that kind of thing.

Distributors and studios, YES PLEASE.
I suggested this years back, I think it will be very helpful and interesting.

InDaMode
distributor acting as a record company

I know cats that act like dogs, what shall we call them? ;)

Is there a discogs definition of Label? If not, perhaps we should define that before distributers are treated like them.

The following are definitions for all the tags that can be selected in the label and company section.

Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases. The label on a release can usually be identified by having a prominent logo. Smaller record companies don't distinguish their label from their company - it is the same entity. These can be entered and referred to as 'Labels'. If in doubt, assume it is a label. Labels are usually important to enter in a submission - if a release has a label or labels mentioned, they are required to be entered.

Series - A branded series of releases. These will usually be a number of releases on one label, carrying a distinct extra branding indicating a series. The most common and sure way of knowing if something is a series is when the word 'series' appears in the name, for example, "The Silver Spotlight Series". The word can also appear on the back of the release, or externally on official websites or publications.

Sometimes, it is not apparent whether the branding is meant to be a series or a label, for example "Talkin' Loud Classics". Treat it as a label until there is proof it should be a series.

Releases that are not a series include numbered or otherwise ordered works from an artist, for example, Led Zeppelin l / II / III / IV, Beethoven's Symphony No.1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 etc, Selected Ambient Works 85-92 and Selected Ambient Works Volume II. If the releases are connected in some manner, but have no branding on the releases, then are not considered a series - for example, Drexciya "Storms". Branding for an album and related set of singles, promos etc when the concept falls short of being a proper series, and isn't called one by the label, should not be treated as a series - for example, "Motown Remixed".

Other words can be used to indicate a series, for example, "collection".

If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field.

Record Company - Legal trading entity. Most have a limited company type in their name, such as "Sony BMG Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd". Larger 'Major labels' have a complicated hierarchical structure, with a global company, under which they have regional companies, which then have labels and series. For releases on the 'major labels', it is sometimes necessary to enter the company to describe a unique release. In all other cases, entering the company isn't required, but entering this information is still beneficial.

Copyright (c) - Indicates a copyright holder. Can be for images, logos, lyrics, layout, liner notes, and anything else using the © symbol or the term 'Copyright'.

Phonographic Copyright (p) - Indicates the copyright holder of the recording.

Published By - Usually indicated by these words. The copyright holder of the published score.

Licensed To - Can also be worded 'Licensed By'. The company that has received permission from another company to make the release.

Licensed From - The company that has given permission to another company to make the release.

Licensed Through - Usually indicated by these words - a company that is an intermediary in the licensing process.

Marketed By - The company that is involved in maximizing the sales of the release

Manufactured By - The company that physically makes the release

Distributed By - The company that manages the wholesale distribution of the release

Exported By - The company that ships the release from the original country or area of distribution, to other countries or areas.

Recorded At - The sound studio where the music / audio was recorded.

Produced At - The studio where the release was produced. Do not confuse this with manufacturing.

Overdubbed At - The sound studio where the music / audio was overdubbed.

Mixed At - The sound studio where the music / audio was mixed down from multitrack to a final (usually, stereo) mix.

Remixed At - The sound studio where the music / audio was remixed.

Mastered At - The mastering studio.

Lacquer Cut At - Part of the mastering process where an acetate lacquer is cut from the final mix.

Glass Mastered At - Part of the mastering process where a CD or DVD is etched onto a glass plate from the final mix.

Pressed By - The manufacturing plant that presses vinyl, CDs etc.

Duplicated By - The manufacturing plant that duplicates CDr, cassettes etc.

Manufactured By - A general term for making the physical release.

Printed By - The printer duplicates the sleeves, labels, booklets, covers and all other printed material on the release.

Designed At - The design studio that produces the artwork for the release.

Filmed At - The film studio where the release was filmed.

With regard to the disks printed privately by various groups or authors, and the only way 'to go from Not On Label to DIY All other routes are problematic and difficult, there are thousands of discs that lend themselves to dozens of interpretations, DIY way and for me 'the only viable.

nik
Manufactured By

duplicate, I request removal...
otherwise will have to digest this a while, thanks for the effort!

nik
Smaller record companies don't distinguish their label from their company - it is the same entity

I'm not sure this is accurate. Many small labels are owned by companies and many of these companies may own more than one label. They may own two labels - one for their more mainstream issues and one for their boutique issues. I know I've had three at one time, all owned by the same company, but distinct from the company and that's not unusual.

You also have very small labels that are owned by very large companies - the US has had many of these through the years.

IMO this phrase simply muddies the issue. I'd argue that

'Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases. 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.'

is enough.

nik
Record Company - Legal trading entity.

Is it worth pointing out that the record company is not always mentioned on the release and that a copyright is not necessarily the Record Company? As often as not it isn't.

I can see countless people looking at a release and - seeing a company mentioned under, say ℗1989 EMI Records Ltd, or ©1989 TeoCorp Inc. - listing EMI Records Ltd or TeoCorp Inc. as a "company" when those are copyrights. EMI Records Ltd and TeoCorp Inc are not the releasing company per se just because those legal entities get a mention on the sleeve or artwork.

Those are really my only concerns with what I see as a pretty thorough list.

nik
Manufactured By - A general term for making the physical release.

What would be the correct way to enter a phrase like, say:
"CD is manufactured by PDO, Hanover, West "?

Manufactured By: PDO
or
Manufactured By: PDO, Hanover, West

And what to do with things like
"Printed in W. " or
"Made in U.K."?

Also, will this update provide a solution for the Label/Catalog# relation? Will they be tied together in some way?
I'm just thinking about these "which cat# goes with which label?" -dramas.

nik
What if we made the NOL concept to be it's own entity, and put that right at the bottom of the hierarchy, and convert all the NOL data into that....Legacy data is part and parcel of such a large website - it can get updated eventually...

Like it.

mrformic
Distributors and studios, YES PLEASE.

Agreed.

InDaMode
Is there a discogs definition of Label? If not, perhaps we should define that before distributers are treated like them.

Absolutely!

nik
...simply picking the top one or two entries from that hierarchy to display on the top of the release...

If there's two Labels, say, and one or two Company entries, would the top of the release page show all still or are you talking about a blanket minimization for the release page to display just one or two entries? For instance, this release, The Sundays - Reading, Writing And Arithmetic, has two labels and one company. On the artist page, it shows all three entries. same on the master release page. Would this still be the case, as I think I have quite a few releases with a 'main' country's Label (often US or UK one), then also the local Australian Label, and then on top of these, the local Australian Company.

How would these be intended to display (or not display), firstly, on the release webpage, secondly, on the artist's webpage, and thirdly, on the Master webpage? Just labels? I'd hope they'd still show all the Labels and perhaps just the first Company.

Oh, and in nik's list: "Phonographic Copyright (p)"...I'd like it to read "Phonographic Copyright ℗ or (p)", or perhaps use PAN as the ℗, and an ANV option (or dropdown?) to change it if he release actually uses {p) or (P). Same for the © one.

yuhann
"which cat# goes with which label?" -dramas

Apart from, over time, learning from other entries under the Master release page, as to which cat# goes with which label, I also think this is a relevant issue.

marcelrecords
otherwise will have to digest this a while, thanks for the effort!

+1 My lack of comment is not a lack of interest. It's a desire to make any comments thoughtful and helpful ones.

nik
Manufactured By - The company that makes the release

nik
Manufactured By - A general term for making the physical release.

Maybe something like this would be better?:
Manufactured By - The company that makes the release.
Manufactured At - A general term for making the physical release.

Example:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/19668
Manufactured By = Mfg. by Atlantic Recording Corp. A Warner Communications Company.
Manufactured At = Allied Record Co.

http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/2314709
Manufactured By = Mfg. by Atlantic Recording Corp. A Warner Communications Company.
Manufactured At = Speciality Records Corporation.

Phenomenal developments to lurk me out of exile :)

nik
We are expanding the label concept to include companies, series, copyright, and studios.

Suggesting that, as far as the structure of the db is concerned, all values in those fields (be they distributors or (C) holders), will be handled the same as "label"?
It's an important question because a) it determines my further response (it'll be one of those lengthy ones we've all come to love) and b) it means that via the existing sub-label hierarchy we can have one company owning several other companies as well as a few labels -- which would reflect the real world. It could also mean that a label can "own" a company, which wouldn't make much sense.

InDaMode
They are, of course, also vendors, like Juno, Beatport, iTunes, etc. They convert files into various formats and sell them on behalf of the artists. Should these kind of vendors/distributers be treated as labels?

No. Treat them the same way as regular bricks 'n mortar stores (unless it's somehow exclusive to that vendor in which case a mention in the notes should be adequate).

nik
Some people find the NOL (Artistname Self-Released) pages useful though. We'd have to look at this in more depth I think.

I like Dr.SultanAszazin's idea but all we're doing is replacing "NOL (Artistname Self-Released)" with "Self-Released", so we may as well dump those back into the big old NOL cesspool -- which would be counter-intuitive.

Is there a possibility of having some "key label value" such as "Self-Released" that ensures that the label is still called (in the db) "NOL (Artistname Self-Released)" but ONLY DISPLAYS the "Self-Released" portion of the string on artist pages? It's a display issue.

nik
what I am most concerned about is making releases such as Ken Ishii - Jelly Tones work in the database, where there doesn't appear to be a label, just a record company. There wouldn't be any sense in making that "Not On Label", so at least that needs addressed in the guidelines.

Not enough images to make a call but it does beg this question: Am I to understand your proposal that it will be permitted to leave blank the existing label field in future, or that the value of NOL (or variants thereof) will simply not be displayed but substituted by one of company field entries (as per your hierarchy)?

asylum27
I'd argue that

'Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases. 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.'

is enough.

Ok, let's try it and see!

asylum27
Is it worth pointing out that the record company is not always mentioned on the release and that a copyright is not necessarily the Record Company? As often as not it isn't.

I can see countless people looking at a release and - seeing a company mentioned under, say ℗1989 EMI Records Ltd, or ©1989 TeoCorp Inc. - listing EMI Records Ltd or TeoCorp Inc. as a "company" when those are copyrights. EMI Records Ltd and TeoCorp Inc are not the releasing company per se just because those legal entities get a mention on the sleeve or artwork.

Sounds good, I have updated to mention that.

djindio
Maybe something like this would be better?:
Manufactured By - The company that makes the release.
Manufactured At - A general term for making the physical release.

Example:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/19668
Manufactured By = Mfg. by Atlantic Recording Corp. A Warner Communications Company.
Manufactured At = Allied Record Co.

http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/2314709
Manufactured By = Mfg. by Atlantic Recording Corp. A Warner Communications Company.
Manufactured At = Speciality Records Corporation.

I'm not sure. Regarding Allied Record Co and Speciality Records Corporation - is this information mastering information? I can't see it in the labels.

hmvh
as far as the structure of the db is concerned, all values in those fields (be they distributors or (C) holders), will be handled the same as "label"?

Yes. This is intended to be a preliminary 'hack' so we can start to collect the expanded set of data, then we can do further changes as time goes on and we can see what needs done.

hmvh
it means that via the existing sub-label hierarchy we can have one company owning several other companies as well as a few labels -- which would reflect the real world. It could also mean that a label can "own" a company, which wouldn't make much sense.

I'm not sure where we would have labels owning companies, can you give an example? But yes, we will be using the same hierarchy at the moment, but this is another thing that may be updated at a later date.

hmvh
Is there a possibility of having some "key label value" such as "Self-Released" that ensures that the label is still called (in the db) "NOL (Artistname Self-Released)" but ONLY DISPLAYS the "Self-Released" portion of the string on artist pages?

Yeh I thought about this as well. It is no doubt possible, but I wonder how tidy it really is.

hmvh
Am I to understand your proposal that it will be permitted to leave blank the existing label field in future, or that the value of NOL (or variants thereof) will simply not be displayed but substituted by one of company field entries (as per your hierarchy)?

I think due to the extension of the label field into companies, we have to allow entries that do not mention a 'label' to be entered without using NOL. For example, if these is no label on Jelly Tones = ジェリー・トーンズ it would be daft to insist on using NOL, when there is a clear record company.

This does leave us to question exactly what we want out of NOL, what use it has, bearing in mind it is not information on the release.

nik
This does leave us to question exactly what we want out of NOL, what use it has, bearing in mind it is not information on the release.

But it is a distinct lack of information on a release, that somehow needs to be noted... some form of Self-Released should be included.

nik
I'm not sure. Regarding Allied Record Co and Speciality Records Corporation - is this information mastering information? I can't see it in the labels.

It's indicated @ the end of each of the printed matrix #'s:
ST-DM-56372/56373-SP (Speciality Records Corp.)
ST-DM-56372/56373-AR (Allied Record Co.)

EDIT:(moved the 'SP' link to 1st as image is easier to read)

nik
This does leave us to question exactly what we want out of NOL, what use it has, bearing in mind it is not information on the release.

Exactly. What's the point of grouping releases which have nothing in common except that they are "not on label"?
This is somehow similar to having a catalog# page grouping all those releases where the cat# is "none".

cellularsmoke
But it is a distinct lack of information on a release, that somehow needs to be noted...

This, on the other hand, is particulary true when it comes to details which may help to tell one release variant from another.

Having the information that a release has no label, no cat#, no SID code, etc.. is fine and also necessary imo, but it's not the same thing than having them listed on a page.

If we were talking about credits here, I would say an unlinked credit would do for my examples above.

nik
For example, if these is no label on Ken Ishii = ケン・イシイ* - Jelly Tones = ジェリー・トーンズ it would be daft to insist on using NOL, when there is a clear record company

Not the best example, because the thing that's currently entered as label there is a legacy label. I doubt that release is not on a label. I bet it's on Sony Records but it's hard to tell with only the front cover...
Anyways, why would it be daft to indicate a record is not on a label ? The way we currently do this is by entering 'Not On Label' as label. Ofcourse we could stop doing that, but if we do so, there should be a replacement. Otherwise we'll be left wondering if something is not on a label if someone doesn't enter a label and there are no or insufficient images.
It is much clearer to use Not On Label as label, then to not enter a label at all.

nik
I'm not sure. Regarding Allied Record Co and Speciality Records Corporation - is this information mastering information? I can't see it in the labels.

djindio
It's indicated @ the end of each of the printed matrix #'s:
ST-DM-56372/56373-SP (Speciality Records Corp.)
ST-DM-56372/56373-AR (Allied Record Co.)

EDIT:(moved the 'SP' link to 1st as image is easier to read)

This seems ripe for the "Pressed By" credit, no?

nik
For example, if these is no label on Ken Ishii - Jelly Tones it would be daft to insist on using NOL, when there is a clear record company

jweijde
Not the best example, because the thing that's currently entered as label there is a legacy label. I doubt that release is not on a label. I bet it's on Sony Records but it's hard to tell with only the front cover...

I'm sure I saw full artwork for a release on this company, where that company was all I could see... can't find it now though :-/

jweijde
Anyways, why would it be daft to indicate a record is not on a label ? The way we currently do this is by entering 'Not On Label' as label. Ofcourse we could stop doing that, but if we do so, there should be a replacement. Otherwise we'll be left wondering if something is not on a label if someone doesn't enter a label and there are no or insufficient images.
It is much clearer to use Not On Label as label, then to not enter a label at all.

It would be daft because we would have to enter NOL to loads of releases already in the database with companies, distributors, manufacturers and other such entities currently in the label field, where in fact this information is fine and just needs transfered to the new 'tag'.

Ok, I think I have a handle on what we need to do regarding "Not On Label" when we make the label / company update.

"Not On Label" should only be used where there is no label, series, record company, or other entity such as manufacturer or distributor, who's logo is present on the release.

Not On Label (ArtistName) for unofficial releases containing music by a certain artist, and Not On Label (ArtistName Self-released) for music released specifically by an artist, as found on tours and made available via personal websites, can still be used.

Not On Label (SeriesName Series) can still be used for material with a clear pattern but no actual label name associated, like sequential catalog numbers and similar content, or the inclusion of an email address. We will have to be careful not to get this confused with the new 'Series' tag, which is for official branded series.

Further changes and adjustments can take place after the initial roll out of the new system. There is a lot of "Not On Label" releases currently in the database, and we can discuss any better ways to deal with this information in light of the label / company updates.

Sorry for the late reply, but I gave this as much thought as I could, and I still think labels, and catalog numbers should be treated just the same as other fields. That is, if there is data, it is entered as is, if there is no data, nothing is entered, nor should there be an indicator such as Not On Label.

I think that simply listing the actual info hierarchically would result in a browsing experience that would be the same as actually looking through the physical items, and just as easy.

Tags such as Not On Label are just unnecessary clutter, redundant and useless.

Self released material looks like self released material because there is a lack of label information. It's like a shadow, it's there because it's not.

nik
I think due to the extension of the label field into companies, we have to allow entries that do not mention a 'label' to be entered without using NOL. For example, if these is no label on Jelly Tones it would be daft to insist on using NOL, when there is a clear record company.

jweijde
Not the best example, because the thing that's currently entered as label there is a legacy label. I doubt that release is not on a label. I bet it's on Sony Records but it's hard to tell with only the front cover...

nik

I'm sure I saw full artwork for a release on this company, where that company was all I could see... can't find it now though :-/

For what it's worth: I found an image of the OBI which had logos of Sony Records and R&S Records.

nik
"Not On Label" should only be used where there is no label, series, record company, or other entity such as manufacturer or distributor, who's logo is present on the release.

What will we be doing if only the distributor's logo is on the release?
Then we don't have an entity with the 'Label' tag, or do we? I find that confusing. If I would come across such an entry I'd think 'This doesn't have a label, is that because it's missing or because it hasn't been entered? How should I vote now?'
I'd just say: Not On Label should only be used when there's no label on the release - which is basically the same as now.

jweijde
Anyways, why would it be daft to indicate a record is not on a label ?

nik
It would be daft because we would have to enter NOL to loads of releases already in the database with companies, distributors, manufacturers and other such entities currently in the label field, where in fact this information is fine and just needs transfered to the new 'tag'.

The only thing we would need to do on entries we are not able to update ourself (e.g. entries without full images) is indicate the tags to be used and the missing info (the label) and place a negative vote.
Ofcourse we should not start updating lots of entries adding Not On Label because in the past someone entered the wrong label or no label at all.

nik
This seems ripe for the "Pressed By" credit, no?

ok, will there be a 'Pressed By' credit then?

EDIT
OK, nevermind, I see it now:

nik
Pressed By - The manufacturing plant that presses vinyl, CDs etc.

...so one of these is just a duplicate then:

nik
Manufactured By - A general term for making the physical release.

nik
Manufactured By - The company that physically makes the release

marcelrecords
duplicate, I request removal...

^
/EDIT

jweijde
Then we don't have an entity with the 'Label' tag, or do we? I find that confusing.

I think nik is saying that the only time to use NOL is when there is no entity at all on a release (no record company, no distributor, no label or any-other-type-entity).

jweijde
What will we be doing if only the distributor's logo is on the release?

Enter the distributor name with the 'Distributed By' tag?

EDIT
Maybe if we go from using None (as we do when there is a lack of cat#), that would simplify things and avoid the confusion you may be feeling?
/EDIT

jweijde
Then we don't have an entity with the 'Label' tag, or do we? I find that confusing.

djindio

I think nik is saying that the only time to use NOL is when there is no entity at all on a release (no record company, no distributor, no label or any-other-type-entity).

That's what I understood aswell. But that means that if there's only a distributor and no label, no label will be entered at all. And that will be confusing for voters.

jweijde

Smaller record companies don't distinguish their label from their company - it is the same entity.

asylum27
I'm not sure this is accurate.

I don't think it is accurate. that PDI/PDI S.A. discussion?
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/help/forums/topic/235546

jweijde
What will we be doing if only the distributor's logo is on the release?

djindio
Enter the distributor name with the 'Distributed By' tag?

Obviously. But will we enter something to indicate there is no label on the release?

djindio
Maybe if we go from using Not On Label to simply using None (as we do when there is a lack of cat#), that would simplify things and avoid the confusion you may be feeling?

Yes, something like that.

nik
As long as it doesn't break the database, it is ok. Legacy data is part and parcel of such a large website - it can get updated eventually.

I know I keep bringing this up at any point I can, but as a mature website, it's high time we focus on data integrity too. Many new s use other submissions as templates for their own. If those submissions are old/incorrect, those errors will spread to new submissions.

jweijde
If I would come across such an entry I'd think 'This doesn't have a label, is that because it's missing or because it hasn't been entered? How should I vote now?'

Yes. This seems ripe for lazy/new submitter abuse.

I think self-released items shouldn't have "Not On Label" as part of the label.

There is a (ittedly fairly rare) case, where a release can be a split between a label and artist self-release.

See a Grouper release listed here: https://sites.google.com/site/yellowelectric/

"CTWATW ON B/W VINYL, SELF/ROOT STRATA CO-RELEASE."

So the two labels are "Root Strata" and "Not On Label (Grouper self-released)", which is a bit odd. A self-release shouldn't automatically imply it's not on a label also.

mayancanals

So the two labels are "Root Strata" and "Not On Label (Grouper self-released)", which is a bit odd. A self-release shouldn't automatically imply it's not on a label also.

yes, I agree that 'Not On Label' is a very unhappy expression to mark self-released items. It just makes it a longer name.

Why not add a 'Released by' and just leave the label field blank and add the name of the band/person as a 'Released by'-entry.
I think it would fit more in the new proposed concept.

in fact, 'Not On Label' is totally redundant information, and in the example given even incorrect. We just want to know who released it...

nik
Not On Label (SeriesName Series) can still be used for material with a clear pattern but no actual label name associated,

Here too:
If there is a field to fill in the series, why using the labelfield to add a seriesname?? together with a lengthy redundant expression: Not On Label...

nik
Not On Label (ArtistName) for unofficial releases containing music by a certain artist

Personally I never understood this change. Unofficial releases by a certain artist already have a separate section, the submission already has the artist name in the main-artist fields...
Adding the artistname after the NOL seems rather redundant. (although maybe others see use in this system)

maybe here too a 'released by' option would be better, introducing the Unknown Soldier into the label/companies in cases when the group/individual/company responsible is unknown and no other label/company (fake or not) is present on the release.

I like the idea to minimize "Not On Label" entries as much as possible...
The fact that any individual can be responsible for a release, and using a label is more marketing-stuff than anything musical or productive makes it so that NoL becomes redundant on a whole lot of unlabeled releases, as it must be an unimportant fact to the releasers to have a label. So why bother with adding NOL.

I'd keep NoL only for cases where there is really no other option, although it would better be: 'No Label Info Known'
Any release is released by someone...

Dr.SultanAszazin
I'd keep NoL only for cases where there is really no other option, although it would better be: 'No Label Info Known'
Any release is released by someone...

What about simply 'N/A'? If something is not on a label then surely the label field is not applicable and then information about the circumstances of how this release cam to exist can be detailed in the proposed new fields/credits and/or release notes

jweijde
What will we be doing if only the distributor's logo is on the release?
Then we don't have an entity with the 'Label' tag, or do we? I find that confusing. If I would come across such an entry I'd think 'This doesn't have a label, is that because it's missing or because it hasn't been entered? How should I vote now?'
I'd just say: Not On Label should only be used when there's no label on the release - which is basically the same as now.

One of my main objections to the overuse of NOL is it will 'move down' more factual information. For example, if we have:

Label - Not On Label
Series - BigTunes Series
Record Company - Large Records Inc

then "Large Record Inc" will not be displayed on the top of the release nor on the artist and MR pages. In this case, I believe the NOL is unnecessary clutter and is diluting the facts.

As it stands, there are examples in the database where companies, distributors, manufacturers etc are in the 'Label' field, and there is no real 'Label', and also there is no 'Not On Label'. For these examples, I firmly believe we should not be adding NOL when we move the company etc to the correct tag. Not everything has to be released by a 'label', although most things are.

For voting, I think we can ask that submitters state on the submission notes that there is no label - I believe that should be enough.

jweijde
The only thing we would need to do on entries we are not able to update ourself (e.g. entries without full images) is indicate the tags to be used and the missing info (the label) and place a negative vote.
Ofcourse we should not start updating lots of entries adding Not On Label because in the past someone entered the wrong label or no label at all.

I don't think we should start placing negative votes unless we are really quite sure that the label is missing.

nik
As long as it doesn't break the database, it is ok. Legacy data is part and parcel of such a large website - it can get updated eventually.

Diognes_The_Fox
as a mature website, it's high time we focus on data integrity too. Many new s use other submissions as templates for their own. If those submissions are old/incorrect, those errors will spread to new submissions.

I didn't mean to be flippant regarding the data accuracy, but just pragmatic. Data accuracy is very important to us all, and I will do as much as I can to ensure we have the best data accuracy we can get.

mayancanals
I think self-released items shouldn't have "Not On Label" as part of the label.

That is a possible update for sure. We'd need to somehow automatically move all the present data and come up with a new way of dealing with it. This is something we can do after this first update.

Dr.SultanAszazin
If there is a field to fill in the series, why using the labelfield to add a seriesname?? together with a lengthy redundant expression: Not On Label...

The 'Series' tag is quite firmly defined to be used for things that are official series. It is not for items that simply look like they might belong together, which is what this is doing at the moment. Again, this can be reviewed and updated, and that can happen at any time after we do this first update. We can go with the current guideline until we come up with a better way to do things.

jweijde
But will we enter something to indicate there is no label on the release?

Hmm, that is a good question. From my understanding of this proposed change to the label/other-entity data display, the next entity in a predetermined hierarchy will sort of 'move up' and stand in place what would traditionally be the spot reserved for 'the label'.

Example:
Say we have a blank White Label with an info sticker. The only info on the sticker is:
-Artist Name
-EP Title
-Track Titles
-"Distributed by 'The Distributor'."

-Cat# has also been derived from matrix/etchings.

^There is no 'full-pressing' of this vinyl, only the stickered White Label version. The label cannot be determined based on the info at hand (the artist has no other releases, the distributor is listed on a vast number of releases from many different labels, the cat# & matrix/etchings match no other label, etc...).

1a. The current proposal as I understand it:

The data will be entered as on the release, the distributor, 'Distributor, The' will be entered, tagged as 'Distributed By'. The distributor entry will default to the top of the list of entities involved with the release, being the only listable entity found on the release. "No discernible label, no label or label is unknown" is entered in the submission notes.

djindio
Maybe if we go from using Not On Label to simply using None (as we do when there is a lack of cat#), that would simplify things

jweijde
Yes, something like that.

1b. The 'none' remix:

The data will be entered as on the release, the distributor, 'Distributor, The' will be entered, tagged as 'Distributed By'. 'none' will be entered and tagged as 'Label'. 'none' will default to the top of the list of entities involved with the release, standing in place of the missing label. "No discernible label, no label or label is unknown" is entered in the submission notes.

^IF we could agree on the use of 'none' as a placeholder to stand in place of a label when there is no label, that would require further discussion. Do we make the 'none' placeholder unlinked? do we make the 'none' placeholder a standard entity/label page (basically a replacement for the old Not On Label page)?? Do we disallow all other tags besides 'Label' to avoid overuse and/or misuse? (or simply disallow any tags at all when entering 'none'??)

EDIT:
^The only problem I can see with the use of an unlinked 'none' is the fact that many newer s are too quick to enter 'None' as the label already simply because they are in a hurry to sub the next release, or just too lazy to take a closer look, or simply confused by the amount of info on the release, or are simply websubbing incomplete info they found on wikipedia, etc...

EDIT2:
Also, would the 'none' idea defeat the purpose doing away with the Not On Label page I wonder??

Yes, it strikes me that 'none' is just a different name for 'Not On Label' in this example. The major problem I have with it is it takes up room, and takes away more factual data. We currently have things in the database with no real 'label' yet not tagged 'not on label', because there is another entity such as a record company, a distributor, an manufacturer etc that is 'standing in' for the label. In these cases, I strongly feel that insisting on entering 'Not On Label' is a step back. The obvious thing to ask is that the submitter say "there is no label on this release" in the submission notes - that is all that is needed.

nik
The major problem I have with it is it takes up room

Why is that a 'major problem'? It would take up only one field, one line.

nik
and takes away more factual data

How does it take away factual data? It adds factual data because there is no label.
Ofcourse it may happen people only enter the label as Not On Label and leave out all companies, etc. But that can and will still happen if we drop Not On Label. If only for the fact that that info won't be mandatory.
Compare it with credits, not everybody is entering them, leaving out factual data. Does that mean we should drop some other data so people will maybe enter the credits? Surely not.

If it is about people overlooking things and just entering 'none' to be done with it: did anybody encounter this with Not On Label ? I haven't.

nik
The obvious thing to ask is that the submitter say "there is no label on this release" in the submission notes - that is all that is needed.

Sure we can ask people that, but do you believe people will provide that? I bet the majority will just enter nothing, put random submission notes and leave us wondering. Similar to what usually happens with 'unique' releases. I've lost count of the times I've had to ask 'how can this be identified as a [insert country name here] release?'.
It is just much more convenient if the info is there on the release page for everyone to see and not hidden away on some release history page.

jweijde
Why is that a 'major problem'? It would take up only one field, one line.

One line, that is right at the top of the release data, and all over the artist and master release pages. It is an important space, and we should avoid filling it up with blank data.

jweijde
Compare it with credits, not everybody is entering them, leaving out factual data. Does that mean we should drop some other data so people will maybe enter the credits? Surely not.

Sorry, I don't understand the analogy.

FWICS the correct analogy would be to insist that submitters enter "No Credit" on one or more credit fields, like:

Written-By - No Credit
Vocals - No Credit
Produced By - No Credit
etc...

You can see how this would obfuscate real credits:

Written-By - No Credit
Vocals - No Credit
Produced By - No Credit
Drums - Phil Collins

as opposed to:

Drums - Phil Collins

jweijde
we can ask people that, but do you believe people will provide that? I bet the majority will just enter nothing, put random submission notes and leave us wondering.

The vast majority of submissions will have a label. The label field will be default in the selection dropdown. There will be an error check giving a warning for no label. Submitters will be asked to acknowledge they haven't entered a label and why.

We currently have releases accepted in the database with no label, just a manufacturer or whatever, and no need for 'Not On Label'. Insisting on 'Not On Label' in these cases is a big step back and makes readability of the data worse. I want us to move forward into this new system without upping requirements on the submitters, adding blank data to artist pages and master releases, or changing too much the established usage. Once the system has run for some time, we can re-evaluate things and see if anything needs tweaked.

nik
Submitters will be asked to acknowledge they haven't entered a label and why.

You mean that in the future it is possible that apart from quickly checking the warning-checkbox, s will need to provide a reason for every overriding of a warning?

Although I sometimes take the quick step too, I think that would be a Good Thing. (sometimes not explaining results anyway in someone 'correcting' following the warnings and the absence of a given reason, which I have to revert giving the reason, So I'd like to get no choice but give in a reason actually:)

nik
I'm not sure where we would have labels owning companies, can you give an example? But yes, we will be using the same hierarchy at the moment, but this is another thing that may be updated at a later date.

The existing "label" structure allows one label to be a sublabel of another.
However, some of the existing "labels" in the db are actually companies (an accepted legacy kludge), and human intervention has largely prevented EMI Music.

If the company entries you're proposing have the same "seniority" as labels, it'll be difficult to maintain this structure (however convoluted it really is in discogs at the moment).

To summarise: asylum27's definition of a label for our purposes is good and, surprisingly, even Wikipedia's entry on the topic has matured to a degree of usefulness.
Perhaps it should also be mentioned that "the overwhelming majority of releases (physical as well as digital) will indicate ONE label (via a stylised font or logo) only. In the case of multiple logos it may be possible and likely that they are shown only for the sake of recognition, reputation, credibility -- or merely a nod. In those cases the label indicated on the media carrier (such as the physical CD, tape, cartridge or vinyl sticker {from whence the term originates}) should take priority.

nik
I think due to the extension of the label field into companies, we have to allow entries that do not mention a 'label' to be entered without using NOL. For example, if these is no label on Jelly Tones it would be daft to insist on using NOL, when there is a clear record company.

Understood.

But not everything is a record company in the traditional sense. Consider how many white labels there are (clearly NOL and not necessarily self-released), how many publishers there are that we've turned into labels (think audiobooks a la Simon & Schuster Audio Division), let alone other companies that are not and have never been record labels or even record companies (such as most on this list) -- not to mention music magazines.

No, there's a lot that we've turned into labels, and I'm not even too sure how we'd ever hope to repair/undo/correct something like a series of margarine tubs.

nik
We currently have releases accepted in the database with no label, just a manufacturer or whatever

If those were accepted as "correct" then it's damage control. Ordered chaos. Some may even call them "Series".

nik
There will be an error check giving a warning for no label. Submitters will be asked to acknowledge they haven't entered a label and why.

Why? Because I haven't got it. I'm websubbing it.

Nah. The label field must be mandatory. If there is genuinely no label (something you might find on a lot of real promos) but only the (P) holder, then NOL should be entered as label as well as the name of the (P) company. Like I suggested with "self-released" items earlier, the artist page will then display the (P) value only. In the presence of any other values, NOL will always be suppressed. In time, those will even be drastically reduced.
Having said that, I cannot disagree with your statement -

nik
This does leave us to question exactly what we want out of NOL, what use it has, bearing in mind it is not information on the release.

- either. It would clutter the page with non-data, I'm just worried about some of our less-than-honest s.

As djindio pointed out, we do use "none" to indicate that there is no cat# (an otherwise required field), and you may that the allowed use of "none" in the barcode field has a very specific purpose, too.

Perceived clutter shouldn't be a determining factor. Ease of data entry and a useful display thereof is what it's about.

If there's no label, NOL must be entered. If value [label] = "Not On Label", do not display on artist/MR/other pages -- but keep displayed on release pages (which are supposed to be rather concise anyway).

nik
I didn't mean to be flippant regarding the data accuracy, but just pragmatic. Data accuracy is very important to us all, and I will do as much as I can to ensure we have the best data accuracy we can get.

Nothing else matters.

PS: Companies would need some sort of variation mechanism, similar to ANVs, to allow for differences in punctuation, parentheses, with or without GmbH/Ltd/Inc/Co, etc.

hmvh
Nah. The label field must be mandatory. If there is genuinely no label (something you might find on a lot of real promos) but only the (P) holder, then NOL should be entered as label as well as the name of the (P) company. Like I suggested with "self-released" items earlier, the artist page will then display the (P) value only. In the presence of any other values, NOL will always be suppressed. In time, those will even be drastically reduced.

I like this idea. The concept of NOL suppression works for me too. The only issue I can see here is the catalogue number. By suppressing the label, surely the number is going to become hidden?

nik
"Not On Label" should only be used where there is no label, series, record company, or other entity such as manufacturer or distributor, who's logo is present on the release.

In the past, however, we've often derived the label on a white label or strictly NOL promo (with perhaps just the artist and title - no label info - printed on the release) from what the released item is on, and attributed that as the label.

It's been an uneasy compromise. I assume this practice now ceases. If so, I'm happy with that as it makes assumptions which are not always correct - plus promos can sometimes be issued by other branches of (big) companies or by specialist promo units.

nik
I think due to the extension of the label field into companies, we have to allow entries that do not mention a 'label' to be entered without using NOL. For example, if these is no label on Jelly Tones it would be daft to insist on using NOL, when there is a clear record company.

hmvh
Understood.

But not everything is a record company in the traditional sense.

And not everything is a label in the traditional sense, but we should not let that affect data entry. All we want to know are the brands and companies associated with the release. There is no need for it to be complicated.

hmvh
how many publishers there are that we've turned into labels (think audiobooks a la Argon Hörbuch or the mess that is Simon & Schuster Audio Division)

Those releases look to be carrying strong branding for those entities. Whether they are labels or publishers is only a technicality, and one that can be updated as needed when facts are discussed and agreed upon.

hmvh
let alone other companies that are not and have never been record labels or even record companies (such as most on this list) -- not to mention music magazines.

No, there's a lot that we've turned into labels, and I'm not even too sure how we'd ever hope to repair/undo/correct something like a series of margarine tubs.

Label = branding. I don't see anything wrong with those examples overall. I'm not sure what needs changed? Unless we have a tag "Company that wasn't started out to be specifically a label but nonetheless made releases with a label-like branding bearing the company branding". It may be technically interesting to discuss what the exact nature of the entities are, but I don't have a particular problem with them being cataloged as labels in the meantime.

nik
We currently have releases accepted in the database with no label, just a manufacturer or whatever

hmvh
If those were accepted as "correct" then it's damage control. Ordered chaos. Some may even call them "Series".

Our official 'Series' tag is simply a subset of label branding. That does not relate to releases with no 'label' per se and only something like manufacturer.

Not everything can be or will fit on a neat box. Not every release has or needs a label, Label is only a branding concept. It is the most common form for audio releases, but it is not necessary for a release to 'be'. If there is only a manufacturer or studio or whatever listed on the release, there is no problem in catag the release like that.

nik
There will be an error check giving a warning for no label. Submitters will be asked to acknowledge they haven't entered a label and why.

hmvh
Why? Because I haven't got it. I'm websubbing it.

Nah. The label field must be mandatory.

Sorry, I absolutely disagree. That is like saying 'the vocal credit must be mandatory'.

hmvh
If there is genuinely no label (something you might find on a lot of real promos) but only the (P) holder, then NOL should be entered as label as well as the name of the (P) company.

I don't agree, and I have to insist we do not go down this road. The whole point of expanding the 'label' field is to make things more concise and factual. Smearing NOL over every release that doesn't conform to the tradition branding template is not adding any value to the data at all.

hmvh
Like I suggested with "self-released" items earlier, the artist page will then display the (P) value only. In the presence of any other values, NOL will always be suppressed. In time, those will even be drastically reduced.

I don't see the point of entering data in an important field like this, only to have it extensively suppressed.

hmvh
I'm just worried about some of our less-than-honest s.

That's fair enough, but it is not worth all the complexity and rules and data juggling. Most s are acting in good faith. I reckon it will be fairly obvious when releases without labels are entered in less than good faith.

nik
"Not On Label" should only be used where there is no label, series, record company, or other entity such as manufacturer or distributor, who's logo is present on the release.

asylum27
In the past, however, we've often derived the label on a white label or strictly NOL promo (with perhaps just the artist and title - no label info - printed on the release) from what the released item is on, and attributed that as the label.

It's been an uneasy compromise. I assume this practice now ceases. If so, I'm happy with that as it makes assumptions which are not always correct - plus promos can sometimes be issued by other branches of (big) companies or by specialist promo units.

From what I can see, the vast majority of the time, these white label promos should be associated with the label the full release comes out on. That is the most common way. If I am looking at a white label release with the exact same tracks and the exact same run out etch, as the same release on a known label, it should be associated with that label. I don't see any advantage in stripping all white labels of label info. Specific problem cases, areas, or examples can be addressed of course.

nik
Submitters will be asked to acknowledge they haven't entered a label and why.

Dr.SultanAszazin
You mean that in the future it is possible that apart from quickly checking the warning-checkbox, s will need to provide a reason for every overriding of a warning?

Although I sometimes take the quick step too, I think that would be a Good Thing.

The idea of a text box along with the warning box is something we have considered previously. I think it would be good.

Warning - you have not entered a label on this release.
There is no label on this release: [tick]
Please describe why there is no label on this release: [text box]

This isn't planned to happen straight away however, but hopefully in time.

nik
Smearing NOL over every release that doesn't conform to the tradition branding template is not adding any value to the data at all.

Why? If there's no label, what's the problem with indicating that by entering 'Not On Label' or 'none' as label?
I really don't see the problem.
It's just so much clearer and will prevent having to do thousands of unnecessary updates to the entries now listed on Not On Label.

If there would be some error check, then the compromise for me would be to let it automatically insert a release note stating the release has no label branding (or similar).
I think this is important information that shouldn't be hidden away on a release history page.

I'd rather have something like "shadow labels" for those self-released and bootleg labels. I also think the nomenclature for "Not On Label (Bandname, The (5764283) Self-Released) is pretty unfortunate. Why not create shadow labels called "Self-released" or "white label" with tick boxes instead and then the system could create some horribly named metalabel in the background in conjunction with the artist name. I guess this would require a major overhaul but personally I would say it would look more intuitive and ultimately is less prone to mistakes which would make sorting/grouping such releases easier.