Label / Company / Distributor / Mfr / Studio hierarchy - please give you opinion

Further to our pending label / company update, I was wanting to get some on the exact hierarchy that we should use. What we plan to do is to take the top one or two entities, and have them displayed where 'label' is at the moment. Obviously most releases will remain with label there, but for releases that have no label, and especially releases that have no label, series, or record company, we want to pick a sensible stand in (or two).

Below is the list as I have it right now. I'd be interested in any thoughts on anything that should be moved up or down in the list - thanks!

Label
Series
Record Company
----------------
Copyright (c)
Phonographic Copyright (p)
Published By
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Exported By
------------------
Manufactured By
Pressed By
Duplicated By
Printed By
------------------
Recorded At
Produced At
Overdubed At
Mixed At
Remixed At
Mastered At
Lacquer Cut At
Glass Mastered At
-----------------
Designed At
Filmed At

Overdubed At = Overdubbed At

I'm assuming one (or more) of the entries in the second group are the likely replacements for the Not On Label (X Self-released) "Label" then?

I would move Distributed By up the list to under Published By, it seems the most likely to be the next more prominent type of listing. As in "Distributed By - The Band In Question" for self-released titles. Especially if someone else is a Copyright Holder as is the case of some covers.

Publisher is usually mentioned before copyright messages and ℗ usually comes before ©. Those three are different to Licensed To, Licensed From, Licenced Through, Marketed By, Distributed By which would sit more comfortably in the first group under Label, Series, Record Company because they are usually a label or company. I've never seen Exported By on a release before. I don't think I've ever see Licenced Through. Manufactured By usually accompanies or is interchangeable with marketing and distribution. Engineered At is quite common.

I'd put them like this:

Label
Series
Record Company
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Manufactured By
Exported By
----------------
Published By
℗ Phonographic Copyright
© Copyright
------------------
Pressed By
Duplicated By
Printed By
------------------
Recorded At
Engineered At
Produced At
Mixed At
Remixed At
Overdubbed At
Mastered At
Lacquer Cut At
Glass Mastered At
-----------------
Designed At
Filmed At

uzumaki
I'd put them like this:

Label
Series
Record Company
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Manufactured By
Exported By

I'd agree. That bunch seem to sit logically together as do the groupings below.

I would add Imported By ahead of Exported By. In the U.S. I'm thinking of vinyl imports in the '70s and early '80s by Peters International, Inc..

Jem and Peters are interesting cases that merit discussion. They both started out strictly as importers but eventually became labels in the conventional sense and the distributors for some domestic labels.

FauniGena
I would add Imported By

Isn't that just an import of an offshore release?

cellularsmoke
I'm assuming one (or more) of the entries in the second group are the likely replacements for the Not On Label (X Self-released) "Label" then?

No, the Not On Label concepts are going to initially stay as they are right now. There may be development in them, but that will happen after this initial roll-out.

uzumaki
I'd put them like this:

asylum27
I'd agree.

Thanks, I'd like to change a couple of things:

I'd like to keep the division between the top three and the rest. I'd like to use (p) and (c) instead of ℗ and © for compatibility reasons, and have that come after the text for readability and flow. I have bumped up Overdubbed At to be in with Recorded at as that is the natural process flow.

Label
Series
Record Company
----------------
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Manufactured By
Exported By
----------------
Published By
Phonographic Copyright (p)
Copyright (c)
------------------
Pressed By
Duplicated By
Printed By
------------------
Recorded At
Engineered At
Overdubbed At
Produced At
Mixed At
Remixed At
Mastered At
Lacquer Cut At
Glass Mastered At
-----------------
Designed At
Filmed At

I have a couple of questions:

* How often do you see us using "Record Company" compared to as opposed to tags like Phonographic Copyright and Licensed To?

* Is the Phonographic Copyright correct in this heirarchy? Do we consider Licensed From, Licenced Through, Marketed By, Distributed By, Manufactured By, and Exported By to trump Phonographic Copyright?

Q: Is the Phonographic Copyright correct in this heirarchy? Do we consider Licensed From, Licenced Through, Marketed By, Distributed By, Manufactured By, and Exported By to trump Phonographic Copyright?

A: Yes copyright can be owned by anyone/thing, rights can be bought or sold at a later date: ℗ & © 2004 Robert Fripp (?) [important info. but not as brand/label/company defining as the other mentioned data].

The final 2 sections mystify me, they are just stuff that goes in the notes suerly? Remixed at may produce a welter of locations for some releases, but should still be fixed for any release within an MR.

nik
How often do you see us using "Record Company" compared to as opposed to tags like Phonographic Copyright and Licensed To?

Can you ask that again, it's just confusing as it is ;)

nik
How often do you see us using "Record Company" compared to as opposed to tags like Phonographic Copyright and Licensed To?

hafler3o
Can you ask that again, it's just confusing as it is ;)

Sure :-)

How often do we see record companies listed by themselves, devoid of roles like licensing and copyright.

hafler3o
The final 2 sections mystify me, they are just stuff that goes in the notes suerly?

It goes in the notes at the moment. The advantage is we can start to create discographies for recording studio, mastering houses, design houses etc.

hafler3o
Remixed at may produce a welter of locations for some releases, but should still be fixed for any release within an MR.

Request for rewording, not sure I understand the question!

hafler3o
copyright can be owned by anyone/thing, rights can be bought or sold at a later date: ℗ & © 2004 Robert Fripp (?) [important info. but not as brand/label/company defining as the other mentioned data].

For sure, just seems that a lot of the time, we'll see record company data in there that we may consider more important than the distributor, for example. Obviously the exact hierarchy is a compromise, I just want to be sure we have as best a compromise we can get.

nik
Published By

should be way lower, maybe the lowest.

This refers to the publishers of the performed work, the one who publishes the score etc.

Hasn't got a lot to do with the actual release it is mentioned on, and is rather something that belongs to writer credits & right societies info. (Writer credits are often there to note the person who is responsible for the intellectual creation, rights society is the one who owns/manages the intellectual property, the publisher is the one responsible for the publication of a intellectual work (either in written or audible form is possible, I've noticed)

Different publishers for the same song/compositions often refer to different versions too, btw. But publishers rather belong to track specific data, very close connected to the actual writer/composer, as to labels/companies who are responsible for releasing recorded material (releases.)

I even wonder if they fit in the label/company concept for auditive releases, they would for sure fit there if we could also submit scores: Béla Bartók - For Children Volume I, Piano Solo (Here a publisher is filled in the label field) (it's a draft, not allowed to enter the db)

The publisher doesn't refer to the record, as all other label/company-roles do...
(publishers are also track dependant... not the best thing to show on top of a release entry... I also wonder, if publishers are counted in... why aren't rights societies counted in, instead of keeping them in the baoi (Always thought it's good they got a place of their own, but imo they could as well stayed in the notes, or be included here, they's fit in better than the publishers...)

(edit-> removed side note, & moved to proper topic)

nik
Request for rewording, not sure I understand the question!

It wasn't a question, don't worry! I just saw the list as a hierarchical way of defining 'what' the release was, as we go down it just turns into ".. advantage is we can start to create discographies for recording studio, mastering houses, design houses etc.. " which I misinterpreted in of it's importance/relevance to the top level hierarchy entities.

Q: How often do we see record companies listed by themselves, devoid of roles like licensing and copyright.
My answer: very infrequently.

Dr.SultanAszazin
should be way lower, maybe the lowest.

agreed.

hafler3o
Q: How often do we see record companies listed by themselves, devoid of roles like licensing and copyright.
My answer: very infrequently.

That was my concern when I said:

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.

The number of releases that mention a company as such are few, although there are examples like Sire Records Company.

asylum27
That was my concern

and you are right to be. That's why I'd like to see copyright info. pushed downwards in the hierarchy as far as we can NOW ;)

if there is:
℗ 1986 EMI Records Limited

I hope we don't need to de-attach 1986 from EMI Records Ltd. in the notes, and still can put that in completely as it appears on the release? Even if there is a label/company entry "℗ - EMI Records Limited" present?

For future reference, breaking such things up seems a bad idea to me.

(contra-productive for version identifying when there are no images present, I always put part of the info literal as on record (including punctuation) and a descriptive part (as not everything makes sense in a literal form), sometimes this implies doubling info from credits etc., but the notes give a more complete reference to the indexed data already present)

Also, © can refer to liner notes or other visual material. I suppose in that case we need to transfer this to a credit, not to a label/company entry?
(for instance "© 1973 Klaus Wagner" would become -> credit: "Liner Notes - Klaus Wagner (2)" & notes -> "© 1973 Klaus Wagner")
Such as is done now. But it might be important to include a similar example for the guidelines that will be created for this change)

Dr.SultanAszazin
I also wonder, if publishers are counted in... why aren't rights societies counted in, instead of keeping them in the baoi (Always thought it's good they got a place of their own, but imo they could as well stayed in the notes, or be included here, they's fit in better than the publishers.

Once we have 'Rights Society' on the BAOI field, then after that they could conceivably be moved about. For the moment, let's go with the status quo.

asylum27
How often do we see record companies listed by themselves, devoid of roles like licensing and copyright.

asylum27
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.

asylum27
The number of releases that mention a company as such are few, although there are examples like Virgin Records America Inc. (on the spine of CDs usually), and 80's vinyl from Sire Records Company.

Yes, this is an interesting problem.

I do have a "Please use the specific "Copyright (c)", "Phonographic Copyright (p)", or other tags instead when used on the release" sentence in the new guidelines for this. We may have to accept a bit of fuzzyness regarding this, I think most of us will be happy to see the right entity getting linked up, and changing from a record company tag to a (p) is quite simple.

hafler3o
That's why I'd like to see copyright info. pushed downwards in the hierarchy as far as we can

I'm not sure I agree. I think that is fairly important information, especially once we get to it if there isn't any label, series etc info.

Dr.SultanAszazin
I hope we don't need to de-attach 1986 from EMI Records Ltd. in the notes, and still can put that in completely as it appears on the release? Even if there is a label/company entry "℗ - EMI Records Limited" present?

For future reference, breaking such things up seems a bad idea to me.

Dates are not part of the name, they can't be added there, sorry.

Dr.SultanAszazin
© can refer to liner notes or other visual material. I suppose in that case we need to transfer this to a credit, not to a label/company entry?
(for instance "© 1973 Klaus Wagner" would become -> credit: "Liner Notes - Klaus Wagner (2)" & notes -> "© 1973 Klaus Wagner")
Such as is done now. But it might be important to include a similar example for the guidelines that will be created for this change)

Any copyright data can be entered with that tag.

Here is an updated list:

Label
Series
----------------
Record Company
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Manufactured By
Exported By
----------------
Phonographic Copyright (p)
Copyright (c)
------------------
Pressed By
Duplicated By
Printed By
Made By
------------------
Published By
------------------
Recorded At
Engineered At
Overdubbed At
Produced At
Mixed At
Remixed At
Mastered At
Lacquer Cut At
Glass Mastered At
-----------------
Designed At
Filmed At
----------------

I have moved Published By down, added 'Made By', and moved the top division up one, so we only have label and series at the top (we can understand this as the branding section).

I don't know about anyone else but I'm pretty happy with this.

Maybe I've missed it, but are cat #s still tied to labels and/or compulsory? I think yuhann asked the question here. Not sure it was answered??

asylum27
are cat #s still tied to labels

At this time, yes.

asylum27
compulsory?

For labels, they remain same as they are at the moment.

nik
I think that is fairly important information

I never said it wasn't ;)

hafler3o
[important info. but not as brand/label/company defining as the other mentioned data].

I just want it to be less important than it might have been otherwise.

Below companies & distributors is cool.

asylum27
I'm pretty happy with this

+1

asylum27
I'm pretty happy with this.

So am I.
I am missing ''Score By'', which is sometimes important information with classical releases.

nik
natural process flow

nik
Record Company
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Manufactured By
Exported By

I'd change that to:

Record Company
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Licensed To
Manufactured By
Marketed By
Distributed By
Exported By

(By the way, I'm glad that my request for "Exported By" has made the list in the first run already. Thanks :)

[edit: wrong order]

On a closer look, I'm not sure at all about this:

uzumaki
Manufactured By usually accompanies or is interchangeable with marketing and distribution

Why put a different meaning into a relatively clear term?
For me, semantically it belongs to the "Pressed By, Duplicated By, Printed By, Made By" group.
You can't expect an average to know any "hidden" meanings of Manufactured By, thus having it elsewhere just seems wrong.

nik
Dates are not part of the name, they can't be added there, sorry.

no:) I mean: the full string goes to the notes ofcourse, not in the label/company field

nik
Any copyright data can be entered with that tag.

ok, no problem if one is both entitled as credit and a label/company tag then.

loukash
Manufactured By
Marketed By
Distributed By
Exported By

this looks better to me too, although I wonder if marketed by & Manufactured by shouldn't switch place

loukash
Why put a different meaning into a relatively clear term?

agree, if there are hidden meanings, one should not expose those, but just interpret what's there like one thinks is the right way to interpret it.

Dr.SultanAszazin
I wonder if marketed by & Manufactured by shouldn't switch place

Provided "Manufactured By" would stay in this section: a release should be manufactured first before it can be marketed. (Well, usually… :)

loukash
a release should be manufactured first before it can be marketed.

not sure, marketing includes promotion,(correct me if I'm not right) which starts often before the actual release date. Sometimes even before the recording is finished (announcements).

But the main reason I wonder they might better switch place isn't chronology, but I wonder the one who does marketing stands closer (most often) to the entity actually releasing the record than the manufacturer.
A record manufacturer can be bound to a record company, but they are in fact just a factory responsible for the material part, and haven't got a lot to do with the content. (well apart from the possible lacquer cut ting sometimes)

Dr.SultanAszazin
they are in fact just a factory responsible for the material part, and haven't got a lot to do with the content

My thoughts as well, that's why I'd move "Manufactured By" to the "Made By" group.

loukash
My thoughts as well, that's why I'd move "Manufactured By" to the "Made By" group.

ah, yes
maybe I'm a bit slow today not seeing this until now, but I definitely agree on that.

Manufactured by & Made by & Pressed by can even appear as synonyms (referring to the same -> vinyl pressing for instance) so they should be in the same group.

Dr.SultanAszazin

Manufactured by & Made by & Pressed by can even appear as synonyms (referring to the same -> vinyl pressing for instance) so they should be in the same group.

I don't think that's a good idea, and here's why: often -- quite often -- the company mentioned in the "manufactured by" credits doesn't do the actual manufacturing. I've got a couple hundred Canadian releases which claim to be manufactured by PolyGram or WEA, but neither of those companies physically manufactured *anything*. It was all contracted out, and for CD releases and vinyl made after 1975 or so, I can usually tell from a glance who really pressed it.

brunorepublic
I don't think that's a good idea,

you mean, putting 'manufactured by' in the same group as 'made by', or you mean handling those 3 as a synonym?
I wouldn't handle them as synonym either (as it's only in some cases a correct assumption, as you also point out, and in anyway also 'just an assumption' too), but I think putting them in the same group would be better. Because of what you say, I think it should be on top of that list, as it sometimes indeed is rather a leftover from an original version, or from a version from another area. Looking that way it for sure stands most close to the two groups above.

brunorepublic
neither of those companies physically manufactured *anything*.

I think it often refers to the manufacture of the masters used for the actual pressings. But not 100% sure.

Dr.SultanAszazin

I think it often refers to the manufacture of the masters used for the actual pressings. But not 100% sure.

No, as brunorepublic says, it's more of an oversight role. In industry it means that undertaken by the production manager or department who placed the orders with the factory works for [example] WEA Musik Gmbh. That company is often credited as 'Manufactured By' but they are not physical manufacturers.

They have a similar role in the company as the marketing director/department who contract out the in-store displays or posters. They coordinate and control the process rather than the physical act of manufacture.

They company facilitates the manufacture but doesn't do it as such.

Dr.SultanAszazin
you mean, putting 'manufactured by' in the same group as 'made by', or you mean handling those 3 as a synonym?

I mean they should not be treated as a synonym. I expect most people would simply add in the "Manufactured By" info as it appears on the release, not knowing that, for example, most Canadian Capitol vinyl releases after 1984 were actually mastered and pressed at CBS Records Canada. On one hand, it still says "Manufactured by" Capitol, but where it was -really- made is another matter. Of the majors, AFAIK only MCA would add "manufactured by Cinram" or something like that, and even then it wasn't applied consistently.

Yet another case where you can't go just by what it states on the sleeve. It throws off the accuracy of the database, just like the countless international releases which have completely wrong mastering credits because the local distributor never bothered to update the artwork.

Basically, I want to get the point across to submitters that "Manufactured by" (as it is usually printed on release) and who actually manufactured it are two very different things, and they should leave the latter details blank unless they are absolutely certain. For example, I have no idea how to identify most US pressings, unless they have some giveaway info in the deadwax, but there are experts who can look at a US release and tell you whether it was pressed on the east coast, west coast, original, repress, whatever.

asylum27
[example] WEA Musik Gmbh. That company is often credited as 'Manufactured By' but they are not physical manufacturers.

that company is usually mentioned as "Made by", while many of their releases credit the actual manufacturer too. That's why I would suggest to move "Made By" up the hierarchy:

Record Company
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Made By
Exported By
----------------
Phonographic Copyright (p)
Copyright (c)
------------------
Pressed By
Duplicated By
Printed By
Manufactured By

strummin
that company is usually mentioned as "Made by", while many of their releases credit the actual manufacturer too. That's why I would suggest to move "Made By" up the hierarchy:

That might be a bad example then - I picked it at random - but there are many others that say Manufactured and Distributed by... which don't mean physically manufactured.

Moving Made By up is not such a bad idea.

Recorded at: will this be for studios only, or halls/venues as well?

Internaut
Recorded at: will this be for studios only, or halls/venues as well?

That's a good question, I was wondering about this as well. I don't think 'The bass players Kitchen' is a good, proper, or useful use of this field, but "Royal Albert Hall" or "Madison Square Garden"? Potentially quite good info. What do you feel?

marcelrecords
I am missing ''Score By'', which is sometimes important information with classical releases.

That sounds more like a credit though. Is that another way of mentioning the publisher?

nik
natural process flow

Record Company
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Manufactured By
Exported By

loukash
I'd change that to:

Record Company
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Licensed To
Manufactured By
Marketed By
Distributed By
Exported By

Maybe in this instance, natural process flow clashed with what is the useful hierarchy. I'd consider Licensed To to be more important than Licensed From.

loukash
I'd move "Manufactured By" to the "Made By" group.

brunorepublic
quite often -- the company mentioned in the "manufactured by" credits doesn't do the actual manufacturing. I've got a couple hundred Canadian releases which claim to be manufactured by PolyGram or WEA, but neither of those companies physically manufactured *anything*. It was all contracted out

asylum27
it's more of an oversight role. In industry it means that undertaken by the production manager or department who placed the orders with the factory works for [example] WEA Musik Gmbh. That company is often credited as 'Manufactured By' but they are not physical manufacturers.

They have a similar role in the company as the marketing director/department who contract out the in-store displays or posters. They coordinate and control the process rather than the physical act of manufacture.

They company facilitates the manufacture but doesn't do it as such.

I agree regarding Manufactured By. That is why it is reasonably high up in the list, and not in the Pressed / Duplicated / Printed section.

Made By could be a bit problematical. In fact, so could Manufactured By. These are not always applied consistently, so there will be a degree of compromise. Does it help to move 'Made By' to the top of the Pressed / Duplicated / Printed section?

Label
Series
----------------
Record Company
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Manufactured By
Exported By
----------------
Phonographic Copyright (p)
Copyright (c)
------------------
Made By
Pressed By
Duplicated By
Printed By
------------------
Published By
------------------
Recorded At
Engineered At
Overdubbed At
Produced At
Mixed At
Remixed At
Mastered At
Lacquer Cut At
Glass Mastered At
-----------------
Designed At
Filmed At
----------------

nik
I'd consider Licensed To to be more important than Licensed From

But usually we will have to pick only one or two from this section anyway, and "Licensed To" doesn't seem all that frequent to me, at least not more than "Licensed From".
Since I don't even see a chance for an alphabetical sorting here (as we've discussed elswhere), at least a
"chronological" sorting would make sense.
Not a big thing though. (It will eventually go unnoticed among all those other arbitrary decisions… ;)

Internaut
Recorded at: will this be for studios only, or halls/venues as well?

nik
That's a good question, I was wondering about this as well. I don't think 'The bass players Kitchen' is a good, proper, or useful use of this field, but "Royal Albert Hall" or "Madison Square Garden"? Potentially quite good info. What do you feel?

I think that would be a brilliant feature, and I don't see any strong reasons not to include them as well (some guidelines to avoid 'the bass players kitchen' entered would be required of course).

nik
That's a good question, I was wondering about this as well. I don't think 'The bass players Kitchen' is a good, proper, or useful use of this field, but "Royal Albert Hall" or "Madison Square Garden"? Potentially quite good info. What do you feel?

first thing I thought when seeing "Recorded At" in the list was how nice it would be for live recordings. Some concert halls and locations have made history in certain music styles. Being able to gather all these recordings in one entry would be fantastic!

What are you going to do with different versions of the same number on a release?
Often there are 2 or 3 versions of a cat# on a release.
The way they are displayed now is a bit awkward. For example:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/Crystal-Waters-100-Pure-Love/release/75654
All numbers on one line.

With your new set of roles AM:PM would be the label and A&M the Record Company I guess. The same cat# is used, twice, for both. One from the label and one from the back of the sleeve.
Questions:
Will those be placed on separate lines?
Can we also get a field for denoting where the cat# is found? (An FTF is a good field for it maybe?)

nik
I don't think 'The bass players Kitchen' is a good, proper, or useful use of this field, but "Royal Albert Hall" or "Madison Square Garden"? Potentially quite good info. What do you feel?

Internaut
I think that would be a brilliant feature, and I don't see any strong reasons not to include them as well (some guidelines to avoid 'the bass players kitchen' entered would be required of course).

Yes, we'll need to figure out some guideline wording for that if it becomes an issue.

hermanito
What are you going to do with different versions of the same number on a release?
Often there are 2 or 3 versions of a cat# on a release.
The way they are displayed now is a bit awkward. For example:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/Crystal-Waters-100-Pure-Love/release/75654
All numbers on one line.

With your new set of roles AM:PM would be the label and A&M the Record Company I guess. The same cat# is used, twice, for both. One from the label and one from the back of the sleeve.
Questions:
Will those be placed on separate lines?
Can we also get a field for denoting where the cat# is found? (An FTF is a good field for it maybe?)

Cat# only needs to be entered for the label. One plan is to divorce cat#s from the label field and move them to the barcode And Other Identifiers field, which would make things more straightforward.

There is no FTF for labels at the moment, nor planned. The notes is the right place for this.

What ing the extra fields for descriptions as I've (boldly) done here? (where I've also pointed some reasons for that)

http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/history?release=1054942#latest

Thanks

Any chance of also adding 'Plating' (manufacturing of the metal parts for pressing vinyl) to the list? It'd be cool to have a page for Sheffield Lab Matrix:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/2425088

I like it. This just means more work. LOL

djindio
Any chance of also adding 'Plating'

Or maybe 'Processed By'?

Nik

not sure if mentioned, but this might become a problem..

say you have a UK or German pressing that was imported & distributed in the US by Jem Records (for example), would this justify a new listing of the same pressing? or will this be a problem when some might fill in distributed by under those titles when the original listing may not be? see where the problem can start?

A few things that I noticed:

1) The company field desperately needs an ANV field. There are already issues that I see cropping up as a result of this.

2) The company field also needs a track field. This is especially pertinent for publishers, and for releases where tracks are recorded and or mixed at different studios or where some tracks have additional work done (extra recording or overdubs) at separate studios...

3) There also needs to be some form of notes field of ftf to add things like dates (for copyright) locations such as countries and cities (for recording, pressing and mixing plants and studios, etc.) and for other info such as parent company info (a division of yadda yadda) and whatnot.

Kergillian
A few things that I noticed:

It would also be cool if we could enter the manufacture numbers for the 'Pressed By' entities, such as the 'B-14485' & 'B-14486' Allied Record Company #'s and the '1445' & '1445-X' Sheffield Lab Matrix #'s found in the runout etchings of:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/2425088

^ and the 'K - 10217' & 'K - 10218' Allied Record Company #'s mixed in the matrix/runout here:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/2474281

Kergillian
The company field desperately needs an ANV field.

Definitely, and likely also an "alias" system, akin to artist pages (only better ;)

Example:
The "Rudolfinum" (Wikipedia) music auditorium in Prague was known and credited as "House Of Artists" for many decades, or "Dům umělců" in Czech, or "Künstlerhaus" in German, etc.
Sometimes, the exact recording location was specified more precisely, but not consequently so. Usually, large orchestras were recorded in the "Dvořák Hall of House of Artists" (Dvořákova síň Domu umělců).

Today, as my quick database search revealed, there are several variations of a "Rudolfinum" present: http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/search?q=rudolfinum&btn=&type=all
For instance:
1) Rudolfinum
2) Rudolfinum Studio
3) Rudolfinum Dvořák Hall
Whil 2 and 3 are relatively clear, and could be considered individual venues, 1 is rather vague and often unclear whether it describes one of the concert halls, or the house studio.

Whatever the best solution might be, currently it means that this location credit will be scattered over several entity pages, which is Not Really A Good Thing™.

Kergillian
A few things that I noticed:

I'd add to that: We need a completely nee label page, similar to the artists pages.
It should be clear on the label page what role it's playing, e.g. label, company, rights holder, manufacturer, etc.

E.g.:
PolyGram Inc. = Record Company
PolyGram Inc. = Manufacturer

Kergillian
1) The company field desperately needs an ANV field. There are already issues that I see cropping up as a result of this.

Companies and labels...

Factory = Label
Factory Communications Limited = Licensed From
Factory Communications Ltd. = (P) and (C) Rights Holder
Factory Records = (P) and (C) Rights Holder

sebfact

I'd add to that: We need a completely nee label page, similar to the artists pages.
It should be clear on the label page what role it's playing, e.g. label, company, rights holder, manufacturer, etc.

+1

What if an album contains several songs that were recorded,mastered,produced,engineered, ... at different locations.

Something like:

"Recorded At": Recording Studio 1 (tracks 1, 2)
"Recorded At": Recording Studio 2 (tracks 3, 4)
"Mastered At": Mastering Studio 1 (tracks 1 to 3)
"Mastered At": Mastering Studio 2 (tracks 4)

I suppose the different recording,mastering ... locations will be added individually and the notes-field will clarify what song was recorded,mastered,... at what location?

Found the answer in Forum Thread #274056

nik
Tracks go in notes for now.

What about Production Companies? I've been asking about these for some time. Now with this new implementation I think it would be a good addition.

On a lot of albums I have, the © owner is the artist or band (example: David Maranha - Antarctica). The new "Copyright (c)" field assumes this is a label. Will it be possible to have artist-names in this field and not just labels?

Yes - there is confirmation in this topic somewhere (hard to find, though). A label-type entry will be created for the artist, the same way an artist-type entry is created for a label with, say, a production credit. It is also recommended to use the artist name complete with number (if there is one) for the copyright - http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/help/forums/topic/274056?page=4#2970538

Thanks for the link - hard to find indeed :)

I think the concept of a general "entity" is nice (which I read in this topic), gives the contributor the freedom to decided what to use it for and it solves the problem of having one and the same name being used both as label and artist.

Also (slightly off topic) I think it would be great to introduce "relationships" between "entities" (like you have in a real entity relationship diagram) in such a way that the contributor describes the relationship between the entities. It would be great to finally do something more intelligent with the artist and label pages. Definition could be "Entity 1 is related to Entity 2" usage: "Artist 1 is brother of Artist 2" and "Artist 2 is brother of Artist 1" or "Label 3 is private label of Artist 3" and "Artist 3 has private label Label 3" ... etceteras.

http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/release/3068042

I'm a bit stuck on updating a recent submission. The label is Cooperative Music, the record label V2 Music. The catalog number(VVR776761) looks like it relates to V2 not Coop. If I add it to the record company it looks a bit odd that the label doesn't have a catalog number.

Any thoughts?

Rimprints and fineprints usually have Manufactured and Distributed by...(in that order)
After adding 100's of mfg/distr in the last couple of days, one would think that with so much repetition, I would have developed automatic eye adjustment but it is not so.
If we can drop 'Distributed By' below Manufactured By' it would help...

Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Manufactured By
Distributed By
Marketed By
Exported By

...after all, a release has to be manufactured before it is distributed/marketed

Copyright (c))
Phonographic Copyright (p)

Can we have a free field to add "year" ? Example : the two years are located in Notes.

We could need "Remastered At".

djindio
Any chance of also adding 'Plating' (manufacturing of the metal parts for pressing vinyl) to the list?

djindio
Or maybe 'Processed By'?

Please just use 'Mastered At' for the moment.

joeybolt

not sure if mentioned, but this might become a problem..

say you have a UK or German pressing that was imported & distributed in the US by Jem Records (for example), would this justify a new listing of the same pressing? or will this be a problem when some might fill in distributed by under those titles when the original listing may not be? see where the problem can start?

If it is the same pressing, it shouldn't be another release. If that info is listed on the release, it can be listed in Discogs. Many releases are distributed to more than one place.

Kergillian
ANV field

Kergillian
track field

Kergillian
notes field

These may or may not happen, but I don't think they'll happen very soon, we have to use this system as is for the moment.

SampleKween
Production Companies?

Curiopete
If we can drop 'Distributed By' below Manufactured By'

wrongdoze
We could need "Remastered At".

We may add in some more tags once the current ones have been in use for a while.

skdotcom
I'm a bit stuck on updating a recent submission. The label is Cooperative Music, the record label V2 Music. The catalog number(VVR776761) looks like it relates to V2 not Coop. If I add it to the record company it looks a bit odd that the label doesn't have a catalog number.

I'd put it alongside the label field for now, and / or start a thread in adding / updating about that.

nik
Please just use 'Mastered At' for the moment.

OK, question already moved to other topic anyway:
http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/help/forums/topic/278498#2979547

nik
Label
Series
Record Company
----------------
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Marketed By
Distributed By
Manufactured By
Exported By
----------------
Published By
Phonographic Copyright (p)
Copyright (c)
------------------
Pressed By
Duplicated By
Printed By
------------------
Recorded At
Engineered At
Overdubbed At
Produced At
Mixed At
Remixed At
Mastered At
Lacquer Cut At
Glass Mastered At
-----------------
Designed At
Filmed At

I would like that the companies entries will automatically be arranged by the system in the correct order of importance/significance.

So i can enter in the companies fields for example
Glasmasterd At ... ...
Copyright ... ...
Licensed To ... ...

and after hitting the "Submit" button it will appear like this
Licensed To ... ...
Copyright ... ...
Glasmastered At ... ...

Is this wishful or possible ?

of this chunk of section, I'd like

"...Record Company
----------------
Licensed To
Licensed From
Licenced Through
Made By
Manufactured By
Distributed By
Marketed By
Exported By
----------------
Published By..."

taking Made By up a category level and having it directly above[edit] Manufactured By, with Distributed By under Manufactured By. My two bob's worth.

[EDIT} 'above', not previous 'under'.

Did I read somewhere that we are not to add the year to p & c ?

Can we add Photography Studio or Photographed At?

Can we also add Edited At?

Should we add track numbers and/or years (for copyright, as Curiopete mentioned, for example) into the cat# field for now? After all, the publishing info alone will become an utter mess without them (and I've been avoiding adding publishers altogether as a result...)

nik
These may or may not happen, but I don't think they'll happen very soon, we have to use this system as is for the moment.

The ANV field, for example, is sorely needed to:

a) prevent duplicates from popping up everywhere
b) to prevent potential identifying information from being removed from notes as 'redundant'.

For now, I've been leaving any form of variant in the notes even when adding the company to the company field, for fear that this info will get lost in the shuffle if and when an ANV and/or Alias field ever get implemented...

Kergillian
Should we add track numbers and/or years

Nik has firmly said no. It messes up cat # sequences and label pages.

They're already getting messed up for other reasons - why not add to the chaos?

At least until we get *proper* fields ;p

Kergillian
Can we add Photography Studio or Photographed At?

Can we also add Edited At?

Should we add track numbers and/or years (for copyright, as Curiopete mentioned, for example) into the cat# field for now? After all, the publishing info alone will become an utter mess without them (and I've been avoiding adding publishers altogether as a result...)

And while we're at it, please add istered By as well...

Kergillian
After all, the publishing info alone will become an utter mess without them (and I've been avoiding adding publishers altogether as a result...)

Good update but the only thing that I thought that I was perfectly clear on is manufacturer/distributor. Even then, I sometimes have doubts. I'm not touching anything else :)

Curiopete
Good update but the only thing that I thought that I was perfectly clear on is manufacturer/distributor. Even then, I sometimes have doubts. I'm not touching anything else :)

And you have pointed out as well that there is redundancy between the company field and notes section - because we cannot add things like dates and location information next to the companies, we're stuck leaving almost all of the info in the notes. What is the point of being forced to insert this information twice??

Adding at LEAST an open description field next to the companies (like the BAOIs have) would help us to:

a) remove the redundant info
b) clean up the notes sections
c) make the company fields more useful and pertinent
d) preserve company NVs until we get a 'CNV' field...

+1

Since the dust hasn't settled, I for one, am not too happy to make alterations, since we don't have ANVs.

I'm not sure a publisher/"company" (label?) should be either way, and would like to keep everything as much "as is" as humanly possible.

True, this will probably lead to multiple entries (which still could be linked some way or another)
or, there will be alterations en masse, so that the actual info might be distorted over and over.
Many s don't add anything in Notes anymore, and just enter the publisher the way they seem fit, no matter what the release actually says.

The incessant links to the Forums on "t view point" on hundreds of new entries will be too painstaking and tiring to say the least, so "as is" would work the best ATM, IMO.

I guess companies and publishers etc. do change names every now and then, because of merges/acqusitions/new staff/different countries or territories, and simply assuming "they are all similar, so they are all the same" might be a volatile guess.

I do abbreviate Limited into Ltd., though...(just to contradict myself :)

The incessant links to the Forums on "t view point" on hundreds of new entries will be too painstaking and tiring to say the least.

For the record, here are my 2 cents: Overall, I like the idea of the new companies field. They allow us to enter common information on releases in a structured way. However, in order for us to be able to move information from the notes to the company fields without losing data, a few enhancements are desperately needed:

1) An ANV function to enter company names as printed on the releases without creating an absolute mayhem in the database with duplicate entries.
2) Years for (p) and (c) copyright fields.
3) Dates for recording, mixing, etc. locations. Phrases like "Recorded at X September to November 1984" are extremely common.

There is nothing new here that hasn't been said before; just wanted to re-iterate the needs.

Made In
Printed In

please. But maybe this would suit better with a Country field overhaul.

Published by should stay up with (c) & (p) - those info bits are most common for the average .

Addition:
ANV / ALIAS function for companies as well if possible.

Kray_Tha_Zznaykk
I would like that the companies entries will automatically be arranged by the system in the correct order of importance/significance.

Is this wishful or possible ?

That is possible, but not a priority right now.

Kergillian
The ANV field, for example, is sorely needed

This has been addressed previously - we can't do it right now, sorry.

Kergillian
Should we add track numbers and/or years into the cat# field for now?

Absolutely not.

slur
Made In
Printed In

please. But maybe this would suit better with a Country field overhaul.

Yes, these are country fields, right?

nik
This has been addressed previously - we can't do it right now, sorry.

Is it being worked on at least?

And what about description or free text fields next to labels/companies??

nik
Yes, these are country fields, right?

sometimes regions/states/cities as well...

nik

slur
Made In
Printed In

please. But maybe this would suit better with a Country field overhaul.

Yes, these are country fields, right?

Indeed - but the db would benefit of them imho as most s could use them easily without doubt instead of the country construct used now which sometimes is hardly traceable.

slur
Indeed - but the db would benefit of them imho as most s could use them easily without doubt instead of the country construct used now which sometimes is hardly traceable.

In fact, we could probably replace the country field altogether with these - country has always been too arbitrary and confusing anyhow.

any chance to have:
Commissioned By/For
Financed By/Sponsored By
?

May we please get "Original Sound Recording Made By" to choose from amongst the LCCN dropdowns?
As widely ed, I think, in: http://discogs.sitiosdesbloqueados.info/help/forums/topic/322511

I post ^^ here because I can't find the other topic that was about asking what else should be available in the dropdown list.

"Produced For" would be useful too as it's not always the same company as the label