[mb-users] Can someone clarify on how labels/imprints works?

[Mikhail Yakshin]

fridaythe14th wrote:
> If we again take Dead Can Dance as an example: I've purchased their 8
> official CDs on ebay. All of them have 4AD logos. Two of them were
> "published by" Beggars Banquet which is the holding label of 4AD. I have
> another 4AD/Beggars Banquet one, but with a Rough Trade logo and cat#. Then
> I have a french release on Virgin Music (also has a Virgin-logo). The rest
> of them were manufactured and distributed by Warner Bros in America.
> For collecting purposes I don't think imprints is the best rule. At least
> not in this case. Dead Can Dance collectors would certainly know that 4AD
> owns the master tapes for all their releases.

I don't think that there is a single and simple "imprint rule". The very 
basis of all these complicated matters is finding a most characteristic 
entity, responsible for a given release.

There are lots of non-clarified questions come to mind, especially when 
trying to find out something about "hierarchy" and who's "lowest" and 
who's "highest".

I'll provide some longer explanations, and, for those who don't want to 
read it all, there's short summary at the bottom.

========================================================================

Some examples:

1. There's an IROND Russian label that publishes 95% of re-releases of 
various metal labels and 5% of their own original releases. Anyway, 
IROND assigns them all their own number (IROND CD ##-####) and 
frequently, these releases are a bit different from original ones (i.e., 
include bonus tracks, etc).

IROND is certainly not an imprint or original copyright holder most of 
the time, but is not really a just distributor too. IROND sells their 
discs through lots of shops, but it manufactures them, makes sleeves 
that differ from original ones, makes their own catalog numbers, etc., 
they have their own release dates and most of the times, these are only 
releases in Russia.

=> Such data deserves to be stored in MusicBrainz. Even if the discs are 
the same of almost the same, more release events wouldn't harm anyone, 
but collectors would benefit from such info.

I can name a few other labels that match IROND template fully:
http://musicbrainz.org/label/1fc726a1-c11f-43ac-a404-c91354c41aa2.html
http://musicbrainz.org/label/773ae797-0020-46dd-85d7-ade2e3d644fb.html

2. There's a СОЮЗ (Soyuz) label that looks the same as IROND (i.e. it's 
also about 95% re-releases vs 5% original ratio), but it rarely adds 
anything to Russian-released CD contents and it doesn't assign them 
their own catalog numbers. I want to reference this particular edit:

http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7044806

I deeply think that in this case releases by Peaceville and Союз should 
be filed differently. Release by Союз has no different catalog # (I 
guess we could make it blank or just copy original imprint's catalog # - 
we need to fix it in policies), but it has distinct release date, 
distinct country and distinct barcode that clearly identifies this 
release a Russian-manufactured CD.

3. In some other cases, for example, Russian release of Guano Apes disc 
carries absolutely no new information. In fact, it's impossible to tell 
that if it's a disc released in Russia or not. It bears the same catalog 
numbers, the same barcode, the same label designations, etc. Thus, we 
just use "imprint rule" to find who's the most responsible for the 
release and find out that:

BMG -> GUN Records -> Supersonic Records

plus, CD bears catalog no "SUPERSONIC 051" => looks like "Supersonic 
Records" is an imprint that we should file into database.

========================================================================
Bottom line, to make it short:

We should clarify label policies to make it clear that we want:

* Information on all organizations that make release somewhat unique and 
distinct from other releases of the same disc, i.e., if an organization 
has at least something of their own from this list:

** Release date (i.e. their own release date that doesn't match the date 
of original imprint)
** Country
** Catalog no
** Barcode
** Media type

We don't want:

* Information on organizations that have no effect on the disc, i.e., 
those who ship it, those who just retail sell it, those who deal with 
financial parts, who provide law services, such as RIAA or similar 
organizations in other countries, leaving no info we can insert into our 
database.

It would be even better if every organization we file as a label would 
come with some sort of a rationale, why do we add it. Relationships help 
a bit (especially who owns who), but more comments are welcome anyway :)

-- 
WBR, Mikhail Yakshin AKA GreyCat