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

[artysmokes]

Mikhail Yakshin wrote:
> 
> 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".
> <SNIP>
It usually seems obvious to me. The lowest level imprint has a logo, whereas
the higher level manufacturer/distributor is usually only mentioned in the
small print. In the vast majority of cases, we file according to the
imprint. One of the problems you've identified is that some
manufacturers/distributors license a release from another label and add a
new catalogue number in their own style. There has been no final decision
made on what to do in cases like this. Some editors feel that we should
record the label that matches the cat number, while others choose the
imprint name, but the manufacturer/distributor's cat number.
Example 1: Madonna released several records on her "Maverick" imprint,
distributed by a variety of branches of Warner Music. We currently file all
Madonna releases featuring the Maverick logo with that label, even if they
have been re-badged with a Warner-Pioneer (Japan) catalogue number.
Example 2: All Britney Spears releases are filed with Jive, no matter which
company manufactured, distributed or applied cat numbers. (Like Madonna's
Maverick, the Jive logo will still appear somewhere on the disc/packaging,
wherever it is released). 
Example 3: Many Nirvana releases feature a small Sub Pop logo, despite the
band signing with Geffen. We file the releases under Geffen, because Nirvana
had actually left Sub Pop and the master tapes are owned by Geffen; it is
unclear precisely why the Sub Pop logo continued to appear on sleeves, but
it's something to do with a licensing agreement that we really don't need to
know about.

Re-issues are another cause of debate. Something might have been released in
1967 by Atlantic Records, and then re-released in 1997 by Rhino with a new
R2 cat number, but with the Atlantic logo. Should we file the re-issue with
Rhino, or with Atlantic?

Topics like these are being discussed at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseCatalogNumber
I would advise you to read and contribute.

I've left my thoughts on http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7044806 in
the relevant place.

Mikhail Yakshin wrote:
> <SNIP>
> 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:
> <SNIP>
> WBR, Mikhail Yakshin AKA GreyCat
In the future, we *may* be able to list the manufacturer/distributor
alongside the imprint in the release events, but listing the country makes a
release event unique enough for me. :/
For now, as it says in the wiki I've linked to above, you have a few options
for storing the extra information. My usual practice is to use the low-level
imprint in the release event and put any additional information in the
release annotation. Manufacturers and distributors can be linked to (other)
imprints using ARs.
--
Cheers, Arty



-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Can-someone-clarify-on-how-labels-imprints-works--tf4463867s2885.html#a12956688
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.