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

[Mikhail Yakshin]

artysmokes wrote:
> 
> 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".

> 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.

Even if they don't add the new catalog #, they may add their own barcode 
or at least they have their own release date. IMHO, it's reckless to 
just throw that information away, if it exists.

 > 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.

That's why I want to bring attention to this problem and set a rule for 
everyone to follow. Two distinct approaches for the problem here is 
worse than any single approach. If anyone would edit the database 
according without obeying the rules, it would become a mess.

In fact, I've already proposed a rule in my original message (see 
"bottom line"). May be we'll

> 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.

I personally don't think it's a good idea, and, moreover, while editing 
MusicBrainz, I've seen myriads of counter-examples. For example, most of 
japanese metal releases I'm dealing with are done through major asian 
"licensed re-issue" labels, such as:

Toy's Factory: http://musicbrainz.org/show/label/?labelid=375
East Rock: http://musicbrainz.org/show/label/?labelid=708
Avalon: http://musicbrainz.org/show/label/?labelid=1207
Victor Entertainment: http://musicbrainz.org/show/label/?labelid=888

If we really want to store just the information on imprints, we should 
just throw out most of the "labels" the mentioned above. That would ruin 
the value of MusicBrainz for collectors that want to distinguish various 
release countries.

BTW, on Discogs, Madonna's releases are filed under Warner Music Japan 
and I feel that's right place for them: it when I'd search for them if I 
was to be searching for info on japanese releases:

http://www.discogs.com/label/Warner+Music+(Japan)

[...]

> 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'll try that, but I feel that imprint issue is more serious than just 
catalog number :)

> 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.

So far, everything I've been discussing is a pretty formal data, why 
can't we just file it under normal database scheme, as I've proposed?

 > Manufacturers and distributors can be linked to (other)
> imprints using ARs.

That solves the problem imprecisely and only partially. As in 
Союз-Peaceville example, setting that AR would be wrong, as Союз only 
licensed a handful of Peaceville CDs (not the whole catalog) and it 
doesn't just do manufacturing an distribution: it makes a whole new 
country-specific release, based on licensed material. CDs that Союз 
makes are for sale only only on territory of Russia (or maybe CIS), they 
bear distinctive texts in Russian, etc, etc. Союз isn't just an 
outsourcing of Peaceville's distribution.

-- 
WBR, Mikhail Yakshin AKA GreyCat