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

[artysmokes]

Mikhail Yakshin wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
We're not throwing away data. If there is a new barcode or catalogue number
then it gets included in the release event. Most often, the imprint stays
the same, but is just licensed to various manufacturers. In many cases, the
only major difference between, say, a British and German release is the
country and the date. It really doesn't matter who manufactures or
distributes the discs. Britney Spears has a record deal with Jive. If they
want to use different companies to distribute her records in Japan or on
Pluto, it doesn't make any difference to her. The records are still have the
Jive imprint.

Mikhail Yakshin wrote:
> 
> 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.
OK, the rules aren't yet set in stone, but have you actually read
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Label or
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseCatalogNumber ?
If you need clarification or think the current guidelines should be changed,
please leave notes there if possible, as it's difficult to find things on
the mailing list at a later date.

Mikhail Yakshin wrote:
> 
> In fact, I've already proposed a rule in my original message (see 
> "bottom line").
> 
Yes, you wrote, "[Release events should include...] Information on all
organizations that make release somewhat unique and distinct from other
releases of the same disc"
Well, release country is pretty unique! :)
As I've said, any new cat numbers or barcodes can be input. You're basically
arguing that we should list the manufacturer/distributor in release events
in addition to (or instead of) the low-level imprint. I've already said that
you have the option of adding an extra release event if you really think
it's important to give credit to a second label (e.g. a re-issue label).
It's commonly done for "special cases", (especially where two cat #s appear
on the sleeve) but including an extra field for
"manufacturer/distributor/licensing company" for every release is really not
viable at the present time. I mean, do you have any idea how many records
have been manufactured by Warner, Sony, EMI or BMG? What would be the point
in putting all Madonna releases under Warner Music, when she was signed to
Sire Records and then used her Maverick imprint? Do we really want to put
all Beatles records under Capitol/EMI instead of Parlophone or Apple? I've
said it before and I'll say it again, artists sign contracts with record
label imprints, not distributors, re-issue labels or manufacturing plants.
I don't know how big or powerful your beloved Союз company is, but I'm sure
it has subsidiary labels/imprints. If imprints exist, use them!
--
Cheers, Arty
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Can-someone-clarify-on-how-labels-imprints-works--tf4463867s2885.html#a12958838
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.