#musicbrainz

srotta: what is on your disc?

(i assume you have a physical disc + jewel case in front of you and are entering stuff based on that)

warp: Universal Music Group / Universal Music Oy.

Oy?

Oy ~ Ltd.

what's that?

>I sort of don't get why we the labels should be recorded so meticulously. Does it really matter what (country) subsidiary released the album, if they all are called (for example) Universal Music? - I agree

That's the Finnish daughter company of Universal Music Group.

srotta: so shouldn't you add 'Universal Music Oy' and put your release under that?

warp: Ok, let's continue this.

warp: I have another record, by YUP.

It's published by Mercury Records / Universal Music Oy.

Where should I put that?

:P

well, hard to say without more details :)

does either of the own the copyright? has it been licensed to the other?

There's no "Mercury Finland".

Mercury is sublabel of Universal Music Group. The big one, not the Finnish one.

But because the band is Finnish, the publisher is still Universal Music Oy.

... Which, again, when using Universal label, says it's Universal Music Group, not Universal Music Oy.

Did I make that sound complex enough, or should I add some spices?-)

Shrike has joined #MusicBrainz

So, the fact that the release is technically released by "Universal Music Oy" doesn't mean squat. That exists, because there has to be a legal entity in Finland if they have some business here.

well, as a sidenote... Universal Music Oy is mentioned on those discs, and if we would conclude now that one of those releases should go under it, that label has a right to be in the DB as Universal Music Oy. not as something else like Universal Music Finland or whatever.

srotta: it does mean a lot IMO, anyway.. can you answer the copyright question i asked earlier?

srotta: what's the catalog # btw?

On the other hand, my guess is that if we go digging we'll find those Ltds, Gmbhs, ABs and other things from just about every record ever made.

But somehow I don't see them on label names.

warp: 985434-9

warp: Copyright Universal Music Oy.

a label is a brand name, I dont really see that the local company name has much to do with the brand name. Universal Music is the brand/label/inprint

mudcrow: Exactly my point.

that 985 number looks like a Universal Music Oy catalog number, not a mercury number. for me a strong indication it should go under UM Oy.

warp: Sorry, that was for the Universal Music Oy release. I'll try again with the Mercury one 8)

srotta: aah, ok

987104-0

srotta: well, same thing applies :)

haha http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6672601

luks: i was about to ask him of the multiple languages on those

one of the many artists in my subscription list..

he probably just didn't find czech in the short list

it happens a lot for czech/slovak releases

then end up either without language or with multiple languages

they

Mudcrow's Caroline / Real World Records answer on the forums sort of extends this problem into catalog numbers.

luks: What's "invalid new backstep"?

huh?

where?

Picard's spewing that out all the time while fingerprinting.

I don't know what we're trying to record here. I think the "brand names", as mudcrow put it, are more meaningful than the legal entities behind them.

that's probably a error message/warning from ffmpeg

Yeah, it's interesting to know the relationships between different labels, but I don't see the relevance of particular country subsidiaries.

Shrike has joined #MusicBrainz

srotta: i can see the 'brand names' thing as a valid point, but not strong enough to seperate the catalog id from the entity which determines what the catalog id is for a particular release.

And if I mark those YUP recordings as "Universal Music Oy", it's definitely wrong, since they are so plainly released under Mercury label.

luks: Harmless?

most likely

srotta: i guess we need to record both,.. in some fashion :S

srotta: i'll have a look at the forum thread, thanks for pointing that out.

warp: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=411

And then there's a compilation by Veeti & The Velvets.

The backcover mentions Seal on Velvet, Capitol and EMI.

Seal on Velvet is a sublabel of Poko Records. Which was bought by EMI.

So now we have four labels to pick from. And of course there's the big bad EMI Music Group behind the EMI Finland... Which, I'd guess, has more to do with Capitol Records than the local EMI Finland.

how is it worded?

Well... :P

EMI isn't bad!

(well, they are ofcourse,.. but considering their announcement last monday, i'll defend them for a few days ;)

"In co-operation with Seal on Velvet" - which, I guess, was the label those tracks were originally released on) - then there's the Capitol Records logo, and the copyright is for EMI Music Finland.

could be a joint release between Seal & Capitol

srotta: what album are you talking about?

juhae: Pick your choice. Most recently "All About Veeti & The Velvets".

srotta: replied on the thread.

warp: Ok.

gotta love all the labels discussion going on these days :)

cooperaa: haha, yeah.. what a mess :)

I think we're doing pretty well

Let's just remove them and be done with it.

hahaha

I'm leaning towards not adding any, since right now this make no sense whatsoever :P

cooperaa: well... i think it takes a while before every agrees on all the details.

nothing unexpected. the same questions are raised in discogs all the time

s/every/everyone/

Even the damn wiki page is something you have to read twelve times to get your mind around it.

Doesn't make it any more sensible, though.

I still don't know how to categorize all the labels, so I just fill in their names, country, dates :)

if its releasing original material its production

but there's original production underneath that

But, I'll quote the damn page anyway: "At that time, we don't think we should keep track of companies involved in the other aspects of the music industry (PR...), get into too much financial details, or try to represent exactly the socio-economic organization of labels."

And that's exactly what we're, IMO, doing now.

srotta: haha, no way :)

Well, if we're losing information about the actual label to add information about the (in my opinion insignificant) local office that decides the Cat#, then there's something wrong.

And no, I'm not about to add anything on Universal Music Oy, I think it's just plain wrong :P

srotta: I don't know what kind of label edits you've been making, but all of mine have been adding more information (cat#, label, barcode, media)

...things that weren' there before

its working out the actual label from all the buff that record companies put on releases nowadays is the problem

yea that's the hard part

cooperaa: Of course it adds some information. The point was, what is the label.

for all intents and purposes, what ever comes after "(c)1998.." is the label for me

As I said, I have a release in front of me that has a pretty good case of choosing one out of four record companies. Should I just toss the coin?

then it will say "distributed by x" and so I link x to the label as a distributor

no thats the copyright owner, doesnt have to be anything to do with the label that released it

well, not everything is that simple

srotta: does it have more than one catalog number?

cooperaa: Derek and the Dominos' "Layla etc." has copyright by PolyGram for 1970. The disc was released in 1996 by Polydor.

cooperaa: Nope, just single one.

what label does the catalog # correspond to?

Where do I see that?

And more to the point, should I care?

the label pages?

yes

All the labels are subsidiaries of EMI.

because you can possibly tell which label to sort it under by the catalog #

All point to single page.

:P

boooo

My guess would be that they use the same label code scheme, no matter what the label they're using to publish the record.

yllona knows a lot and might be able to help out here :)

Ok, Poko Records has its own pages and labeling. It's also the only one that's not mentioned in the actual disc.

8)

srotta: correct. labe/catalog numbering schemes, are very similar (within a decade, for instance). AFAIK, there is no published "standard"

remember a decade (for instance) might include multiple media formats -- LP (vinyl), Cassette, 8-track, and compact disc (CD)

Yeah.

for the young'uns, you'll have to deal with re-issues on CD, which due to the mergers among the labels, may have concatenated/conflated label/catalog numbers

allmusic.com tracks this info well.

allmusic.com (AMG) isn't always accurate (for old folks like me), but it's a good starting point for research

The one release I'm holding has three label names on it, and one of them was a subsidiary of a fourth one. Which was Poko, the only one with distinguishing label codes. EMI uses just UPC of part of it as Cat#.

wikipedia can be grossly inaccurate, sometimes a complete waste of time....

srotta: i don't know that "imprint" (or the band it applies to)... i've got a few minutes -- it's lunchtime. send me a link

And yeah, I have (Finnish) albums that are released at least under EMI, Herodes and Capitol labels (that Seal on Velvet is still waiting for the jury) - and they all have the same Cat# scheme.