SultS: just because it has "inc" doesn't mean it's not a valid name
2011-12-25 35959, 2011
nikki
they do use that on a lot of releases in exactly the same place that you'd find normal label names
2011-12-25 35904, 2011
nikki
"normal" even
2011-12-25 35945, 2011
v6lur joined the channel
2011-12-25 35927, 2011
SultS
but it's on the back cover that they are a manufacturer, that should still mean that sony is not the correct label to use there, I would think
2011-12-25 35935, 2011
nikki
they're also on the spine
2011-12-25 35957, 2011
SultS
as is Wind-up
2011-12-25 35937, 2011
nikki
I wouldn't vote no to adding that as another label
2011-12-25 35928, 2011
SultS
what about if disc only has Wind-up on it?
2011-12-25 35932, 2011
SultS
I have that image too
2011-12-25 35949, 2011
CallerNo6 also looks at the cat# as part of determining "label", as in, "whose catalog does this seem to be part of?" ... but it's not an exact science
2011-12-25 35951, 2011
kovacsur
SultS: the EICP catalogue number is a SMJI one, so I'd keep SMJI for this label/cat# pair
2011-12-25 35923, 2011
SultS
in that case.. what about the catalog number edit, ignoring the label name?
2011-12-25 35902, 2011
nikki enters separate catalogue numbers
2011-12-25 35942, 2011
CallerNo6 reads slowly and types even slower
2011-12-25 35902, 2011
CallerNo6 would add the "package" cat# for the release, and note the disc cat#s in an annotation ... the guideline that danbloo cites predates N
2011-12-25 35910, 2011
CallerNo6
er, "NGS"
2011-12-25 35942, 2011
kovacsur
The combined cat# seems to make more sense semantically
I cancelled that edit, but I would make a new edit for cat. no. then. I think combined cat. no. is still better as well. also voting for that ticket
2011-12-25 35912, 2011
nikki wishes we stored standardised japanese catalogue numbers so she didn't have to do all sorts of horrible mangling to match our data with data she gathers from various japanese sites :(
SultS: by "combined cat#" I was thinking EICP 670, which applies to the "release" rather than to the discs. I guess I'm not sure which one kovacsur meant.
2011-12-25 35909, 2011
kovacsur
CallerNo6: that's a completely different release.
2011-12-25 35940, 2011
SultS
yeah, different releases, 670 is 1 CD
2011-12-25 35941, 2011
CallerNo6
I'm probably looking at the wrong tab again.
2011-12-25 35906, 2011
SultS
but 668~9 is also combined
2011-12-25 35928, 2011
kovacsur
This one has EICP 668~9 all over the packaging, EICP 668 on the CD, EICP 669 on the DVD
2011-12-25 35936, 2011
kovacsur
If I recall correctly.
2011-12-25 35946, 2011
CallerNo6
sorry. my mistake.
2011-12-25 35951, 2011
SultS
you are correct
2011-12-25 35925, 2011
SultS
I did add the disc cat#-s to annotation in any case
2011-12-25 35908, 2011
kovacsur
SultS: you linked the wrong image in the edit note by the way.
Mixer / compiler as release artist, track artists as themselves
2011-12-25 35952, 2011
CallerNo6
it's that simple?
2011-12-25 35949, 2011
reosarevok
Tends to be
2011-12-25 35913, 2011
reosarevok
What doesn't seem clear is whether it is a real mix
2011-12-25 35918, 2011
reosarevok
Or just a compilation
2011-12-25 35922, 2011
CallerNo6
I'm assuming they're remixes based on the write-up on his site
2011-12-25 35903, 2011
CallerNo6
but maybe not
2011-12-25 35934, 2011
reosarevok
Discogs says the credit is "Compiled By – Paul D. Miller a.k.a. DJ Spooky*"
2011-12-25 35901, 2011
reosarevok
But sometimes people credit one thing and do the other
2011-12-25 35908, 2011
reosarevok
Just to be annoying
2011-12-25 35948, 2011
CallerNo6
yeah, saw that. hmm. amazon samples don't seem to be remixed. I'll keep listening and try to figure it out on my own (if there's anything to figure out)
2011-12-25 35932, 2011
DarkerAudit joined the channel
2011-12-25 35951, 2011
reosarevok
YAY
2011-12-25 35954, 2011
kovacsur
One customer on Amazon says "In addition to the superlative remix album, a bonus album of unremixed reggae classics is included" but I can't find anything official
