so this comesback to something I said in #narfen (and not public, sorry) that we could have the label credits
2015-10-23 29605, 2015
reosarevok
But it's possible that the right name for that label is just DSsH without EMI. It does seem similar to the EMI Angel logo that seems to belong to just Angel Records
2015-10-23 29616, 2015
dufferzafar has quit
2015-10-23 29643, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: Nonetheless, I don't feel like someone should need to know all the details and history and who-owned-who and who sued who in what country when...
2015-10-23 29650, 2015
hawke1
...in order to apply the right label.
2015-10-23 29651, 2015
blup
reosarevok: yea.. but, I guess hawke1's point is: why should we know all this just adding a release?
2015-10-23 29651, 2015
blup
I guess it should be made clear(er) or something easier to add right
2015-10-23 29620, 2015
blup
and the people voting *need* to understand that they need to explain this nicly and not in a "nop ur wrong" way
2015-10-23 29624, 2015
reosarevok
Yes, definitely. I just mean that maybe this case should just involve adding "EMI Die Simme seines Herm" as an alias to "Die Simme seines Herm"
2015-10-23 29636, 2015
reosarevok
If that's how this label works
2015-10-23 29637, 2015
blup
credits
2015-10-23 29642, 2015
blup
label credits
2015-10-23 29645, 2015
blup
I'm serious
2015-10-23 29646, 2015
hawke1
Well, I personally still see it as two labels...
2015-10-23 29647, 2015
hawke1
Otherwise we're going to be creating a million combo labels
blup: Unfortunately does not work well for vinyl. :-)
2015-10-23 29657, 2015
CallerNo6
hawke1, when you make your arguments (on labels) I don't see any indication that you understand or care that other people have a totally different definition of "label".
2015-10-23 29619, 2015
LordSputnik has quit
2015-10-23 29629, 2015
blup
and whateve rights thing if it says "blah blah emi by rights of columbia blah ℗ (d) (c)
2015-10-23 29635, 2015
hawke1
CallerNo6: That's because no one has ever expressed what that definition might be in a way that makes any sense to me.
2015-10-23 29603, 2015
CallerNo6
hawke1: do you need to understand it to know that it exists?
2015-10-23 29604, 2015
blup
I actually agree with hawke here. it's that people who have done the research" are all very agro about it
2015-10-23 29615, 2015
blup
CallerNo6: he needs ot understand it to use it?
2015-10-23 29638, 2015
hawke1
CallerNo6: I need to understand it in order to be able to determine what "counts" as a label.
2015-10-23 29633, 2015
CallerNo6
hawke1: but I'm not saying you should agree. i'm saying that we can have both if we stop talking past each other :-)
2015-10-23 29649, 2015
CallerNo6
(not you and me specifically, but all of us)
2015-10-23 29626, 2015
snoozebrainz
what different definitions of labels are there? Not trying to start a war, just don't know
2015-10-23 29640, 2015
blup
i mostly actally agree with many of these lael guys, their point, but they come off as so agro and condesending, and it sems they are frustrated about explaining this for the 110th time
2015-10-23 29647, 2015
CallerNo6
it would be very easy to have different fields on a release. one that answers the question "what branding is visible on the cover?" and one tht answers the question "who put this release out?"
2015-10-23 29653, 2015
hawke1
CallerNo6: Maybe, but since the opposite perspective from mine includes "only one label counts" and the method for determining that "correct" label is IMO an esoteric mess of heuristics...
2015-10-23 29625, 2015
blup
that a) i on't wanna make em more mad/stressed/whatever b) I don't wanna encure their wrath c) i can't be assed to se my self into it and then i can't really argument that i nkow better
2015-10-23 29650, 2015
aron_kexp has quit
2015-10-23 29612, 2015
blup
it's way harder than to determine eg release artist
2015-10-23 29655, 2015
hawke1
snoozebrainz: one definition (my own) is that a label is basically a brand or a logo. Another is that they are a company involved in the production of records.
2015-10-23 29621, 2015
blup
and then they buy eachother out and branding changes hand
2015-10-23 29628, 2015
hawke1
yes. :-)
2015-10-23 29652, 2015
blup
and then some buy the rights ot use some branding fro manother but oher do that and re-issue it's old catalogue on *their* own brand. etc
2015-10-23 29610, 2015
dufferzafar joined the channel
2015-10-23 29650, 2015
reosarevok
Our current definition of "label" as an entity is kind of "a company, and/or one of their brands"
2015-10-23 29652, 2015
hawke1
The statement that a "label" logo doesn't count because it only appears on the record label, really makes me headdesk though.
2015-10-23 29614, 2015
reosarevok
Our current definition of release label is kind of "?????"
2015-10-23 29614, 2015
blup
uh, what is a record label?
2015-10-23 29618, 2015
blup
the record label?
2015-10-23 29619, 2015
blup
uhhh
2015-10-23 29627, 2015
blup
reosarevok: exactly
2015-10-23 29627, 2015
hawke1
blup: the center label sticker in the middle of a record.
2015-10-23 29648, 2015
blup
buh, it's not always a thing there. for EP's it's missing
2015-10-23 29657, 2015
blup
I usually go with the cover
2015-10-23 29612, 2015
blup
but if here is a label
2015-10-23 29616, 2015
blup
on the actual record
2015-10-23 29621, 2015
blup
then.. wel you shoudl use that
2015-10-23 29624, 2015
blup
why not
2015-10-23 29608, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: how about "a label (see previous definition) which appears on a release"?
2015-10-23 29631, 2015
blup
hawke1: define "release" and "appears"
2015-10-23 29638, 2015
blup
(not trying to troll) :D
2015-10-23 29602, 2015
reosarevok
Well, then we would have quite a big bunch of "labels" per release, most duplicating relationship stuff
2015-10-23 29603, 2015
hawke1
blup: Yeah, I know. :-)
2015-10-23 29609, 2015
reosarevok
Which to be fair is what we do with artists :p
2015-10-23 29610, 2015
blup is now known as CatQuest
2015-10-23 29613, 2015
snoozebrainz
hawke1: the advantage with your defenition is that it's easier for multiple users to handle it, if there is a logo on a release it could go in the label field. If you have to find out which companies where involved with the production, it's way harder and fewer people can do it correctly (it's also alot harder to do any quality checks on that data)
2015-10-23 29619, 2015
CatQuest
reosarevok: that's a point
2015-10-23 29628, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: I think our current definition is officially: "The label which issued the release. There may be more than one." (see https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release#Label )
2015-10-23 29635, 2015
reosarevok
I'd much rather we didn't do that *more* but
2015-10-23 29642, 2015
reosarevok
haha
2015-10-23 29650, 2015
reosarevok
Which is basically the same as "??????" but with more words
2015-10-23 29655, 2015
hawke1
yeah, lol
2015-10-23 29614, 2015
hawke1
snoozebrainz: Yes, I think that's been my point about this one. :-)
2015-10-23 29643, 2015
reosarevok
And sadly it doesn't seem to be one of the "??????" that comes just before "Profit"
2015-10-23 29655, 2015
snoozebrainz
hawke1: then for what it's worth I agree with you :)
2015-10-23 29616, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: if people wanted to add the logo-labels into appropriate relationships I would have no problem with that at all.
2015-10-23 29643, 2015
reosarevok
I mostly wonder about "imprint"
2015-10-23 29653, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: My sole objection is to the exclusion of what appear to be completely valid labels, because of weird reasons involving the relationship among the labels.
2015-10-23 29658, 2015
CatQuest
most people don't even know what "imprint" means
2015-10-23 29603, 2015
CatQuest
I didn't understand until xplained
2015-10-23 29606, 2015
reosarevok
Is the (industry) definition of "imprint" the same as "the logo there"
2015-10-23 29610, 2015
reosarevok
Or is it a more specific thing
2015-10-23 29619, 2015
hawke1
wikipedia says...
2015-10-23 29629, 2015
hawke1
"When a label is strictly a trademark or brand, not a company, then it is usually called an "imprint", a term used for the same concept in publishing. "
2015-10-23 29649, 2015
CatQuest
in other words "blah blah blah something"
2015-10-23 29603, 2015
CatQuest
people needs "this is x, do y"
2015-10-23 29612, 2015
reosarevok
Heh
2015-10-23 29625, 2015
reosarevok
So a "release imprint" is basically nothing
2015-10-23 29636, 2015
reosarevok
Or well, it's "a linked label of the type 'imprint'"
2015-10-23 29618, 2015
CatQuest
linked how? wia AR or through the actual "label"thing?
2015-10-23 29626, 2015
reosarevok
However we do it :p
2015-10-23 29630, 2015
CatQuest
(not trying to be difficult,)
2015-10-23 29654, 2015
reosarevok
Mostly, it seems that, say, Ninja Tune is not an imprint, because the company is also Ninja Tune (although it might be Ninja Tune, Inc. or whatever)
2015-10-23 29615, 2015
reosarevok
But obviously that doesn't mean it can't be the "release label"...
2015-10-23 29630, 2015
reosarevok
Yay, we're getting into extra "?????" territory :p
2015-10-23 29639, 2015
CatQuest
yea, but. that's a strange arbitrary. since the n"some blup emi tralalal ♫♪♬ " *is* a imprint
2015-10-23 29651, 2015
reosarevok
Yes, that's what I mean
2015-10-23 29655, 2015
CatQuest
yea
2015-10-23 29657, 2015
reosarevok
That seems to make sense as a label type
2015-10-23 29602, 2015
reosarevok
(which it helpfully is!)
2015-10-23 29614, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: again from wikipedia, "A record label is a brand or trademark associated with the marketing of music recordings and music videos. Often, a record label is also a publishing company that manages such brands and trademarks"
2015-10-23 29614, 2015
reosarevok
But not as a specific relationship or guideline for usage
2015-10-23 29626, 2015
CatQuest
what emi tralalal ♫♪♬ is a label? no???
2015-10-23 29641, 2015
CatQuest
sorry
2015-10-23 29643, 2015
CatQuest fell off
2015-10-23 29646, 2015
zas_ joined the channel
2015-10-23 29616, 2015
zas has quit
2015-10-23 29620, 2015
reosarevok
CatQuest: ¯\(°_°)/¯
2015-10-23 29632, 2015
CatQuest
ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ
2015-10-23 29613, 2015
hawke1
so -- the company, and the corresponding logo/trademark...that is the record label.
2015-10-23 29644, 2015
reosarevok
So, "any brand or trademark associated with the release" is basically "a record label"
2015-10-23 29654, 2015
hawke1
The sticky bit seems to be that some people only want certain subsets of "associated with the marketing of" to be "release labels"?
2015-10-23 29609, 2015
reosarevok wonders if we shouldn't just have an "associated label" relationship with more specific subsets that can be used when applicable
2015-10-23 29605, 2015
reosarevok
(OT: the BBC's proposed match for "Norman Allin, British bass singer" in the work I'm doing for them is GG Allin. I can't help but to find the idea of GG Allin performing at the proms hilarious)
(experimental electronic-ish in general I guess, some contemporary classical too - a nice mix in any case)
2015-10-23 29656, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: IMO the problem with that is how obscure the ARs would end up being relative to our present "release label"
2015-10-23 29607, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: Since those logos are so important to identifying the release.
2015-10-23 29607, 2015
reosarevok
Of course, it'd still be hard to choose which labels to actually present on the sidebar and so on
2015-10-23 29633, 2015
reosarevok gets the feeling we should encourage searching by barcode (when present) and catno more than label, in general
2015-10-23 29638, 2015
reosarevok
Since they're less arbitrary
2015-10-23 29639, 2015
reosarevok
But still
2015-10-23 29657, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: IMO in an ideal world ... all the logos that appear on the release would appear on the sidebar, and adding a label to a release would also add an AR by which you could clarify why that logo was on the release.
2015-10-23 29618, 2015
CatQuest
hmm!
2015-10-23 29618, 2015
zas_ is now known as zas
2015-10-23 29622, 2015
reosarevok
I mean there's no reason why we can't special-case label rels to show on the sidebar instead
2015-10-23 29626, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: doesn't work historically, though I agree for modern/current releases.
2015-10-23 29612, 2015
reosarevok
It's just whether we want stuff like "who had the (P) rights" to appear there too. Although given rights are all e.g. iTunes gives, that might be reasonable anyway
2015-10-23 29618, 2015
hawke1
reosarevok: er, that's -- "searching by barcode doesn't work historically"
2015-10-23 29638, 2015
reosarevok
Yeah, and I guess past a certain time neither does catno as such
2015-10-23 29647, 2015
CatQuest
[21:26] <reosarevok> It's just whether we want stuff like "who had the (P) rights" to appear there too. Although given rights are all e.g. iTunes gives, that might be reasonable anyway
2015-10-23 29647, 2015
CatQuest
THIS
2015-10-23 29649, 2015
hawke1
catno is pretty reliable
2015-10-23 29650, 2015
reosarevok
Although I guess old matrix stuff might still qualify as catno somehow?
2015-10-23 29600, 2015
hawke1
yes.
2015-10-23 29617, 2015
hawke1
catno goes back to the earliest physical printed record catalogs
