CallerNo6 figured that was where hawke_1 was going.
2013-07-16 19758, 2013
hawke_1
So yeah, those logos printed on the release *are* the labels, and are representative of the company who owns them.
2013-07-16 19737, 2013
hawke_1
And for better or worse, we (and the companies too) tend to conflate the logo with the company.
2013-07-16 19717, 2013
CallerNo6 votes for "worse"
2013-07-16 19750, 2013
hawke_1
maybe.
2013-07-16 19716, 2013
hawke_1
Not sure what we would gain by having a separate entity for corporations vs. labels
2013-07-16 19706, 2013
CallerNo6
The corporations themselves conflate the two in casual conversation.
2013-07-16 19722, 2013
CallerNo6
But in your RCA <color> example, if the release had both logos, I wouldn't intepret that to mean that both were the "label" of the release, unless there were two cat#s.
2013-07-16 19702, 2013
hawke_1
Right, but what does “the label of the release” mean?
ianmcorvidae gets an "amen" whether he asks for one or not
2013-07-16 19717, 2013
Clint_ joined the channel
2013-07-16 19737, 2013
hawke_1
On the back cover of the latter, I see BMG and RCA, and the “nipper” trademark — I can’t see the beggar’s banquet label that appears on the center label…but it’s too small to be sure
2013-07-16 19724, 2013
hawke_1
So I mean…wtf is “the label for the release”?
2013-07-16 19727, 2013
CallerNo6
I see it as almost the same question as "what series is this release part of".
2013-07-16 19742, 2013
innocuous joined the channel
2013-07-16 19711, 2013
hawke_1
I can get behind that…but I think in this case it is part of several series
2013-07-16 19718, 2013
CallerNo6
There are two concurrent US 1" vinyl releases in the RG. I don't get it.
2013-07-16 19707, 2013
hawke_1
One is bigtime, the other is beggar’s banquet.
2013-07-16 19725, 2013
hawke_1
As an extra bonus, both have the same (RCA) cat no.
2013-07-16 19724, 2013
CallerNo6
Well, yeah, but concurrently? Does that happen? I guess it could.
2013-07-16 19716, 2013
hawke_1
The US might be wrong; beggar’s banquet is a british label.
2013-07-16 19726, 2013
CallerNo6
Anyway, I totally agree that the stuff printed on releases sometimes defies simple categories. But does that make every logo equal?
2013-07-16 19729, 2013
hawke_1
but then, bigtime is australian, so…
2013-07-16 19705, 2013
hawke_1
CallerNo6: No, probably not. As in the above (bigtime), I even added RCA purely because of printed text and the cat no.
2013-07-16 19709, 2013
Clint joined the channel
2013-07-16 19740, 2013
Lajjla joined the channel
2013-07-16 19737, 2013
CallerNo6
hawke_1: I might have done the same thing, in a weak attempt to impose meaning on cat#s.
2013-07-16 19723, 2013
Shepard joined the channel
2013-07-16 19725, 2013
hawke_1
It’s quite likely that the RCA logo appears on the back cover too (thus truly justifying it), but we don’t have any artwork for that…
2013-07-16 19716, 2013
CallerNo6 will probably continue to think of label as "what catalog does this belong to". There should be a guideline that says "If you can't easily determine the label, ask teleguise".
2013-07-16 19702, 2013
hawke_1
CallerNo6: And you think it impossible for it to belong to several catalogs?
I think I agree with that definition, but I think the 'several catalogs' thing is more common than you do…especially when you consider the RG as a whole.
2013-07-16 19740, 2013
CallerNo6
Could be.
2013-07-16 19711, 2013
hawke_1
what’s the usual process…something like: released on small indie label, released on major label, sometimes with local imprint…
2013-07-16 19732, 2013
hawke_1
…reissued on major label… sometimes reissued back on small label…
2013-07-16 19758, 2013
hawke_1
And with each one they grow some additional logos. :-)
2013-07-16 19710, 2013
CallerNo6
The one that throws me is when a faithful reissue duplicates the original cover exactly, so it has the original imprint, but that imprint/label has been defunct for decades.
2013-07-16 19734, 2013
hawke_1
hehe, yeah…
2013-07-16 19731, 2013
CallerNo6
The new label might even use the old cat#, even though it doesn't fit in their numbering scheme.
2013-07-16 19759, 2013
CallerNo6
If they aren't sure what to do, they should ask teleguise.
2013-07-16 19709, 2013
CallerNo6
(the labels, that is)
2013-07-16 19729, 2013
hawke_1
You see that a lot in the CD reissue period as well.
2013-07-16 19753, 2013
hawke_1
leaving aside defunct labels, the original label reusing its vinyl cat no. for the CD version.
2013-07-16 19744, 2013
CallerNo6
When they do that (re-use the cat#), is it generally an identical tracklist? I'd be put off if the same cat# might/might-not have bonus tracks.
2013-07-16 19705, 2013
napterk joined the channel
2013-07-16 19739, 2013
hawke_1
Haven’t noticed on that.
2013-07-16 19726, 2013
CallerNo6
To re-cap, I admit that the most pragmatic solution is to enter whatever is on the back cover that looks vaguely label-ish. But it feels wrong to me, then, to call that a "label". It's just logo soup.
2013-07-16 19737, 2013
hawke_1
The cat no. is paramount for you, then?
2013-07-16 19714, 2013
CallerNo6
I'm not sure. I think the catalog itself is.
2013-07-16 19734, 2013
derwin
I ran into a case this week where the vinyl and the digital version shared cat #s but not tracklist
nikki agrees with CallerNo6 about the catalogue itself
2013-07-16 19743, 2013
nikki
labels being paired with catnos seems to imply that was what was intended too. if we just want to link to a load of arbitrary labels, we already have label-release relationships, if someone would request some :P
2013-07-16 19705, 2013
hawke_1
How do you identify a release as being part of a catalog though, if not via the cat no.?
2013-07-16 19744, 2013
CallerNo6
maybe sometimes you can't? Not a satisfying answer.
2013-07-16 19758, 2013
nikki
I'm not really the right person to ask there. I like editing japanese stuff :P
2013-07-16 19738, 2013
hawke_1
I mean, like that love and rockets release I see it as “in the RCA records catalog [as determined by cat no], available in your area via local labels X, Y, Z (bigtime, beggers banquet)”
