lccn entries, as on release or not?

A , who has since managed to get himself banned, updated the nik has repeatedly suggested that lccn entries be entered as on release. Labels can have company credits (i.e.: copyrights) if that's how it appears on the release itself.

This has caused a dispute between myself and another respected 'ogger, who changed Bellaphon to Bellaphon Records and wants me to do so on another submission. So... I guess we need a ruling here, and I am filing a Request. If it says "Distributed by Bellaphon" do I enter Bellaphon or Bellaphon Records? I'd say Bellaphon, the other 'ogger says no, the profile is correct.

Then there is Bellver Musikverlag. There has been no discussion in the forum about merging these and, once again, we've been told that if there is doubt that they are the same entity, enter as on release. I believe they are probably the same and probably should be merged, but that requires a forum discussion, does it not?

Anyway, I'm ready for debates, discussions, diatribes, and words with a D this time...

Firstly, I didn't know that the unnamed had been banned when making a few edits recently. So yes, this needs sorting out.

There are a lot of variations as to how Bellaphon are credited for company roles on releases, from "Bellaphon, West-" to "Bellaphon records EU" (in 2011). Have they ever been credited as just Bellaphon for company roles? Since the mid-1990's they have generally used Bellaphon Records for " Manufactured and distributed by" credits so this would seem to be the more logical name to use.

As to Bellver, it looked to me like I was correcting an error changing Bellver Musikverlag to Bellver Music - Bellver Musikverlag is the more recent of the two entries so would seem to have been created in error. So, keeping Bellver Music would obviously be the most logical.

timetogo
If it says "Distributed by Bellaphon" do I enter Bellaphon or Bellaphon Records?

Interesting issue.
My gut would say: as on release.

But…
There are sometimes instances where things ain't what they seem.
I don't know if that's the case with Bellaphon, however.

An actual example anyway:
Just yesterday I was "cleaning up" the Supraphon Records page. This is an entity with a precisely defined lifespan, and any releases with a date before 1994 definitely shouldn't appear there.
Interestingly, there was also a Supraphon record from the 1950s listed with a "Supraphon Records" copyright credit. I have a couple of similar records (e.g. this one), and the clue is: the "Supraphon Records" copyright credit was actually a misunderstanding of sorts, because some Important keywords in this legalese text are intentionally Capitalized. So it says:

Caution - Supraphon Records [sic!] are the subject of Copyright [sic!]. Any unauthorized copying, broadcasting or public performance of such Records [sic!] constitutes an infringement of the above mentioned Copyright [sic!], and […]

Context matters. :)
There was simply no such entity as "Supraphon Records" in the 1950s. It all refers to the Supraphon label and their records.

timetogo
Then there is Bellver Music vs. Bellver Musikverlag.

I have submitted one as Bellver Music, but actually it just says "Bellver", so it could be either one.
I linked now both entities via profile, for the time being…

stevefreeman
the unnamed had been banned when making a few edits recently.

If you look at his http://discogs.versitio.com/submissions?=•••••-•••-••••• a bit closer, you'll notice that the "recent edits" are all image s or MR edits by other s. Such edits stay in the 's submissions list, but their date changes nonetheless. Confusing, yes. But that's the way Discogs works anyway. ;)

As on release.

stevefreeman, I think part of the dispute is you took comments directed at someone who did a submission hijacking as directed at you. He edited both before and after you so everything got intertwined. His removal of the original submitter's CD image was way, way, way off base as I'm sure you'd agree.

Here is the back cover image of one of the two releases currently in question: http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-449498-1337280207-8085.jpeg in the bottom right corner it says "Manufactured and distrubuted by Bellaphon, West ." Based on previous discussions where Nik recommended "as on release" I entered this as Bellaphon.

stevefreeman
Firstly, I didn't know that the unnamed had been banned when making a few edits recently. So yes, this needs sorting out.

Agreed. That's why I filed a Request. I'd like not only to see a ruling on the two Nektar releases but alsoa clarification in the Guidelines regarding how company credits should be entered. I think a single line addition would cover it.

stevefreeman
As to Bellver, it looked to me like I was correcting an error changing Bellver Musikverlag to Bellver Music - Bellver Music has over 141 titles listed whilst Bellver Musikverlag only has 18 titles. Also, Bellver Musikverlag is the more recent of the two entries so would seem to have been created in error. So, keeping Bellver Music would obviously be the most logical.

I understand where you are coming from on this but I believe the correct name for the company is Bellver Musikverlag. In addition, I don't know if there are different entities in different European countries so both could be valid. We seem to have a lot of German 'oggers who know a lot about this sort of thing and/or are very up on progressive rock releases. Hopefully some of them can provide us with a good idea about which way we should go, as in merge or no merge and which name to use.

Just checked through a few Bellaphon and Bacillus CD releases and they all state Bellaphon Records on the disc, hence my suggesting Bellaphon Records.

Eviltoastman
As on release.

Not really possible as you would need numerous Discogs entries, i.e. "Bellaphon, West ", "Bellaphon records EU". "Bellaphon, ", etc.

loukash
but actually it just says "Bellver",

All releases I've seen just state Bellver.

stevefreeman
Just checked through a few Bellaphon and Bacillus CD releases and they all state Bellaphon Records on the disc, hence my suggesting Bellaphon Records.

However, if you look at the image I linked they do NOT say that on the crediting as a distributor and manufacturer. Your argument, if I read it correctly, would make Bellaphon Records the label and Bellaphon the company credit in this case, which may indeed be correct.

stevefreeman
All releases I've seen just state Bellver.

If that is consistent then perhaps we should be merging into a new entry which is just called Bellver.

stevefreeman
Not really possible as you would need numerous Discogs entries, i.e. "Bellaphon, West ", "Bellaphon records EU". "Bellaphon, ", etc.

The locations are not necessarily part of the name, so I am not at all sure this is right.

Actually, looking at Nektar - Journey To The Centre Of The Eye again, it says Bellaphon everywhere, and Bellaphon Records exactly nowhere.

The country suffixes are only needed to differentiate different divisions or branches or otherwise similarly named companies and entities, so as timetogo says, they're not needed.

timetogo
Actually, looking at Nektar - Journey To The Centre Of The Eye again, it says Bellaphon everywhere, and Bellaphon Records exactly nowhere.

Wrong, it states Bellaphon Records on the disc: http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-449498-1222495048.jpeg or http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-449498-1367178846-4701.jpeg - both of which are from the Nektar - Journey To The Centre Of The Eye submission.
Yes, merging the two Bellver entries into one called Bellver would be the best idea, however that would entail a lot of work.

I would enter it as on release, so we can figure out what variations there really are.

Sorry, you're right. Bellaphon Records is in small print on the top of the disc. It doesn't appear on the back cover or in the logo. However, again, where if says "Manufactured and distrubuted by Bellaphon, West ." the Records is omitted, so going as on release means just Bellaphon.

I have to leave this discussion until tomorrow. Before I go however, later CD releases than the Nektar mentioned above have "Manufactured and distributed by Bellaphon Records" - here is an example: http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-3040178-1336664891-5163.jpeg

That's fine. However, if we go as on release those would be entered as Bellaphon Records and the early ones would be added as Bellaphon.

stevefreeman
All releases I've seen just state Bellver.

I've been checking mine and some do say Bellver Musikverlag, i.e.: http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-1294551-1317229261.jpeg Others say Bellver Music, i.e.: http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-1309422-1377063678-3411.jpeg It's not consistent at all. It's also not tied to when things were released. Here's Bellver Music on '70s vinyl: http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-4318745-1361621961-3367.jpeg

Some more sample about needed ANV for LCCN:

As on release I need
a) http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Riverside+Sound+Studios

but I got
b) http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Riverside+Sound

My Release:
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=3108942#latest

Discussion:
http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/527a90eb4322460b0c72d80b

thomas_w
As on release I need
a) http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Riverside+Sound+Studios
but I got
b) http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Riverside+Sound

That's a relatively minor issue because entities such as studios usually refer to a location. When the location is the same, there's no need to maintain different entities. Simply note the verbatim variant in the notes.

The problem arises with abstract entities, i.e. label/company names:
• Where does a name variation end, and a new unique entity begins?
• What is the actual function of each entity, do they overlap, or should they be kept separated?

Just thought I'd come back after having dinner. I checked my Nektar CD's and they all have the credit "Manufactured and distributed by Bellaphon, West-" - I have thefore reverted those changed I made recently. I agree, that what is stated on the release is best. This obviously means that the statement on Bellaphon needs removing.

I also noticed that some releases do state Bellver Music, others state Bellver Musikverlag, but the majority state just Bellver.

stevefreeman
This obviously means that the statement on Bellaphon needs removing.

Agreed. Does anyone object to my removing it?

Just got the Discogs message about this submission.
First of all, I'm sorry for disabling the original disc scan. Guess I was a bit hasty there. And I didn't check the whole history. Otherwise I would have seen that I made it right the first time 6 months ago.
So at that point I didn't "hi-jack" the submission. I just made additions and added the disc scan of my release because I thought it was a variation. Which was agreed to by timetogo.

timetogo
Actually, looking at Nektar - Journey To The Centre Of The Eye again, it says Bellaphon everywhere, and Bellaphon Records exactly nowhere.

Top center of the discs?

ProfKolbi
Top center of the discs?

I acknowledged that later in the thread.

Darknite47
I didn't "hi-jack" the submission.

Changing one release into another is called a hijack on Discogs.

timetogo
Changing one release into another is called a hijack on Discogs.

Okay, so in the case of Darknite47 ed 6 months ago would seem to be for the original release). So changing the year to 1990 was actually changing one release into another?

Okay, back to Bellver. I just did a Google search for Bellver Musikverlag and came up with some address search results, but the only web links I could find are for http://www.bellver.de or http://www.bellaphon.at - both of these take you to the http://www.bellaphon.de/ website.
Anyway, here are 4 results I found, all refer to the company as Bellver Music:-
http://www.musikmarkt.de/Brancheninsider/MM-Branchenhandbuch/bellver-music-Frankfurt-a.-M
http://web2.cylex.de/firma-home/bellver-music-riedel-10344900.html
http://www.nahklick.at/adressen/Wien/a46a8cfa2ac7ae99209a7acdfea52708.html
http://www.vienna.net/company/vienna/music-publishers/bellver-music-049.html

The above imply to me that the correct name to keep would be Bellver Music, as Bellver Musikverlag is very rarely used and Just Bellver is shorthand (probably used because of the company being based in Austria and ).

The answers are on the releases in question.

Eviltoastman
The answers are on the releases in question.

Are you implying that we should create a new enrty for Bellver?

timetogo
Changing one release into another is called a hijack on Discogs.

3 months ago, you wrote this: "Since it's the same pressing plant what you have is a manufacturing variation. Adding it here was correct.

Now suddenly it's a hijack?

stevefreeman
Okay, so in the case of Nektar - Journey To The Centre Of The Eye your edit (under the name of caitlynmaire) circa 5 years ago actually hijacked that submission.

Are you trying to start an argument? Five years ago we didn't distinguish between pressings to the extent we do now. My edit was correct and consistent with volospion's entry based on the Guidelines at that time. Sorry, I don't have a crystal ball and can't predict Guidelines changes before they happen.

Darknite47
Now suddenly it's a hijack?

The edit six months ago was not a hijack. Removing the original submitter's version was. You did that yesterday. Again, is this an argument for the sake of arguing?

On to meaningful additions to the thread:

stevefreeman
The above imply to me that the correct name to keep would be Bellver Music, as Bellver Musikverlag is very rarely used and Just Bellver is shorthand (probably used because of the company being based in Austria and ).

Agreed. A number of the links you provided, i.e.: http://www.musikmarkt.de/Brancheninsider/MM-Branchenhandbuch/bellver-music-Frankfurt-a.-M give Bellver Music as the name and musikverlag (music publisher) as a description. At this point I agree with merging to Bellver Music.

I've also removed the offending note on the Bellaphon profile that helped start this mess in the first place.

timetogo
Are you trying to start an argument?

No, just pointing out that accidentally "hijacking" a submission is probably quite commonplace.

timetogo
The edit six months ago was not a hijack. Removing the original submitter's version was.

He has already itted that he removed the wrong image. The problem with this submission now is that there are two unique releases within the one submission, the original and a later Repress (that submitted by volospion).

timetogo
At this point I agree with merging to Bellver Music.

Okay. But do the other participants in this discussion agree? If yes, then I will update all my Bellaphon submissions plus others I have edited over the past 2 years. I will also add a profile as I found information about the legal name of Bellver Music.

stevefreeman
If yes, then I will update all my Bellaphon submissions plus others I have edited over the past 2 years.

What I actually meant to say here was I will update what submissions I can within the Bellver Musikverlag entry and leave notes on those I cannot.

I would say Bellver Music is the correct company name.

stevefreeman
The problem with this submission now is that there are two unique releases within the one submission, the original and a later Repress (that submitted by Volospion).

No, by Discogs standards they are NOT two unique releases. The only difference is the matrix and unless the pressing plant is different they are only considered variants of the same release.

Okay, I should have said "there are possibly two unique releases..." This comment is based on the the two scans, http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-449498-1367178846-4701.jpeg looks like an original (has moulded text) whereas http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-449498-1222495048.jpeg looks like a more recent Repress (there doesn't seem to be any moulded text either). If one has moulded text and the other doesn't then they are quite possibly going to be different pressings. Incidentally, some recent Bacillus Records pressings (2000+) state they are made by Interpress (not possible as they shut-down in 1999) on the disc face so are obviously made by someone else. That could be the case with the the more recent of these two Nektar CD's.

I understand your points but you've still come up with exactly nothing that constitutes a separate release under the Guidelines. You have some speculation there but nothing solid.

Darknite47
I would say Bellver Music is the correct company name.

Does anyone disagree with this? Should I go ahead with a merge?

timetogo
Should I go ahead with a merge?

All right by me.

stevefreeman
All releases I've seen just state Bellver.

Using my (gladly available) German skills, and considering what stevefreeman already pointed out further above, this fairly synthetical-looking name does seem a contraction to me indeed: Bellaphon Verlag = Bellver. Common practice. Cf. TelDec => Telefunken+Decca.
(GER Verlag = publisher, publishing company)

However, it might as well stand for Bellaphon Vertriebs GmbH respectively Bellaphon Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH. The verb vertreiben in this (!) context means "to distribute", so for a company that distributes media, the latter would probably make even more sense.

pianoman74
All releases I've seen just state Bellver.

My comment here was incorrect, having checked further the majority state Bellver Music. However, there are very few that state Bellver Musikverlag.

Darknite47
I would say Bellver Music is the correct company name.

That was my suggestion originally, so yes I agree with this.

Incidentally the company name is Bellver Music Riedel & Co. GmbH & Co. KG
See: http://www.miz.org/details_3530_61.html
There are loads of references on the web, just search for: Bellver Music Riedel & Co. GmbH & Co. KG

I have added address details, etc. to the Bellver Music profile.

I am more and more strongly feeling we should stick to as-on-release for such things. I don't think it hurts to have 2, 3, 4 or so variations of a company. They can be linked together via profile or parent label, and it means we can capture the data properly for any future new features and / or discussion. So unless you are 100% sure it is exactly the same intended entity (needs an external, definite citation from the company itself IMHO), or it is just a wording change (Limited to Ltd, for example), then keep them separate.

This is basically the exact same as what the guidelines say in any case:

http://discogs.versitio.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label_And_Company_Names

nik
I am more and more strongly feeling we should stick to as-on-release for such things.

So, we should create an entry for Bellver?

Eviltoastman
The answers are on the releases in question.

So, that means Eviltoastman was correct 3 days ago.

If the above is agreed, I can update a lot of these releases, having many in my collection and/or for sale.

stevefreeman
So, that means Eviltoastman was correct 3 days ago.

Don't say that, it will go to his head and you know how he gets.

In the case of Bellver Music I think you have provided concrete evidence that this is one company. Music (English) and Musikverlag (Music publishing in German) are more of a language difference than anything else. I think that falls into this category:

nik
So unless you are 100% sure it is exactly the same intended entity (needs an external, definite citation from the company itself IMHO), or it is just a wording change (Limited to Ltd, for example), then keep them separate.

stevefreeman, you've provided the citations AND it can be seen as a wording change.

In the case of nik suggests. Since everyone has pretty much agreed on this already anyway and changes have been reverted we should be OK on this one.

Maybe I can help a little with Bellver. I did a search at www.handels.de the official commercial for and found 3 entries all of them full name 'Bellver Music Riedel & Co GmbH & Co KG'.
The chronological first has been renamed in his history and was formerly named Bellver Musikverlag Riedel & Co, deleted 1995.
The second is at in different local court district , which is probably the result of a company's (maybe temporary) move to BadHomburg, deleted 2001.
The third is still valid today.

timetogo
In the case of Bellver Music I think you have provided concrete evidence that this is one company.

Plus the comments above by Eviltoastman be okay with this?

This means that it would just be the releases on the Bellver Musikverlag page that need updating. I have a couple of these so could make some of the updates.

it is the same company, but afaik separate entries are required, if such a company has a significant name change

I agree. Also the label "Bellver" needs creating. A label name would never be found ina corporate registry and as such the conflation of a company name and label name are non starters. For label names you would normally look at a of trademarks, but that would only be useful if they opted to trademark the label.

As nik said, keep them separate and link to each other within the profile.

the profiles should be filled at least a bit, too

Eviltoastman
As nik said, keep them separate and link to each other within the profile.

Thanks timetogo to agree?

Myrkvi174
the profiles should be filled at least a bit, too

I expect that you mean that each label entry would need a bit of history adding?

stevefreeman
I expect that you mean that each label entry would need a bit of history adding?

history and links and explanation about the relations to each other, I'd suggest

Myrkvi174
history and links and explanation about the relations to each other

Yes, if it is left up to me that is what I would do.

No response from timetogo about this. I will create a new entry for Bellver tomorrow, add Notes to the then three entries for Bellver Music Riedel & Co. GmbH & Co. KG.

Nik has already advised what to do anyway so you've got a green light from the manager.

stevefreeman
This means that it would just be the releases on the Bellver Musikverlag page that need updating. I have a couple of these so could make some of the updates.

No, if it's a name change with a given date we need to keep both entries.

stevefreeman
No response from timetogo about this. I will create a new entry for Bellver tomorrow, add Notes to the then three entries for Bellver Music Riedel & Co. GmbH & Co. KG.

I don't like it at all but based on nik's ruling I can't argue with it.