Management company as 2nd label/brand

https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/release/1047958-Always-Be-My-Baby/history#latest

Could a management comapny name be a brand/label if it's represented only by logo?
and not just hidden in the corner of booklet but right next to main label and repeated several times?

it was discussed previously without any conclusive results:
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/forum/thread/699377

in the history of Mariah Carey - Always Be My Baby we got disregards RSG §4.6.2. on the ground that it's not a record company and hence cannot be a brand but how about these examples:
- clothing brand as a label: https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/forum/thread/743154
- car brands: https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/forum/thread/698944
- various other "labels" for fuzzy drinks like Pepsi
- various "labels" for magazines or newspapers like Kerrang! Magazine

so based on the above examples:
why the hell we can't enter a managemnt company as a label if that company decided to brand the release with their logo all over tha place?

julass
why the hell we can't enter a managemnt company as a label if that company decided to brand the release with their logo all over tha place?

no reason why it cannot

I don't think management companies should be used as labels (in the same way I don't think Coca-Cola or Pepsi should be considered labels also). Maybe that would be fixed expanding the Lccn with roles like "Management By", "Sponsored By", "Promotion For" or something similar.

kito0104
I don't think management companies should be used as labels (in the same way I don't think Coca-Cola or Pepsi should be considered labels also). Maybe that would be fixed expanding the Lccn with roles like "Management By", "Sponsored By", "Promotion For" or something similar.

I would agree. If it is certain that these entities are not record labels then I can't really imagine why they ought to be entered in the Label field.

Otherwise we'll soon be entering Dolby Surround Sound, Australian government arts fund, and all kinds of logos as labels just for the hell of it.

kito0104
I don't think management companies should be used as labels

You can't make a blanket statement like that. In Israel it is common for management companies and production companies to have their own boutique label. There are many times when that label is the ONLY label/logo on the release. In that case you really do have to add the management company as a label.

Also, that on Discogs unless a logo indicates a role you pretty much have to treat it as branding and as a label. More Management less of a label with their own releases.

kito0104
Maybe that would be fixed expanding the Lccn with roles like "Management By", "Sponsored By", "Promotion For" or something similar.

If those credits are not on the release and there is only a logo the only way you can enter the company is as a label.

Fauni-Gena
You can't make a blanket statement like that. In Israel it is common for management companies and production companies to have their own boutique label. There are many times when that label is the ONLY label/logo on the release. In that case you really do have to add the management company as a label.

You just described a case in which the company owns and runs its own label. What about cases where a company that performs management only appears alongside one or more 'genuine' label logos?

Myriad
You just described a case in which the company owns and runs its own label. What about cases where a company that performs management only appears alongside one or more 'genuine' label logos?

I actually covered that case:

Fauni-Gena
releases in other countries are cobranded with a label in those markets. That doesn't make More Management less of a label with their own releases.

A good example: More Management.

kito0104
I don't think management companies should be used as labels (in the same way I don't think Coca-Cola or Pepsi should be considered labels also).

Sometimes companies that are not traditional labels put out promo releases and effectively act as a label. That;s why Pepsi and Coca Cola have been labels on Discogs for years. We also have airlines as labels, a spa as a label, an entertainment weekly as a label and so on. Take a look at: The Walking Man - Bad Love is cobranded with a traditional label.

julass
why the hell we can't enter a managemnt company as a label if that company decided to brand the release with their logo all over tha place?

It really depends on how the logo is used on the release. In the example you used to start this thread I don't see why they wouldn't be considered a label when their logo is so prominently and repeatedly used. I respectfully disagree with olcuriosity. Any company can act as a label. Your edit was correct and should not have been reverted.

Fauni-Gena
A good example: Mira Awad - All My Faces The release is cobranded by Sony Music and More Management.

No, I mean releases produced, manufactured, released by a major label (eg. Sony Music), but co-branded with the logo of a management company. Not releases by a management company that acts as a label to release music itself in certain markets.

Myriad
No, I mean releases produced, manufactured, released by a major label (eg. Sony Music), but co-branded with the logo of a management company. Not releases by a management company that acts as a label to release music itself in certain markets.

To me you are making a distinction without a difference. If the company logo is all over the place I'd say it's a case where logo==branding==label. WM (5) never appears as a stand alone label. It's always cobranded with someone else, either a traditional label or a company acting as a label.

Using Wertzberger Malin. I think a has to be able to enter what's on the release without specialized knowledge of what the brand is and what roles the company does. Wertzberger Malin gets credited for Public Relations and Management because that is what it says in the credits. The logo gets entered as a label and it should since that logo stands apart from any credits.

Fauni-Gena
the WM logo is as prominent as any other label on the release. That, to me, is the determining factor in deciding whether or not a company is acting as a label as well.

this

so opinions are divided...
maybe some other...?
the perfect solution would be management giving a direction but that pobably not gonna happen

and another "correct" removal of management company from label field:
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/release/569481-Dont-Stop-Movin/history?utm_campaign=release-update&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest
and it's again some weird reasoning from prometheusrussell

As I said before, I agree with prometheusrussell that not everything featured on the artwork should be considered a label, specially if there is a defined role for it, 19 Management Limited can't be considered a label if there is some other company that can be used as label (Polydor in this case, Columbia in the case of the mentioned Mariah Carey submission used in the first message of this thread)

kito0104
9 Management Limited can't be considered a label if there is some other company that can be used as label

How do the Guidelines that? IMHO they don't and the branding/label was removed incorrectly.

julass
and another "correct" removal of management company from label field

As pointed out on a number of your submissions and edits where you have started using management companies as labels, often doing multiple similar edits, WITHOUT FORUM AGREEMENT OR CONFIRMATION FROM MANAGEMENT, making such edits is premature, without sufficient database agreement, and thus it is indeed not correct.

As you yourself have just said

julass
the perfect solution would be management giving a direction but that pobably not gonna happen

So we don't (yet) have any steer from management, so making edits which are controversial is never recommended...

Therefore the edit to remove the management company you started using as a label on the example above was entirely valid editing.

You would be only to keen to reverse contentious or unagreed edits by other s as I have seen here over the years (unless, apparently, it is something you personally approve of...)

I am very happy to repeat the reasons as I have set out on a number of your edits about this issue.
[What you refer to as

julass
some weird reasoning

... ie you don't like it.]

Where a logo or brand appears on a release and we are not sure what function it plays it would be very sensible to record the brand as a generic label. I have no problem with that.

But where there is explicit reference in the text to a company role such as management - something where the company can be cited using a company or artist credit - then reduplicating use as a label is an utter nonsense. Why would we do that..?!

If we meet text saying Distributed by XXX and a logo of XXX appears [eg Pinnacle (3)] - we use the LCCN - Distributed By - Pinnacle (3)
We don't also add Pinnacle (3) as a main label too!
That would be a nonsense - A) because we know Pinnacle (3) is a distributor and not acting as the record label here; and B) we actually have very clear text explaining exactly why the logo for Pinnacle (3) is there.
So if we meet text saying Management by XXX and a logo of XXX appears [eg 19 Management Limited] - we can use the credit Management - 19 Management Limited etc
Why would we create a duplicate as a label for 19 Management Limited to add this as a main label too?!
That would be a nonsense - A) because we know 19 Management Limited is a specific management company division and not a record label here; and B) we actually have very clear text explaining exactly why the logo for 19 Management Limited is there.

I don't understand - why are you not going round the database adding Pinnacle (3) as main label to any release where the logo is found..???
There is no consistency in your actions at all.
Why would/should known management companies have a different logic to the presence of known distributors..?

I've cited another example before on this general issue - say art has "model make up by Max Factor" and there was the Max factor logo brand there - we wouldn't create a discogs label for Max Factor and add that as a label with ading cat. no. That would be a complete artifice. We know why Max Factor is there from the credit text and that explains the Max Factor on the art.

The point of the label field is to cite the actual labels... not to try to duplicate any or every logo or iconography on artwork with some reference line...

Myriad
Otherwise we'll soon be entering Dolby Surround Sound, Australian government arts fund, and all kinds of logos as labels just for the hell of it.

Yep (!)

prometheusrussell
But where there is explicit reference in the text to a company role such as management - something where the company can be cited using a company or artist credit - then reduplicating use as a label is an utter nonsense. Why would we do that..?!

What if the label is credited for copyrights? For distribution? Should we remove them as a label as well? After all, they have a different role. The logic is the same.

The logic for including them as a label is that branding is a label on Discogs. That applies regardless of the role unless the logo and surrounding text makes darned clear they aren't a label, as is the case with BMG Distribution. In the case of the management company is that equally clear? I don't think so.

I'll ask the question again. How is removing branding from the label field ed by the Guidelines?

prometheusrussell do you have any forum agreement or confirmation from management that they shouldn't be used as a label?

that Pinnacle example is irrelevant... it's a cmpletely different situation.

some random example:
Mariah Carey - Always Be My Baby - two logos next to eachother but only one of them is a label
where's the logic in that?

btw... I would like to be pointed out to those "number of submissions and edits" where I was "often doing multiple similar edits"

kito0104
I don't think Coca-Cola or Pepsi should be considered labels also).

So what, they are branded with Pepsi all over the place, released by Pepsi for promotion purposes but the label is then … what?
Not On Label? Label = owner of the copyright who happens to be a record company but who's logo hasn't been used?
Well, I guess there must be thousands of such releases in the database and plenty of Forum and management decisions against you "opinion".

The Management credit … is it even on release? Can't find it.
The removal resp. change was not backed by the RSG I'd say.

Fauni-Gena
What if the label is credited for copyrights? For distribution? Should we remove them as a label as well?

Where on the database is any example of a management company cited for copyright or distribution????? What are you talking about?!

Fauni-Gena
The logic for including them as a label is that branding is a label on Discogs.

Apart from all the many, many examples where it is not...
Like the example of Pinnacle (3) I have used you above where the logo for Pinnacle does not mean we add it as a main label when we know it is a distributor.
So no - branding is *not always* a label on Discogs, is it.

Fauni-Gena
unless the logo and surrounding text makes darned clear they aren't a label, as is the case with BMG Distribution. In the case of the management company is that equally clear? I don't think so.

Why do you not think so...?
Please find me an example where 19 Management Limited had started being used as a label but there is no explicit credit to 19 Management or 19 Management Limited in the text. I found none.
If you meet the text management by 19 Management Limited/19 Management Limited what is not clear about that (??) What else did you think it meant (?) Am I missing something..?

Fauni-Gena
How is removing branding from the label field ed by the Guidelines?

How is creating a label which reduplicates an existing artist management company as a label without it being clear there is for this and how does going round adding that as a main label without getting the necessary for this beforehand in any way ed by the Guidelines..?

Make up by Max Factor - logo
Distributed by Pinnacle (3) - logo
Management by 19 Management Ltd - logo
Your logic tells us we should add all 3 as labels because of the branding
OR we should add none of them as labels because "the surrounding text makes darned clear" they are not here as record labels.
So why the anomaly...?

julass
that Pinnacle example is irrelevant... it's a cmpletely different situation.

Why?
Can you even explain why?

typoman2
The Management credit … is it even on release? Can't find it.

Yes. On the example above it was. See discussion in the sub history.
Please find a release where a management company logo appears but there is no text credit at all and it has been subject to any such editing.

Diognes_The_Fox expressing a desire to get away from that and clarify the Guidelines instead (which I think is an excellent idea) I'm hoping one or both of you will weigh in without the need of a Request. I fear this isn't going to get resolved any other way.

prometheusrussell
Why?
Can you even explain why?

because that logo of Pinnacle isn't gonna be standing next to label logo in all instances but will be used somewhere in the corner... unless you can show us an example that is used in a different way
don't really want to argue with your nonsense...

prometheusrussell
Please find a release where a management company logo appears but there is no text credit at all and it has been subject to any such editing.

Mariah Carey - Always Be My Baby
this is such a release. Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. is represented ONLY by logo and not text credit

julass
isn't gonna be standing next to label logo in all instances but will be used somewhere in the corner...

So... when you have been creating management companies as labels and editing them onto releases as main labels, your primary motivation wasn't thinking "Why is this label for? What does it represent about the release?"... it was "Why is the management company logo next to the main record company label and how can I represent that..?"

You are operating on such a different wavelength.

What about some of the CD releases you see where there is a line of icons and logos on the back - all in proximity, all in the same proportion to each other - where some are record labels - some represent the design studio, the art house, the logo for the recording studio(s) etc, one may be indeed be a distributor... (?)

https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/artist/4313481-Hoffman-Entertainment-Inc

julass
Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. is represented ONLY by logo and not text credit

But
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/artist/4313481-Hoffman-Entertainment-Inc/history#latest
exists as an ARTIST page on the database...
So we represent it as an artist.
Management was created as an artist credit.
Unless you don't think management should ever be an artist - and should become a label issue alone - (is that the problem?)

If an artist represents themselves not by plain text - but by some special artwork or even by a logo - as some do - will you be adding all artists as a main label..?
We are back to the Max Factor issue.

I notice that on
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/release/1047958-Always-Be-My-Baby/history#latest
your edits were not ed by ANY of the other interacting s, you re-added the management company back as a main label after it had been removed but there was no for this and no Forum had agreed this, and it had to be removed again.
This is not conduct which follows the database code whatsoever. As some on this thread have been so keen to talk above about the RSG, where does this follow
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/help/submission-guidelines-updating-a-release.html
??
"please do not edit the release information back and forth" - you did
"only reply once you have considered all the other opinions" - pah (!)
"please the Database Manager and request a decision" - did you do this?
I repeat - adding back the controversial management company as main label without it being clearly ed was simply premature.

Caling olcuriosity as the s who removed it.

Clearly there are quite a few other editors who don't understand why you would reduplicate an artist credit as a main label just because "a logo is there".

prometheusrussell
Please find a release where a management company logo appears but there is no text credit at all and it has been subject to any such editing.

again: you're asking for an example and here is one:
Mariah Carey - Always Be My Baby

prometheusrussell
So... when you have been creating management companies as labels and editing them onto releases as main labels, your primary motivation wasn't thinking "Why is this label for? What does it represent about the release?"... it was "Why is the management company logo next to the main record company label and how can I represent that..?"

no, my motivation was - they decided to brand this release with their logo standing next to main label on the same rights so why the hell we can't add it as a label?

prometheusrussell
Clearly there are quite a few other editors who don't understand why you would reduplicate an artist credit as a main label just because "a logo is there".

clearly from this discussion we can see that there's few other s who understand that

julass
again: you're asking for an example and here is one:
Mariah Carey - Always Be My Baby

In my opinion your example doesn't change anything. You could come up with a hundred examples, but it will still be a management and not a record company or label. When in doubt I always check other releases from the same era by the same artist. Hoffmann Entertainment is credited on A LOT of Mariah Carey releases from that era with both logo and text. olcuriosity and me are both Mariah Carey collectors / fans and will gladly confirm that. Even with examples, if you need them.

julass
no, my motivation was - they decided to brand this release with their logo standing next to main label on the same rights so why the hell we can't add it as a label?

Because it's not a label? I don't see why you desperately feel the need to add it as a record label when the company manages artists. A record label puts out releases.

julass
clearly from this discussion we can see that there's few other s who understand that

Hi! :) And maybe https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/release/1047958-Always-Be-My-Baby/history#latest

Hiiiii! :) *waves*

briantmc
Because it's not a label?

On Discogs it is. Just as the definitions of Album and Single are different on Discogs than much of anywhere else, so is the definition of Label on Discogs. Label==branding. That's what those making the argument you are making are overlooking.

Fauni-Gena
On Discogs it is. Just as the definitions of Album and Single are different on Discogs than much of anywhere else, so is the definition of Label on Discogs. Label==branding. That's what those making the argument you are making are overlooking.

That's different. Album and single tags should only be applied if there is valid proof of the release being an album or single. There is valid proof of, for instance, Hoffmann Entertainment being a management that manages artists. It's not just applying common sense here. There is solid proof.

As kito0104 mentioned it would help if Discogs expanded the LCCN section with roles like "Management By", "Sponsored By", "Promotion For" or something similar. Regardless of the whole logo thing: Sometimes management will be credited to a single person. For instance; Simon Fuller. In other cases management will be credited to a company, such as for instance 19 Management (Which is Simon Fuller with Ann Edelblute).

Sure, we sometimes add labels as copyright owners but that is because they sometimes are exactly that; the label PLUS copyright owner. But let's say a photographer shot the cover photo for a certain release and his logo is on the release. Would you treat it as a record label? If a company designed the artwork and their logo is on the release, would you add that as a label? Because it's not.

I'm fine with anyone treating any logo as a label, but if there is solid proof of the company being something other than a record company or record label I think it should be added in the designated credit section. Just my two cents.

nik
I do think that not all logos on releases will be labels. Some releases are plastered with logos! Where the logo is for an entity that has a definite role that isn't 'label', it for sure should be ascribed that role.

From https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/forum/thread/284020#3001195

Not sure if that applies to the S Club 7 release though.
But I agree with having 19 Management credited as Management and not a label. I'm not completely comfortable with crediting companies with artist credits in these cases. I would prefer if a LCCN credit could be used instead. I would probably use "Marketed by" in this case since we lack a...

briantmc
"Management By"

... company credit.

I somehow feel awkward arguing over a S Club 7 release...

nik
I do think that not all logos on releases will be labels. Some releases are plastered with logos! Where the logo is for an entity that has a definite role that isn't 'label', it for sure should be ascribed that role.

Ah, that says it all then :) Good job Bong.

julass
and it's again some weird reasoning from prometheusrussell

He was right :) As he usually is.

briantmc
Ah, that says it all then :) Good job Bong.

Dont mistake this quote. A single logo prominently displayed in combination with a 'traditional' label is still very much a label on Discogs and so can be brands like TV stations, car manufacturers, soft drink companies or designer labels for clothes and so on! This has been discussed many many times and as much as some dont like this as much others (like myself) will defend it.

Mop66
Dont mistake this quote. A single logo prominently displayed in combination with a 'traditional' label is still very much a label on Discogs and so can be brands like TV stations, car manufacturers, soft drink companies or designer labels for clothes and so on! This has been discussed many many times and as much as some dont like this as much others (like myself) will defend it.

But it DOES say that where the logo is for an entity that has a definite role that isn't 'label', it for sure should be ascribed that role. Are you interpretating that differently than I am? I think what nik means here is do not add a photography company as a "label" just because its logo is prominently on a release.

briantmc
But it DOES say that where the logo is for an entity that has a definite role that isn't 'label', it for sure should be ascribed that role.

If the logo has a role as label as well we still enter it. It doesn't say that the other role excludes it being entered as a label, we just don't enter it as a label if that other role is its only role. So ℗© CBS does not mean CBS is not a label.

Hi everyone, as it was my edit that sparked this discussion, please allow me to weigh in.

First of all, please be reminded that the point of such discussions is to establish what the majority of s agree upon, even if there are some who strongly disagree, no matter how vocally. Picking the comment that one likes best and acting on it is not the way to go.

Yes, there are discs released by car brands, independent labels and other situations where the grey area widens and discussion gets even longer, but this thread was started because of a major label release – and this is what I would like to get back to, this release Always Be My Baby. Guidelines distinguish independent and major labels - and so should we.

Now, logos vs. labels. Indeed, discogs terminology is different from what, let’s say, wikipedia would tell you. Here is the definition that we have.

Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases

Is Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. and brand or imprint of Sony Music? As far as I am aware, the answer is no.

Moreover, it does not say anywhere that you have to enter every single logo on the release into the Label field. On the contrary, the guidelines even state the following:

RSG §4.1.2. Normally, listing the main label (usually the largest brand or logo on the release) is sufficient for cataloguing purposes. You can optionally list other companies mentioned on the release.

Furthermore, I personally find arguments about certain logos being "just as big" unjustified. Certainly, there are situations where size matters, but this is a slippery slope. We have all seen a great number of releases with prominent logos of, for example, rights societies, which no one (hopefully) enters as labels.

To sum up. The main label in Always Be My Baby could be easily identified as Columbia, there should be no questions about that. As for Hoffman Entertainment, Inc.: I agree that it should be mentioned in the submission, but I see absolutely no need to enter it as label – even if it put its big shiny logo on the release. In our case it remains what it is, a management company, and we have just the perfect credit for that.

olcuriosity
Is Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. and brand or imprint of Sony Music? As far as I am aware, the answer is no.

It doesn't have to be a brand or imprint owned by Sony to be a label, it just needs to be a label used by Sony Music to brand this release. Think of Apple Records issued by EMI issued releases as an example.

If it is a label then you are required to enter it, the question is rather whether it is. The part you left off the above quote is if a release has a label or labels mentioned, they are required to be entered.. Branded labels are not optional.

olcuriosity
In our case it remains what it is, a management company, and we have just the perfect credit for that.

The use of Management doesn't exclude parallel entry of a label if it is such (and I'm not saying it is).

olcuriosity
As for Hoffman Entertainment, Inc.: I agree that it should be mentioned in the submission, but I see absolutely no need to enter it as label

It's not about the need, it's about the possibility. And there I am not with you. Of course prominence matters. And once optional data is added it should never be removed. The Discogs wiki gives the definition of label as: "Label - Any entity or branding that is associated with releasing audio content." (emphasis mine).
ANY! Certainly Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. is branding here that is associated with the release of the audio content!

Edit: typo

Mop66
"Label - Any entity or branding that is associated with releasing audio content."

"IS ASSOCIATED WITH"
What does this mean..? How is this stringently defined? It can't ever be so.

If Max Factor (a company, an entity, a branding, commonly can be a logo) appears because of a model on the artwork of a audio release, by definition it thus becomes an example of "Any entity or branding that is associated with releasing audio content"...

Indeed ANY entity or branding found on the art of an audio release, by definition, becomes "Any entity or branding that is associated with releasing audio content"...

But we know Max Factor is a make up company not a record company directly concerned with the release of audio content.

We know the Australian Government Arts Fund is a grant giving sponsorship body not a record company directly concerned with the release of audio content.

And we know that Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. is an artistic management company not a record company directly concerned with the release of audio content.

Where is common sense in this?

prometheusrussell
But we know Max Factor is a make up company not a record company directly concerned with the release of audio content.

When you get a free CD with your piece of Max Factor lipstick, then I'd argue Max Factor is very much "directly concerned with the release of audio content". This is why brands like Coca Cola and McDonald's are accepted as labels here.

prometheusrussell
And we know that Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. is an artistic management company

Many artist management companies do more than just managing artists. Some also operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company. These releases are co-branded and in such cases management brands can be entered as labels.

Mop66

It's not about the need, it's about the possibility. And there I am not with you. Of course prominence matters. And once optional data is added it should never be removed. The Discogs wiki gives the definition of label as: "Label - Any entity or branding that is associated with releasing audio content." (emphasis mine).
ANY! Certainly Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. is branding here that is associated with the release of the audio content!

This is a completely different story. In the past 5 years that I have been active on discogs the general consensus was NOT to enter anything and everything represented by a logo on a release into the label field, but to differentiate between entities acting as labels, distributors, rights societies, etc, - and yes, I could not agree more with prometheusrussell, to use common sense when submitting information. And while data should not be removed, it should absolutely be corrected if needed.

If the majority of discog s now feel that anything represented by a logo should be submitted as a label, this is, as I said, a different story and we need explicit guidelines on that - otherwise every edit risks turning into a long and heated debate.

briantmc
There is valid proof of, for instance, Hoffmann Entertainment being a management that manages artists. It's not just applying common sense here. There is solid proof.

https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/artist/4313481-Hoffman-Entertainment-Inc
"Management company founded by Randy S. Hoffman, established in 1996. It is regarded as one of the top agencies in it’s field. Hoffman Entertainment currently works hand-in-hand with colleges, theaters, casinos, cruise lines, and many of todays CMPs and Fortune 500 corporations. In 2011 Hoffman Entertainment launched it’s Artist Development department to help entertainers develop their promotional material through website design, social media management, and video production."
I presume that if that was incorrect or not a fair summation, then it would have been flagged long ago.

Lots of online searches get similar. I thought this was a concise summation from company listing directory
https://start.cortera.com/company/research/l1q3szm4r/hoffman-entertainment-inc/
"Company Overview
HOFFMAN ENTERTAINMENT INC is in the Bands, Orchestras, Actors, and Other Entertainers and Entertainment Groups industry in Brooklyn, NY."

Exactly.

Why would we go out of our way to elevate this to the status of a record company when

a) it only appears as an adjunct with another entity or entity, those being clearly defined companies associated with releasing audio content (eg Columbia in the example above)... So we are under no obligation to "make sense" of the release by elevating a management company to a record label because we have a lack of other branding and we are having trouble determining who released this. We know Columbia issued this. It has a Columbia cat. no.
There is no cat. no. system for Hoffmann Entertainment.

b) its relationship with the release is either explained by a management credit text - or in the example of Always Be My Baby above [which seems to have been the only example found yet of a management company logo without a management credit text] - we have lots of other releases to guide us and understand the relationship between Ms Carey and her management company of this period.

jweijde
When you get a free CD with your piece of Max Factor lipstick, then I'd argue Max Factor is very much "directly concerned with the release of audio content". This is why brands like Coca Cola and McDonald's are accepted as labels here.

Of course!
But that's a DIFFERENT ISSUE!
We create pseudo-labels to catalogue releases issued via organisations that are not record companies themselves - eg Boots the Chemist, British newspapers, Coca Cola, McDonalds etc.
But that's because those releases were issued BY or VIA Boots the Chemist, British newspapers, Coca Cola, McDonalds etc.

If Max Factor issued its own promo CD with a lipstick promotion (for all I know they have) then of course Max Factor would become a label in that circumstance.

But if we have an artwork credit "Model make up by Max Factor" and the Max Factor logo - on the art of a Columbia release - where we know that Max Factor was NOT involved in the issuing of this CD - and we know what the relationship of Max Factor here is clearly a credit for the model make up as specific text - why would we elevate the role of Max Factor from make up to a record label?!?!

olcuriosity
it does not say anywhere that you have to enter every single logo on the release into the Label field.

That's correct. Not all logos have to be entered as label. CDDA and Copy Control are not labels, for example. However, the guidelines also say:

if a release has a label or labels mentioned, they are required to be entered.

So when we establish based on RSG §4.6.2 a logo can be seen as a label, it must be entered.

jweijde
Some also operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company.

Tell us more about this.

Nothing I have been able to find out about Hoffman Entertainment Inc. suggests it would meet your definition of
"operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company". Does it use its own cat. no. system? Does it involve itself in direct distribution of audio recordings? What formal partnerships does it have with record companies - can you link any info on this for us?
At the moment the only relationship we have discussed is the presence of logos on the same CD.
Are we surmising from that alone or is there proper company citations we can all study?

re
19 Management Limited - the other management company which has been cited in this thread -
Nothing I have been able to find about about this company
eg
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04379115
suggests it too would meet your useful definition of
"operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company".

If we can find good evidence that Hoffman or 19 Management (or any other management brands) actually do
"operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company"
then - yes indeed - they would by their nature be *much more* than management companies and would properly be considered labels on discogs.

But... I've only ever seen credits to their management of performing artists on their books.
This thread has so far discussed the evidence of artistic managers and I am not aware any post has demonstrated their role as label operators or record releasers.
Never any "released in association with XXX" - "under exclusive license from YYY" - "licensed directly from ZZZ" - etc etc - none of the usual pointers or texts or indications which show the direct involvement of a company entity with the audio release.
So - is there proper evidence for this or is this speculation?

jweijde
So when we establish based on RSG §4.6.2 a logo can be seen as a label, it must be entered.

No.
It doesn't actually say that.
Because - why focus on the last of 3 sentences that follows 2 others and all are directed by the important words of the first sentence?
The description in full is
"Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases. The label on a release can usually be identified by having a prominent logo. Labels are usually important to enter in a submission - if a release has a label or labels mentioned, they are required to be entered."

The first sentence is
"Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases."

Is Hoffman Entertainment Inc a record company? No.
Is Hoffman Entertainment Inc the entity by which we identify the Mariah Carey CD? No. It's Columbia and the Columbia cat. no. and the framework of Columbia related companies that are flagged in the (P) and ( ) and licensing and distribution etc etc.
Does Hoffman Entertainment Inc have a cat. no. system that is used to identify or catalogue this release? No.

So - I haven't got past sentence 1.
Why are you thus worried about sentence 3..? It doesn't apply.

This thread has become an example of bibliolatry.

So far the arguments above that a management company being added as a main label to a release simply because there is a logo on the release seem to go something as follows:-

- the RSG say we might be able add logo brands as labels
- the management logo brand can be right next to a record company logo
- no-one's said we can't
- some other s agree with me

I am a persuadable person. But I really don't find anything persuasive there to date.
Persuade me.

Would the answers to any of these questions be useful..?

- The addition of the management company as a label is very necessary to aid identification because xxxxxxx
- If we use the existing management credit this is actually insufficient because xxxxxxxx
- s are advantaged by our doing this because xxxxxxxx
- Releases will be able to be found more easily because xxxxxxxx
- It makes future additions to the database more straightforward because of xxxxxx
- The existing problem of xxxxxxxx will now be resolved because of xxxxxxx

Interesting and useful answers to those sort of questions could throw up why a label use could be valuable and whether it really is doing something more than being a credit in iconography form.

Otherwise nik's dictum
"I do think that not all logos on releases will be labels. Some releases are plastered with logos! Where the logo is for an entity that has a definite role that isn't 'label', it for sure should be ascribed that role."
is surely valid.

jweijde
Many artist management companies do more than just managing artists. Some also operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company. These releases are co-branded and in such cases management brands can be entered as labels.

As far as I know only info that you know for a FACT is correct should be entered. When you know for a fact that a managemant company also releases records and you have solid proof to back that up, then I have no problem with you adding it as a label. However, I don't think we should be adding a management company as a label just because they MIGHT or CAN also have a different role other than just managing artists. I'd say only add info you know for sure is factual.

jweijde
Not all logos have to be entered as label. CDDA and Copy Control are not labels, for example. However, the guidelines also say:

if a release has a label or labels mentioned, they are required to be entered.

So when we establish based on RSG §4.6.2 a logo can be seen as a label, it must be entered.

So what you're saying is, if a release is on Columbia and its catalogue number is COL 663334 2 we should enter all logo's as a label:

Copy Control 663334 2
SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL 663334 2
Farrow Design 663334 2

etc. when we clearly know those are rights societies and whatnot, and nothing else. Interesting...

prometheusrussell
If we can find good evidence that Hoffman or 19 Management (or any other management brands) actually do "operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company" then - yes indeed - they would by their nature be *much more* than management companies and would properly be considered labels on discogs.

I second that.

briantmc
if a release is on Columbia and its catalogue number is COL 663334 2 we should enter all logo's as a label:
Copy Control 663334 2
SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL 663334 2
Farrow Design 663334 2

Excellent point. This is where we get to, if we jump into the "a logo can be a label - all logos must be entered" soup, and stop *thinking* about each and every logo and what exactly it is doing, and whether it is actually relevant to the main label fields or only peripheral to the main label fields.

On the issue of artist management companies doing more than just managing artists and thus being sufficiently involved to merit being considered labels on discogs - this is where this thread needs to focus. Much of this thread has been a blind alleyway trying to make a [highly unconvincing for some of us] case for inclusion just on the basis of logo art alone.

briantmc
So what you're saying is, if a release is on Columbia and its catalogue number is COL 663334 2 we should enter all logo's as a label:

Copy Control 663334 2
SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL 663334 2
Farrow Design 663334 2

could we establish something?

this is NOT about entering every logo no matter how small or big as a label

this is about entering logo(s) when it's repetitively shown on release right next to other logo that is established as a main label

so maybe we can understand the difference between company logo mentioned somewhere in credits section [that is there for some promotion purposes for example] and primary logo that is there to brand the release

and here's an example of many logos that acts as labels:
Tatyana Ali - Boy You Knock Me Out
(surprisingly Will Smith Enterprises, Inc. wasn't created by me)

briantmc
So what you're saying is, if a release is on Columbia and its catalogue number is COL 663334 2 we should enter all logo's as a label:

No that was not what I'm saying:

jweijde
Not all logos have to be entered as label. CDDA and Copy Control are not labels

Plus, it seems that the example you gave is purely hypothetical. I can't find that information on the release with that catalog number Always Be My Baby.

briantmc
As far as I know only info that you know for a FACT is correct should be entered. When you know for a fact that a managemant company also releases records and you have solid proof to back that up, then I have no problem with you adding it as a label.

I a statement by staff that when you are unsure, you can enter it as label. Better have it entered so others are able to change it, if needed. For some it might be obvious, but not all management companies have the word "management" in their name.

julass
this is about entering logo(s) when it's repetitively shown on release right next to other logo that is established as a main label

I believe this is a strong argument for regarding Hoffmann Entertainment a label. It is presented just as prominently as the Columbia logo. Clearly they wanted this release to be associated with Hoffmann Entertainment and they clearly wanted a stronger association than just a management credit in the liner notes. And Sony Music Entertainment Inc. clearly agreed in equal branding.

jweijde
So when we establish based on RSG §4.6.2 that a logo can be seen as a label, it must be entered.

prometheusrussell
No.
It doesn't actually say that.
Because - why focus on the last of 3 sentences that follows 2 others and all are directed by the important words of the first sentence?

What I'm saying is when a logo is presented as a label, then it must be entered. So when we establish that the "Hoffman Entertainment Inc." logo can be seen as a label then it must be entered. I think it can.

julass
this is about entering logo(s) when it's repetitively shown on release right next to other logo that is established as a main label

So your argument isn't about whether the entity is doing more than just managing artists and is releasing records in partnership with a record company as jweijde was arguing, it's basically that the management company logo is next to another label and is found regularly...?
What sort of argument is that?!
What if we found the logo for CDDA regularly next to the Columbia logo..?
Would that invoke CDDA with some greater meaning than it did before..?

julass
surprisingly Will Smith Enterprises, Inc. wasn't created by me)

What is Will Smith Enterprises, Inc.?
Is it an artist management company (?)
I note that it doesn't exist on the database as an artist. No-one is linking it as a management credit.
It does not seem to have any text credit on that artwork.
In that circumstance:
a) we don't know exactly what Will Smith Enterprises, Inc. does here (at least I don't yet)
b) it has no management credit or other artist credit on text
c) it doesn't exist as an artist record on the database anyway
then adding it as a label seems entirely valid.
But in the cases of Hoffmann and 19 Management as above
a) we know what the entities are and do = artist managing companies
b) they do have management credits on the text (and there are enough other Mariah/Hoffman links that one particular artwork without it should not phase us)
c) they do exist as artist records on the database anyway and can be flagged in that way
then duplicating them as labels seems unnecessary.

Can you say why your adding of Hoffman as a label on the Mariah releases answers any of these quiestions:

prometheusrussell
- The addition of the management company as a label is very necessary to aid identification because xxxxxxx
- If we use the existing management credit this is actually insufficient because xxxxxxxx
- s are advantaged by our doing this because xxxxxxxx
- Releases will be able to be found more easily because xxxxxxxx
- It makes future additions to the database more straightforward because of xxxxxx
- The existing problem of xxxxxxxx will now be resolved because of xxxxxxx

etc
(?)

prometheusrussell
But in the cases of Hoffmann and 19 Management as above

19 Management is an interesting example. Where is the conclusion that this is a management only company, based on ? Note that there's also 19 Recordings. The name is ofcourse slightly different but these two were/are very closely related. I don't think 19 Management should be dismissed as label just because it has "Management" as part of the name. Also if you look at the background of these businesses. Mr. Fuller and his TV shows were the driving force behind these artists.

jweijde
What I'm saying is when a logo is presented as a label, then it must be entered. So when we establish that the "Hoffman Entertainment Inc." logo can be seen as a label then it must be entered. I think it can.

Where have you established, I repeat, established, that Hoffman meets your own criteria to be considered a label
ie

jweijde
Many artist management companies do more than just managing artists. Some also operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company.

...?

When and if it IS established Hoffman clearly acts as much more than an artist management company and is releasing records in partnership with a record company etc then it would clearly be augmented to label status in discogs and recorded when the logo appears.

Where is the actual evidence for this?
You have interpreted how the logo appears to fit your theory.
Your reasoning is "It appears -> it appears regularly -> it's thus important - > it must mean this type of involvement"

Some people here need to understand the differences between A Posteriori and A Priore reasoning.

Discogs is an A Posteriori database.
All our RSG work on that basis.

prometheusrussell
Where have you established, I repeat, established, that Hoffman meets your own criteria to be considered a label

I only posted this:

jweijde
Many artist management companies do more than just managing artists. Some also operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company.

....in response to the idea that logos of management companies can not be considered labels by default, simply because they have the word "management" in their name or are credited for artist management in the liner notes. There are for example many of such companies in R&B / Rap music.

prometheusrussell
Your reasoning is "It appears -> it appears regularly -> it's thus important - > it must mean this type of involvement"

It's hard to deny that it is presented in the exact same manner as the Columbia logo. Columbia and Hoffman are equally "billed" so to say. That shows that both brands are equally important here. If Columbia is a label, then why can't Hoffman be one ? Why should we assume it is "just a management company" based on the liner notes ? It doesn't even have the word "management" in the name. Besides that, on many other releases, labels are also mentioned in liner notes for copyright, distribution etc. That doesn't mean those labels suddenly aren't labels anymore.

jweijde
CDDA and Copy Control are not labels

So then what is the difference between let's say Hoffmann Entertainment and Farrow Design? There is proof that neither of them have a record company function.

jweijde
it seems that the example you gave is purely hypothetical. I can't find that information on the release with that catalog number Always Be My Baby.

Of course it's hypothetical. That doesn't change the example. I'd like you to reply to the actual question:

HYPOTHETICALLY speaking if a release is on Columbia and its catalogue number is COL 222222 2, and logos for Copy Control, SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL, Farrow Design and Hoffmann Entertainment are present on the release, would you add them in the label field as:

Copy Control 222222 2
SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL 222222 2
Farrow Design 222222 2
Hoffmann Entertainment 222222 2

Which ones would you add like that, and which wouldn't you? And why?

jweijde
I a statement by staff that when you are unsure, you can enter it as label.

I'd like to see that statement. I don't see why any Discogs staff member would like us to enter a management company as a label when we are not 100% sure if the management company also releases records. "Let's just add it in case it also functions as a record company" is not how Discogs works.

jweijde
Clearly they wanted this release to be associated with Hoffmann Entertainment and they clearly wanted a stronger association than just a management credit in the liner notes. And Sony Music Entertainment Inc. clearly agreed in equal branding.

Assumptions. You don't know that for a fact. What we do know for a fact is that Hoffmann Entertainment does not put out records. They have no catalogue number system as prometheusrussell previously mentioned. They simply manage artists.

prometheusrussell
Would the answers to any of these questions be useful..?

- The addition of the management company as a label is very necessary to aid identification because xxxxxxx
- If we use the existing management credit this is actually insufficient because xxxxxxxx
- s are advantaged by our doing this because xxxxxxxx
- Releases will be able to be found more easily because xxxxxxxx
- It makes future additions to the database more straightforward because of xxxxxx
- The existing problem of xxxxxxxx will now be resolved because of xxxxxxx

Anyone?

julass

this is NOT about entering every logo no matter how small or big as a label

And yet, this is exactly the problem here. This is the direction the database has been going lately: logo = label, regardless of any context. As was pointed above, not every management company has the word Management in it, not every distributor has the word Distribution, etc, but a lot of them have shiny logos that they gladly put on the release. Which is exactly what contributors respond to.
To put this in a context: 上海声像 is (was) a Chinese licensed distributor, which was distributing Sony releases in China - and its profile page says Distributor. Why do we have 114 releases listing it as a label? Because it has a hard-to-miss yellow logo right next to Columbia/Epic/etc.

The point I am trying to make: either we credit legal entities for the role they actually perform - and not for what they might also be doing, but no one really knows for sure - or submit everything represented by a logo as a label. Otherwise this just does not make sense.

briantmc
So then what is the difference between let's say Hoffmann Entertainment and Farrow Design?

Haven't seen a release with a Farrow Design logo yet. So I can't comment on that.

briantmc
Of course it's hypothetical. That doesn't change the example. I'd like you to reply to the actual question:

I like to respond to actual examples. Hypothetical examples are not helpful in this case. It will only cause confusion.

jweijde
Clearly they wanted this release to be associated with Hoffmann Entertainment and they clearly wanted a stronger association than just a management credit in the liner notes. And Sony Music Entertainment Inc. clearly agreed in equal branding.

briantmc
Assumptions. You don't know that for a fact. What we do know for a fact is that Hoffmann Entertainment does not put out records.

The release clearly suggests equal importance.

briantmc
They have no catalogue number system as prometheusrussell previously mentioned.

Catalog number systems do not define what a label is and what not.

olcuriosity
To put this in a context: 上海声像 is (was) a Chinese licensed distributor, which was distributing Sony releases in China - and its profile page says Distributor. Why do we have 114 releases listing it as a label? Because it has a hard-to-miss yellow logo right next to Columbia/Epic/etc.

Simply because the use of the logo here fits RSG §4.6.2.. It was/is the brand the local company used to identify their releases. As such it can be entered as label, regardless of the information in the profile.

jweijde
Haven't seen a release with a Farrow Design logo yet. So I can't comment on that.

jweijde
I like to respond to actual examples. Hypothetical examples are not helpful in this case. It will only cause confusion.

You're dodging the questions. I think that example would clear a LOT up because it directly adresses various situations in which logo's can be on releases. If you're not willing to work with us on this, then how do you expect us to agree with you? Like prometheusrussell mentioned, so far you haven't come up with any other arguments than:

prometheusrussell
- the RSG say we might be able add logo brands as labels
- the management logo brand can be right next to a record company logo
- no-one's said we can't
- some other s agree with me

jweijde
The release clearly suggests equal importance.

Still your opinion and an assumption.

Why can you not even once answer any of prometheusrussell's questions? How do you expect us to come to an outcome if you dodge all the simple and straightforward logical questions? Do you not want to resolve this issue?

prometheusrussell
Would the answers to any of these questions be useful..?

- The addition of the management company as a label is very necessary to aid identification because xxxxxxx
- If we use the existing management credit this is actually insufficient because xxxxxxxx
- s are advantaged by our doing this because xxxxxxxx
- Releases will be able to be found more easily because xxxxxxxx
- It makes future additions to the database more straightforward because of xxxxxx
- The existing problem of xxxxxxxx will now be resolved because of xxxxxxx

...?

olcuriosity
The point I am trying to make: either we credit legal entities for the role they actually perform - and not for what they might also be doing, but no one really knows for sure - or submit everything represented by a logo as a label. Otherwise this just does not make sense.

Spot on.

jweijde

Simply because the use of the logo here fits RSG §4.6.2.. It was/is the brand the local company used to identify their releases. As such it can be entered as label, regardless of the information in the profile.

Mmm, no, that would still be Columbia or Epic, Sony's own imprints were kept. It was a logo that local distributor put on its releases - the same way Hoffman put its logo on the releases it managed and so on.

We can stretch the guidelines as much as we like here, but as I have already said, it does not make any sense at all to spend time arguing about each single case, when the problem is clearly the same. Either we look at the colourful logo, or at the role the company is performing there. Everything else is double-standards and personal preferences.

olcuriosity
Mmm, no, that would still be Columbia or Epic, Sony's own imprints were kept. It was a logo that local distributor put on its releases

They weren't just the distributor. SAVP issued these releases in China under license from Sony. SAVP did put their own logo on the release because they obviously want the releases to be identified as theirs. Afterall, they issued them. As such, 上海声像 is completely valid as label.

jweijde

They weren't just the distributor. SAVP issued these releases in China under license from Sony.

This is a text-book definition of a licensed distributor.

jweijde
SAVP did put their own logo on the release because they obviously want the releases to be identified as theirs.

As every other legal entity that puts their logo on a release.

jweijde
Afterall, they issued them. As such, 上海声像 is completely valid as label.

Does this mean that you agree that Hoffman and other management companies are not valid labels?

Can you see what I mean by stretching the guidelines? If Sony BMG Music Entertainment, this needs to be reflected on the profile page, as pretty much the only available source of information around here.

Otherwise, I repeat, anything that puts their logo on a release, big or small, will naturally have something to do with it - and how we navigate in that grey area will inevitably end up being down to personal preferences.

I don't see any point in discussing this further if essential issues that several people have adressed keep being dodged because that way this discussion will last forever and not get anywhere. I will stand by what prometheusrussell said and will apply those standards to the database.

prometheusrussell
So far the arguments above that a management company being added as a main label to a release simply because there is a logo on the release seem to go something as follows:-

- the RSG say we might be able add logo brands as labels
- the management logo brand can be right next to a record company logo
- no-one's said we can't
- some other s agree with me

I am a persuadable person. But I really don't find anything persuasive there to date.

prometheusrussell
Would the answers to any of these questions be useful..?

- The addition of the management company as a label is very necessary to aid identification because xxxxxxx
- If we use the existing management credit this is actually insufficient because xxxxxxxx
- s are advantaged by our doing this because xxxxxxxx
- Releases will be able to be found more easily because xxxxxxxx
- It makes future additions to the database more straightforward because of xxxxxx
- The existing problem of xxxxxxxx will now be resolved because of xxxxxxx

olcuriosity
If 上海声像 is/was a label in addition to being a distributor, like, let's say, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, this needs to be reflected on the profile page, as pretty much the only available source of information around here.

I agree that the current profile is misleading.

Fauni-Gena
If the company logo is all over the place I'd say it's a case where logo==branding==label.

jweijde
Simply because the use of the logo here fits RSG §4.6.2.. It was/is the brand the local company used to identify their releases. As such it can be entered as label, regardless of the information in the profile

I strongly agree with both of these posts. However, I certainly understand the sentiment behind the resistance — there's just something about adding what's predominantly known as a management company to the LCCN as a Label that feels weird.

Another way to look at this is that no one is required to enter a logo for a management company as a secondary label. However, as per RSG §14.1.4, valid info should not be removed from a release. Because the logo/branding clearly qualifies for the Label role under RSG §4.6.2, if someone else has previously added it to the submission, then it cannot be removed. This is no different than, for example, removing superfluous bracketed info in a "Producer [Produced By]" credit, "Some copies have a gold promotional stamp over the barcode" from the release notes, and so forth, which we do not remove out of respect for the prior editor's contributions to the release page.

jweijde
I agree that the current profile is misleading.

Whenever we edit a profile by essentially installing contribution-centric guidance, it just causes problems, is uninformative, basically looks bad, and is something we really need to move away from. I almost wish Discogs would just banish words like 'use X for [LCCN role]' or 'please consider', restrictions like 'this is not a [LCCN role]', bold text, and/or etc. from being added to profile pages.

So, after 66 comments and walls of text, this is what the discussion came down to:

"It does not make sense, but also does not immediately violate the guidelines which we all interpret differently anyway - so if another wants to do it, we let them".

And to think that I was accused of not having discussed my edit in the forum first... Tragic.

I completely agree with briantmc that further discussion is pointless, unless some of the real questions get answered here. Yours sincerely.
---
edit: typo

olcuriosity
I completely agree with briantmc that further discussion is pointless,

...and his or your edits removing valid data are incorrect based on the current Guidelines. Fine, I'll revert them.

briantmc
I don't see any point in discussing this further if essential issues that several people have adressed keep being dodged because that way this discussion will last forever and not get anywhere. I will stand by what prometheusrussell said and will apply those standards to the database.

If you remove valid branding/labels from releases I will vote the change Entirely Incorrect or Needs Major Changes and revert the edits. You do NOT get to make your own rules or set your own standards on Discogs, period.

julass
Mariah Carey - Always Be My Baby
this is such a release. Hoffman Entertainment, Inc. is represented ONLY by logo and not text credit

Yep, and we have plenty of precedent and forum discussion to make clear that in a case like this it's a label. I reverted the change.

Fauni-Gena
You do NOT get to make your own rules or set your own standards on Discogs, period.

Of course not. Only you do.

I find the fact that most active s are unable to have a proper discussion or argument and resort to repeating the same mantra over and over again a very strange reason to celebrate, but who am I to judge.

I do however urge sensible s not to respond to this thread anymore, as this will only lead to frustration, which is exactly what is being expected here.

olcuriosity
Of course not. Only you do.

Totally false statement. You do not have majority for your statement or your position. I have filed a request for the Entirely Incorrect vote and for the behavior of certain s, yourself included.

I'll post the same comment here as I just have on
Fauni-Gena This matter is under current discussion in a Forum thread which *YOU* yourself have been commenting in!!!
WHY would you start making edits when the status of 19 Management Limited as a label has NOT been agreed and no evidence has yet been supplied that it is anything but a management company, apart from to up the ante and cause deliberate conflict with other editors?
Pretty contemptible behaviour.

You are very keen, as your last comments above, to stand on some high horse and fire off SRs left, right and centre when you don't like what others are doing, but your own behaviour leaves very much to be desired.
I've sent a SR about this breach. ***I would urge others to do the same.***
You do not edits adding contentious data to a release whilst the matter is under discussion and before the the position is agreed. The RSG make this absolutely clear. You would cause merry hell for another you caught doing this.
You seem to think you should operate by a different set of rules.
Indeed there are several on this thread who seem to behave like this.

benjiizone
I very hope that you will come to this thread and add your voice here on this matter.
It would be good to get a wide range of voices and s who have been directly involved in the editing of these submissions. Thank you.
We don't need a thread dominated again by a small coterie of s.

This has been under discussion for almost a month and shows no sign of resolution. There are previous discussions and Guidelines to go by. If we wait for an agreement or resolution there can never be a change unless management gets involved which keeps the releases stuck in their present state forever.

prometheusrussell, I find your behavior to be contemptible. Would you like links to a bunch of threads showing that my position is correct? I can do that, you know. I have filed one Request on this and haven't filed any other in a month or two. That's "right, left and centre" is it? Not hardly. I am glad you filed a Request, though. Let staff/management sort through the mess you've helped create.

Fauni, that seems to think he can attack others all the time. I've complained about them to management. Makes this an unpleasant place, posts like that.

scenescof
Fauni, that seems to think he can attack others all the time. I've complained about them to management. Makes this an unpleasant place, posts like that.

Sadly I agree. My edit also followed the majority on a month old thread, though ittedly a slim majority. With people proclaiming they weren't going to discuss it further and were going to edit as they see fit regardless of the community, past precedent or the Guidelines some action had to be taken. With my voting average I could take a couple of EI votes with zero chance of ending up on CIP through the automated system so I did what I believe is right. The attacks on me for doing just that are sheer hypocrisy.

Fauni-Gena
With people proclaiming they weren't going to discuss it further and were going to edit as they see fit regardless of the community, past precedent or the Guidelines some action had to be taken.

No one here claimed that they were going to edit things as they see fit - you imagined that part entirely, which probably explains the anger. I suggest you actually read the discussion - and, here is a fresh idea, constructively contribute to it instead of threatening people left and right - maybe then others will not be giving up on it, myself included.

olcuriosity
No one here claimed that they were going to edit things as they see fit

Horse hockey. That was most certainly stated:

briantmc
I will stand by what prometheusrussell said and will apply those standards to the database.

There's no other way to interpret that. I imagined nothing. Also, I'm not angry at all. Frustrated, yes. Angry, no.

Because Staff have been invited to give guidance here, s new to the thread have been invited to participate, and because controversial edits have been made whilst the matter is still under discussion, I thought it helpful to provide an OVERVIEW of where we are.

Firstly Hoffman

There exist
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/artist/1925519-Hoffman-Entertainment
and
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/artist/4313481-Hoffman-Entertainment-Inc
[There is a separate issue, which does not concern this thread at this point, of whether those are properly distinct entities or just occasions when Inc. is found or when not, etc]

These are Artists on the database.
They were created to credit the artistic management organisation (most commonly found on Mariah Carey releases), which can feature as both a text credit and the company logo.

A Label use for Hoffman Entertainment Inc - reduplicating the artist page - was created in the editing of this submission
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/release/1047958-Always-Be-My-Baby/history#latest
by julass
The label creation was then added by him to several other releases where a logo was found.

I can find no record of any discussion about this *before* the creation of this Label, even though it was directly reduplicating a company that already existed as an Artist and it is obviously not any standard record company, which of itself you may have though merited some sort of discussion or consensus to avoid potential confusion or disagreement.

Well, there was immediate potential confusion or disagreement, and if you search records where Hoffman Entertainment Inc was added 2 years back etc, then many other editors immediately objected or asked questions about why it was necessary when there was already a management credit or wondered where this was discussed etc etc.
So - there was no consensus that the Label creation was correctly being added - and certainly no discussion about why a Label creation for a management company was even desirable in the first place or what it actually added on top of the Artist use etc.
[Indeed that latter discussion is still completely absent, even from this thread...]

Because of arguments on several submissions, a thread was raised here about management companies as labels
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/forum/thread/401152
It lasted 48 hours only.
It involved just SIX s.
Those 6 s did not all agree. Indeed 3 of the 6 questioned its use as a main label.
The several other s who in 2014 were questioning the use of Hoffman Entertainment Inc as a label or objecting to edits have not commented there. I can't see any direct invitation on the thread for their input.
No decision from staff was invited and no staff commented.

The idea that this thread is now being used and has been cited in these latest discussions as some sort of evidence there was community agreement that management companies are record labels and that they can be added because logos appear is pretty risible.

Yet, re-edits have been made, edits reversed, with several of the s above citing that it has already been agreed that management companies represented by logos are labels and can be added.
In any meaningful sense - no, it has not.
Several s are complaining that "correct data is being removed" from a release when the use of Hoffmann as main label is being ceased.
But we haven't got any agreement that the data IS correct and that Hoffmann is or should ever have been a main label.
If data is questionable or uncertain: it should not be added until it is certain.
And there has been NO removal of data as there has and always has been the credit of Hoffmann in the management artist credit.

Q:
Have staff actually ed the creation of management companies or artistic managers as database Labels?
I hope they will be commenting here on that.
At present I can't see any evidence we have a verdict - and thus it was always precipitate to start using these as main labels.
In the last few hours a Fauni-Gena has been editing back the management company as main Label and claiming "Improper removal of label reverted".
Apart from being precipitate and deliberately contentious in the light of the discussions above and before there is sufficient consensus and staff guidance... the same complaint can equally be reversed - ie "Improper or Not agreed label creation added"

Q:
What do we know about Hoffmann Entertainment Inc?

Well, we know it operates as a company which manages artists and promotes their appearances and events.
We know this because of some if its corporate descriptions and listings (I have added some basic links above but you can search internet data etc.)
So this is a FACT.

Well, we know it appears regularly as an actual Management credit on releases where its artists are represented.
Indeed on all but one occasion noted [to date] where the logo for the company has been found on release artwork there is also a text credit for Management.
[The exception so far is Mariah Carey's - Always Be My Baby - where the same cognate artwork on some UK and USA formats have the logo but not the usual text credit that goes with it. Was this an oversight? We clearly know the relationship between Hoffmann and MC then, and the logo with text is found on other MC release of exactly the same period with the same company, Columbia. So it would be bizarre to treat the Always Be My Baby art as any exception that defined any rules...]
So this regular crediting for management on audio releases of their artists alongside their logos appearing is also a FACT.

These are the two actual FACTS we have.

One above has suggested that Hoffmann [and other entities like it] could be more than a management company and could "operate labels and release records in partnership with a record company".
This is an ASSUMPTION.

It might be a brilliant assumption and data - not yet presented - could come to light to illustrate why this is the case.
Several us who can see no case for Hoffmann as a main label when we only know properly to date it is a management company, have also clearly stated that if evidence shows Hoffmann's wider involvement than that then we would certainly and readily accept it as a main label.
We currently await any evidence of this.

Several s above seem to think that the onus is on those who don't have any knowledge Hoffmann is more than a management company to prove it is only a management company and that it should be used as a main label until it can be shown only to be a management company (?!)
I have to say the logic of this defies me utterly.

The database works on the accretion of provable/researched facts only.
eg
The Album tag.
We don't add the album tag unless we have good evidence it is reliable.
If added and unproven, we often remove it and point out it can be restored when properly evidenced.
What we don't do is automatically add an album tag - and then say - this could well be wrong - we'll remove it later if so...
So the same logic should surely apply in in the case of Hoffmann Entertainment Inc.
We apply it as a management company credit as this is known.
When proven to have more of a role than a simple management company and be involved as some (any) form of record company, we can then create it as a Label and can even apply as a main label because of the presence of logos.
But surely what we don't do is automatically add Hoffmann Entertainment Inc. as a main label - and then say - this could well be wrong and it might only be a management company- we'll remove it later if so...
We should treat this issue as we would all others.

Now - 19 ENTERTAINMENT

Entirely mimicing the situation of Hoffman is
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/artist/1860146-19-Management-Ltd
which is the second management company which features a logo as discussed in this thread.

Because the issues are in direct parallel - the overview can be helpfully brief.

It is a corporate entity under the umbrella of
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/artist/1820481-19-Entertainment

It is an Artist on the database.
It was created again to credit an artists' management organisation which features as either a text credit or both a text credit and the company logo.

A Label use for the management company was again created by the same who created the Hoffman label entity.
The label creation was then added by him to several other releases where a logo was found.
Again I can find no record of any discussion about this before the creation of this Label reduplicating a company that already existed as an Artist.
Again, there were immediate protests and disagreements about its introduction
I am unaware of any decision from staff or staff comment about the contentious 19 Entertainment Label creation.

Q:
What do we know about 19 Management Ltd.?

Well, we again know it operates as a company which manages artists and promotes their appearances and events.
This comes from some of 19's own descriptions and listings (I have added some links above.)
So this is a FACT.

Well, we know it appears regularly as an actual Management credit on releases where its artists are represented.
[To date] where the logo has been found we always seem to have a text credit too.
So this regular crediting for management on audio releases of their artists alongside their logo appearing is also a FACT.

Again these are the two actual FACTS we have.

Like Hoffmann, we haven't had any actual evidence to date that 19 Entertainment Ltd. has a wider role than a management company.
[If it does, its role on the database would naturally be augmented.]

All the same issues awaiting resolution apply to 19 Entertainment as described above with Hoffmann.

is it OVERVIEW or rather MYVIEW? seems to be longer than the whole thread...

as a addition:
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/forum/thread/699377
was used as a valid argument to remove S Club 7 - Don't Stop Movin'
It lasted 6 hours only.
It involved just TWO s.
Those 2 s did not agree.
No one else was invited or cared enough to the discussion.

Lots of irrelevant "FACTS" (really opinions for the most part) and claims that we need forum threads for these specific labels and for management companies specifically (as opposed to other companies) as labels. We don't. We have the precedent that companies of all sorts, ranging from Pepsi to El Al (an airline) to Rabobank (a bank) can function as labels. We also have management companies that act as labels independently from any other label with examples provided above.

The concept that a logo is corporate branding and that branding is a label does not have to be debated in each and every case. It doesn't have to be debated separately for management companies as opposed to studios that act as a label or production companies that act as a label and so on. I can give hundreds of examples in the database. We neither have no need a separate case or a separate Guideline for management companies. It just fits under the generic rubric of companies acting as labels. That pretty much invalidates all of the argument directly above mine. I can link lots of examples and previous threads over the past five years. The issue seems to be that a handful of s believe none of that applies to management companies specifically. I see nothing ing that idea anywhere.

julass
No one else was invited or cared enough to the discussion.

You know what? You make a great point here. Let's see if we can build a consensus among a larger segment of the community while we wait on staff/management to weigh in.

Time once again to use jweijde

prometheusrussell
***I would urge others to do the same.***

Don't you think staff are busy enough removing bootlegs and such, do they really need you encouraging a glut of requests for the same damn thing?

While this is being discussed, nothing should be removed or invalidated.
It's much easier to remove a label (if that is the consensus) then it is to reinstate it after the fact.

My opinion: Not every logo = label, but (in the case of 19) when it's used consistently and prominently on several parts of the release then the logo = branding = label.
S Club 7 - Don't Stop Movin' is a case in point, everywhere you see the Polydor logo, you'll see the 19 Management logo next to it.

*sigh*

for the record, I tried to stay out of this as it will lead to nothing good.

Dislaimer part 2: I have not, and will not, read the whole thread, thus my comment will solely be my opinion based on the question raised in the OP.

From what I , nik's statement and data based on actual reality and not some falsely applied "logo = label" thingy would lead me to believe that it makes no sense to enter these companies as a label as well. a management credit in the credits section should be more than enough to represent that logo imho

PS: I don't care in the slightest for the outcome here. I will never add such a company as a label.

Excellent points prometheusrussel. I respect the fact that you took the time to write all that out and I would like to applaud your calmness as well.

Fauni-Gena
If you remove valid branding/labels from releases I will vote the change Entirely Incorrect or Needs Major Changes and revert the edits. You do NOT get to make your own rules or set your own standards on Discogs, period.

Neither do you, and the way this topic is currently represented in the guidelines it can be interpreted in various ways, which is what we're trying to clear up here. There's also Nic's comment:

nik
I do think that not all logos on releases will be labels. Some releases are plastered with logos! Where the logo is for an entity that has a definite role that isn't 'label', it for sure should be ascribed that role.

So yes, until a staff member comments on this I will not be changing my ways, as there is STILL no outcome here even though YOU have the opinion that there is one.

Fauni-Gena
Yep, and we have plenty of precedent and forum discussion to make clear that in a case like this it's a label. I reverted the change.

See, you can accuse me of applying my own standards to the database, but if I'm correct this matter is still very much in discussion yet you went ahead and reverted even before there was an outcome. Who's applying personal standards now?

Fauni-Gena
There are previous discussions and Guidelines to go by.

Show us the outcome of those "discussions" then? As I said, the way this is currently implemented in the guidelines can be interpreted in several ways and staff have also made statements that are in contrast with adding management companies as labels when it is clear that they do not have a label role.

Fauni-Gena
prometheusrussell, I find your behavior to be contemptible. Would you like links to a bunch of threads showing that my position is correct? I can do that, you know.

Do you want applause? We're not here for you to show off your skills. We want a solution. Also, why are you acting like you run Discogs yet complain about other people's behaviour?

scenescof
Fauni, that seems to think he can attack others all the time. I've complained about them to management.

"All the time"? I'll just casually leave this here:

scenescof
Releases Collected: 7
Rank Points: 183

prometheusrussell
Releases Collected: 11,162
Rank Points: 29,965

Fauni-Gena
My edit also followed the majority on a month old thread, though ittedly a slim majority. With people proclaiming they weren't going to discuss it further and were going to edit as they see fit regardless of the community, past precedent or the Guidelines some action had to be taken.

You chose to ignore that new s have been coming in to discuss this thread. You went ahead while this topic was still very much in a heated discussion.

Please answer prometheusrussel's questions. If you're right, you will be able to. If you want to help this discussion along and want to find a solution, you will. If not, you'll ignore them like the others have done. Here goes:

- The addition of the management company as a label is very necessary to aid identification because xxxxxxx
- If we use the existing management credit this is actually insufficient because xxxxxxxx
- s are advantaged by our doing this because xxxxxxxx
- Releases will be able to be found more easily because xxxxxxxx
- It makes future additions to the database more straightforward because of xxxxxx
- The existing problem of xxxxxxxx will now be resolved because of xxxxxxx

Fauni-Gena
Lots of irrelevant "FACTS" (really opinions for the most part) and claims that we need forum threads for these specific labels and for management companies specifically (as opposed to other companies) as labels. We don't. We have the precedent that companies of all sorts, ranging from Pepsi to El Al (an airline) to Rabobank (a bank) can function as labels. We also have management companies that act as labels independently from any other label with examples provided above.

The concept that a logo is corporate branding and that branding is a label does not have to be debated in each and every case. It doesn't have to be debated separately for management companies as opposed to studios that act as a label or production companies that act as a label and so on. I can give hundreds of examples in the database. We neither have no need a separate case or a separate Guideline for management companies. It just fits under the generic rubric of companies acting as labels. That pretty much invalidates all of the argument directly above mine. I can link lots of examples and previous threads over the past five years. The issue seems to be that a handful of s believe none of that applies to management companies specifically. I see nothing ing that idea anywhere.

Also a lot of irrelevant "FACTS" and opinions... Bashing everyone who disagrees with you will not give this discussion any progress.

andygrayrecords
While this is being discussed, nothing should be removed or invalidated.
It's much easier to remove a label (if that is the consensus) then it is to reinstate it after the fact.

I agree. And I would like to clarify that this discussion was started because of an edit that I and Fauni-Gena (who then proceeded to accuse me of applying personal standards to the database...)

Fauni-Gena
You know what? You make a great point here. Let's see if we can build a consensus among a larger segment of the community while we wait on staff/management to weigh in.

Perhaps - instead of just a magic ping-list of trusty, old war-horses - it would be good to ask more of those editing the releases, or those previously involved in the 19 or Hoffmann artist labels etc to come forward and comment.
I'd really like to hear from different voices not just the ones that always dominate 75% of comments in the threads.
As you see - a range of other editors on these various releases aren't terribly convinced by the management companies as label proposition.
But they're not the s who are so prevalent here. Perhaps they feel rather excluded from these threads.
Perhaps ping lists inviting only Forum glitterati might continue to make them feel excluded...
We should be striving to widen the input of the community.

Just a thought.

Fauni-Gena
We have the precedent that companies of all sorts, ranging from Pepsi to El Al (an airline) to Rabobank (a bank) can function as labels.

But this is not under dispute. This is repeated as nauseam above. It seems you are deliberately trying to obscure the issue again.
When Pepsi appears on a release because the freebie CD is issued by or via Pepsi: we add Pepsi as a label.
But arthouse, design studio, distributor only logos, make up supplied by etc - these are things where we do not automatically add the entity's logo as a general main label - exactly because the entity's specific role is prescribed for us.
A specific management role seems to many of us just as prescribed as a design studio role or a distribution agency role.

olcuriosity has brought to our notice this anomaly which I had not seen before :-

olcuriosity
To put this in a context: 上海声像 is (was) a Chinese licensed distributor, which was distributing Sony releases in China - and its profile page says Distributor. Why do we have 114 releases listing it as a label? Because it has a hard-to-miss yellow logo right next to Columbia/Epic/etc.
The point I am trying to make: either we credit legal entities for the role they actually perform - and not for what they might also be doing, but no one really knows for sure - or submit everything represented by a logo as a label. Otherwise this just does not make sense.

This is the actual result of unthinking Logo=Label--mania.

julass
as a addition:
https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/forum/thread/699377
was used as a valid argument to remove 19 Management Limited as a label on S Club 7 - Don't Stop Movin'

Not by me it wasn't. Because - as you correctly said - that thread got nowhere. As far as I am concerned the matter is still under discussion. All the same arguments were relayed there and got nowhere. So why you think this issue had been settled and your creations had become universally accepted, I don't understand.

prometheusrussell
When Pepsi appears on a release because the freebie CD is issued by or via Pepsi: we add Pepsi as a label.
But arthouse, design studio, distributor only logos, make up supplied by etc - these are things where we do not automatically add the entity's logo as a general main label - exactly because the entity's specific role is prescribed for us.
A specific management role seems to many of us just as prescribed as a design studio role or a distribution agency role.

Exactly. Or we'll soon also be adding Hoffmann Entertainment as a photography credit. Who knows, they might also have facilitated the photoshoot... They are a management company and their sole purpose is managing artists. We should credit them as such because that is the info we know for sure is correct. Whether they have co-released any albums or singles is still a guess.

Fauni-Gena
That pretty much invalidates all of the argument directly above mine.

Yes, that sadly dismissive attitude about sums up why this issue has become rather aerated and unhappy.
As far as you are concerned those who do not agree with you here are invalidated and you have certainly left no stone un-turned to make us feel invalidated.
There has been no effort to find out why others view it differently - and certainly no attempt to persuade.

I set out some questions above. They were completely open ended questions because answers to them would make us all think about both the process of adding data and results of having that data, and either side of the argument might need to revise opinions based on the responses it generated. They have been utterly ignored.

Going back to OP who was referring to THIS release:

Mariah Carey - Always Be My Baby

On the other releases for Always Be My Baby, the Hoffmann logo is present but much smaller than Columbia logo:

Mariah Carey - Always Be My Baby

prometheusrussell
They have been utterly ignored.

Even though I reposted them several times and underlined the importance of those questions being answered, so I'd like to add that they were most likely DELIBERATELY ignored.

prometheusrussell
- The addition of the management company as a label is very necessary to aid identification because xxxxxxx
- If we use the existing management credit this is actually insufficient because xxxxxxxx
- s are advantaged by our doing this because xxxxxxxx
- Releases will be able to be found more easily because xxxxxxxx
- It makes future additions to the database more straightforward because of xxxxxx
- The existing problem of xxxxxxxx will now be resolved because of xxxxxxx

prometheusrussell
I can find no record of any discussion about this *before* the creation of this Label,

I'm not sure about in the days (before my time), but we don't need to open a thread each time we add an artist, label, company, or anything else — the only requirement, which can be found in RSG §1.6, is that we explain we're adding it in the submission notes when submitting the edit to the release that's creating it.

Fauni-Gena
We have the precedent that companies of all sorts

And not just companies—I edited one not too long ago that was nothing more than a talent contest.

prometheusrussell
Have staff actually ed the creation of management companies or artistic managers as database Labels?

RSG §4.6.2 defines a Label as a "Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases". Therefore, Discogs undoubtedly endorses adding a brand name to the LCCN as a Label role and has not included language in RSG §4.6.2 or elsewhere that instructs us to discriminate between branding that represents what's traditionally thought of as a record label vs. something that's not.

By comparison, Opdiner seems to be the expert on this). This is completely different than showing that the company in question was predominantly a management company.

However, if the question was whether it's good policy for us to document management companies as Labels, then that I'd probably feel a lot different.

andygrayrecords
While this is being discussed, nothing should be removed or invalidated.

+1 and this also includes reversions and votes.

prometheusrussell
it would be good to ask more of those editing the releases, or those previously involved in the 19 or Hoffmann artist labels etc to come forward and comment.

That's a great idea. However, with all due respect to Fauni-Gena, maybe this just didn't occur to her. But because FG already invited over a dozen s to this thread, maybe you can take the initiative and invite some others?

syke
From what I , nik once upon a time made a ruling that not all logos are to be entered as a label if we know a specific role for them. In case of a management company logo coupled with something like "Management by syke for syke inc" I see no valid reason to add "syke inc." as a label, as we would know that they were responsible for management duties on that release. And that together with nik's statement and data based on actual reality and not some falsely applied "logo = label" thingy would lead me to believe that it makes no sense to enter these companies as a label as well. a management credit in the credits section should be more than enough to represent that logo imho

Spot on and exactly my POV.

Can someone from the UK simply call the place and ask for information, please?

+44-02078011919

syke
A management credit in the credits section should be more than enough to represent that logo

+1

Not sure who I agree with as I didn't read the whole thing but not all logos on a release warrant a label credit: whenever it is known that logo can be "credited" for it's proper involvement this is what should be used instead:
management company logo on release = Management credit
publisher logo on release = Published By / see all those shellacs or whatever they are way back when publishers had their logos on labels Earl Hines / Eddie Lang's Orchestra - Fifty Seven Varieties / Bugle Call Rag
drums manufacturer the drummer had a sponsorship deal with = mention in notes
etc.

Of course sometime it's not entirely obvious what's the logo is credited for, or it can get complicated when the management agency is also / was previously a label or where's the line between a production company and a vanity imprint (https://discogs.sitiodesbloquea.com/forum/thread/730432

And I still think Maverick label catalogue, because Maverick is not a label there but her manager.

_jules
but not all logos on a release warrant a label credit: whenever it is known that logo can be "credited" for it's proper involvement this is what should be used instead

That's my +1 too.

prometheusrussell
Perhaps ping lists inviting only Forum glitterati might continue to make them feel excluded...

Speculation your honour (glitterati AND feelings of exclusion).

berothbr
But because FG already invited over a dozen s to this thread, maybe you can take the initiative and invite some others?

Good idea.

For what it's worth I'm of the opinion branding logo = label unless there is clear evidence to the contrary AND that clear evidence leads to clear consensus in a dedicated thread AND leads to clear instructions left on the company page concerned to NOT treat as a label.

Honestly, I don't think this issue is that important to warrant this level of a heated discussion.

What needs to be done at the RSG level so that these situations can be avoided forever?