VGMdb
Go Back   VGMdb Forums > Discussion > Miscellaneous Discussion > Organization Discussions
Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old Nov 12, 2012, 12:50 AM
yindesu yindesu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 77

This label needs to be restructured slightly. It was a label of BMG JAPAN until 2008/2009. It wasn't until October 2009 that it was a label of Ariola Japan Inc. (SMEJ)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Nov 12, 2012, 04:27 AM
Cedille Cedille is offline
Trusted Editor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 2,027
Default

I linked BMG JAPAN as another parent of this label.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 05:13 PM
nextday's Avatar
nextday nextday is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,083
Default

I saw that on the recent Ariola Japan releases that Sony Music Labels was the publisher so I changed Ariola to an imprint.

It looks like it's the same for all the other labels that Sony Music Labels is a parent of? Might have to update a lot of albums.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 09:02 PM
Illidan's Avatar
Illidan Illidan is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,174
Default

Aren't they just the manufacturer? Generally we don't put them in the entries, otherwise we'll have to update almost every sony album in the db, as well as others (Starchild comes to mind). Recently Lantis was removed from Mellowhead entries for example, which is kinda the same thing as this.

I haven't checked any recent ones but for example in this one (last year) I would just use ariola (only their logo on obi and disc) http://vgmdb.net/album/53608

Not sure what the original intention of omitting manufacturers was, maybe because every release of a label is manufactured by their parent company so it's not worth mentioning?
__________________
Anime | Music | Stuff
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 10:10 PM
nextday's Avatar
nextday nextday is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,083
Default

Shops seem to list it as the publisher.
Quote:
発売会社:ソニー・ミュージックレーベルズ
販売会社:ソニー・ミュージックマーケティング
On one album (can't remember which one), I saw "Sony Music Labels" printed on the obi directly above the catalog number.

Also note the change (before and after Labels was created):



Edit: You can also see a change with Sony's digital releases. Before, the SRXX stem was used for Sony Music Records, SEXX for SME Records, AIXX for Sony Music Associated Records. Now, for all the stems, the label is listed as Sony Music Labels.

Last edited by nextday; Sep 14, 2016 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 10:29 PM
Illidan's Avatar
Illidan Illidan is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,174
Default

Only recent one I have that I can check is this: http://vgmdb.net/album/58500

Obi has SME Records on top center/right parts, and left part has "Sony Music Labels Inc." above the JAN.
Digipack side has "Sony Music Labels" (no Inc.) above the catalog.
Back has both logos and "Manufactured by Sony Music Labels Inc."
Disc just SME Records logo.

I still think they're just manufacturing it, but then again this is the same as Frontier Works, that I rearranged some 2 years ago.
It's one of those inconsistencies we have since Starchild is the same (manufactured by King Co., not the lion label, with their logo on obi and sides) but we only link starchild, because that's the actual label.
Both ways are fine by me, just wish we would pick one and stick with it.
__________________
Anime | Music | Stuff
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 10:40 PM
nextday's Avatar
nextday nextday is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,083
Default

I added an edit about how all of their digital releases now list Sony Music Labels Inc. as the label, whereas they previously didn't.

They definitely changed something but Sony doesn't list publisher/distributor information on the obi so it's a bit hard to say.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 10:52 PM
Illidan's Avatar
Illidan Illidan is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,174
Default

Well wouldn't give that too much credit since digital labels are always weird and often don't match the actual one on the disc. mora used to list the correct ones though, not sure why they changed it recently but it's not just sony.
Random examples of labels that don't match:
http://mora.jp/package/43000006/00600406796370/ http://vgmdb.net/album/59268
http://mora.jp/package/43000033/ZMCZ-10784/ http://vgmdb.net/album/59422
http://mora.jp/package/43000033/A49156/ http://vgmdb.net/album/59418
__________________
Anime | Music | Stuff
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 11:16 PM
nextday's Avatar
nextday nextday is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,083
Default

Yeah, those are for other labels though. I was looking specifically at Sony's releases.

SML formed in April 2014. If we look at April 2014 releases:

April 01, 2014 - SME: http://mora.jp/package/43000001/4547557020298/
April 16, 2014 - SME: http://mora.jp/package/43000001/4547557033663/
April 30, 2014 - SML: http://mora.jp/package/43000001/4547557033724/
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 11:37 PM
Illidan's Avatar
Illidan Illidan is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,174
Default

SME Records Inc. (the company) was merged into SML so it just looks like they list the companies (manufacturers?) for Sony rather than the labels.
This is the case for old ones as well, for example Sony Records was manufactured by Sony Music Records Inc. before april 2014 (http://vgmdb.net/db/covers.php?do=view&cover=87628), and mora lists that: http://mora.jp/package/43000001/4988009064413/
Other ones (like ariola and SME) had a separate company that was merged so those are all listed as SML now.
So the old ones should actually be "SME Records / SME Records Inc." and the new ones "SME Records / Sony Music Labels Inc." to be precise.

Again, totally fine by me to lists these as well. If we can come up with a general guideline and apply it to all entries, even better. To be fair, I think we should get rid of the ambiguous "Imprint/Publisher" and just have Label, Manufacturer, Distributor and other ones if needed (for example Distribution Collaboration, Copyright Holder, etc).
__________________
Anime | Music | Stuff
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Sep 14, 2016, 11:50 PM
nextday's Avatar
nextday nextday is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,083
Default

Yeah, something along those lines.

Sony corporate history, April 2014:
Quote:
Sony Music Records Inc. absorbs SME Records Inc., Sony Music Associated Records Inc., Epic Records Japan Inc., Defstar Records Inc., Ariola Japan Inc., Ki/oon Music Inc., Sony Music Japan International Inc. and changes its corporate name to Sony Music Labels Inc.

Sony Music Distribution (Japan) Inc. absorbs Sony Music Network Inc. and changes its corporate name to Sony Music Marketing Inc.

ultraCeep Inc. is founded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Illidan
I think we should get rid of the ambiguous "Imprint/Publisher" and just have Label, Manufacturer, Distributor and other ones if needed (for example Distribution Collaboration, Copyright Holder, etc).
This is a good idea though it would definitely take some work. Especially since the major companies all function differently.

I'll be curious to see what Phono has to say about all of this since he's the one that adds most of these new labels/mergers/etc.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Sep 15, 2016, 01:16 AM
Efendija's Avatar
Efendija Efendija is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Serbia
Posts: 1,901
Default

It's something of a long-standing problem by now. Imprint/publisher pattern (as it's been called time and time again) doesn't completely work as intended anymore. We now have the situation where the field is called 'published by' (and that's an issue in its own) but only the label gets in it (and that is not a 'publisher') while the companies (which were there in the past) often get thrown out (Mellow / Lantis) and in some other cases the old 'imprint / publisher' still remains unchanged for some reason (even though it's the same as label / manufacturer).

IMO there's nothing wrong in listing all of the relevant (company) entities and labels. On the contrary, it's quite necessary to be as thorough as possible.

We do have labels, sound copyright holders, general copyright holders, distributors, manufacturers and publishers of the music itself and all of these can be mentioned (and linked) at some place on the album page. This is really a rather well distinction in the west - for example you have one of the Warner labels and lines that say "All Music Published by Warner-Barham Music, LLC" as the real music publisher entity while the manufacturer could be a company that owns the label or even a totally different one when the label has a contract of sorts with its manufacturer and isn't owned by them.

I hope these issues will be adressed one day in this database.

Last edited by Efendija; Sep 15, 2016 at 01:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Sep 17, 2016, 02:33 AM
Phonograph's Avatar
Phonograph Phonograph is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 5.342.482.337.666
Posts: 3,795
Default

I said very long ago that the actual "publisher" system was misconceived (maybe due to vbulletin restriction in the way to make stuff, I don't know)

firstly, why submission and edit page must have "Imprint / Publisher (Distributor)" in the same field?
catalog has 1 field, Price has 1 field etc
but album title and publisher fields have 1 field for several info

there should be 1 field for label or manufacturer + 1 field for distributor (therefore 2 distinct fields)
then about imprint/publisher, my opinion is as follows

* label should be always used without its parent record company aka manufacturer (and falsely named publisher)
because the label already belongs to its parent record company, it's pointless and could be redundant
nonsense -> King Records / King Record Co Ltd (Distributed by King Record Co Ltd)
sense -----> King Records (Distributed by King Record Co Ltd)

* manufacturer should be used when the label isn't directly implied in the producing process (enclosures for example)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Sep 17, 2016, 06:02 AM
Gigablah's Avatar
Gigablah Gigablah is offline
VGMdb Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,397
Default

It's more of a UI and naming issue. Before the "organization" entity was conceived, we had a simple text field in the album submission page to denote "publisher".

Then we created "organizations" and "organization-album relationships". Basically the functionality you're thinking of -- linking any arbitrary number of organizations to the album entry, each with a different "role" -- is already present in the "manage links" page. We never updated the original publisher text field though. Perhaps it's time to replace it with an "add organization" mechanism.

We also haven't expanded beyond the three roles that we provided ("publisher", "distributor" and "imprint"). Plus "imprint" is actually more of an organization *type* rather than the organization *role*, so we should rename that. I agree with the suggestions made so far:
Imprint => Label
Publisher => Manufacturer

Also, there's the bug where an imprint/label won't show up as linked unless we add a publisher as well, which shouldn't be necessary. (For the sake of having the album entry show up in the parent company page, we'd have to link the parent company as well, but this can be automated and invisible).

And finally we should do away with merging all the organization names into a single "publisher" field in the album info display and split out the roles like we do with artists.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Sep 17, 2016, 06:20 AM
Phonograph's Avatar
Phonograph Phonograph is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 5.342.482.337.666
Posts: 3,795
Default

if I remember correctly, the imprint linking issue is corrected when you link anything else, publisher or distributor not only publisher
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old Sep 17, 2016, 06:57 AM
Efendija's Avatar
Efendija Efendija is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Serbia
Posts: 1,901
Default

There are several possible fields to note for starters

Label - just that, a label
Distributor
Manufacturer (it does not have to be the company which owns the label but most of the time it is)
Publisher - real music publisher, something that was almost never cared about but it exists
Sound recording copyright holder - the ℗ symbol

Example
Label: Varèse Sarabande
Distributor: Universal Music Distribution
Manufacturer: Varèse Sarabande Records, Inc. (as a record company)
Publisher: T C F Music Publishing, Inc.
Sound recording copyright holder - Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Sep 18, 2016, 04:34 PM
TopRanker TopRanker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4
Default

I realize this has nothing to do with Ariola Japan, but

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efendija View Post
There are several possible fields to note for starters

Label - just that, a label
Distributor
Manufacturer (it does not have to be the company which owns the label but most of the time it is)
Publisher - real music publisher, something that was almost never cared about but it exists
Sound recording copyright holder - the ℗ symbol

Example
Label: Varèse Sarabande
Distributor: Universal Music Distribution
Manufacturer: Varèse Sarabande Records, Inc. (as a record company)
Publisher: T C F Music Publishing, Inc.
Sound recording copyright holder - Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
Your example seems to be talking about song publishing, which Japanese releases tend to not care about mentioning at all.

However, there is an actual concept of release publisher that you've omitted, that is always talked about on Japanese releases (発売元). It's often the same as the manufacturer, but not always:

Quote:
Originally Posted by XECJ-1008
Label : Joint Records
Manufactured by : Joint Records
発売元 : Joint Records / Third-Ear JPN Ltd.
販売元 : バウンディ株式会社
and by definition, it's not the same different concept as the label:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVCA-74538/B
Label : DIVEⅡ
発売元 : エイベックス・ピクチャーズ株式会社
販売元 : エイベックス・ピクチャーズ株式会社
Manufactured by : AVEX PICTURES INC.
And really, there are many Japanese releases that won't even mention manufacturer, possibly because of 発売元 (but as I mentioned, it is not actually unusual to find that 発売元 is not the same concept as manufacturer.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by N23D-001
Label : SQUARE BRAND
発売元 : NTT出版
販売元 : アメリカーナ・レコード

Last edited by TopRanker; Sep 18, 2016 at 04:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Sep 19, 2016, 12:40 AM
Efendija's Avatar
Efendija Efendija is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Serbia
Posts: 1,901
Default

Yeah, I'm aware my example has nothing to do with Ariola Japan, it was an opportunity to mention a general non-JP example, there aren't just Japanese releases in this database.

Music (song) publishing is valid and important information found on albums (often a single legal entity for original scores), for Japanese ones not really, it'll be simply omitted there, sure.

About release publisher vs. manufacturer, that's also a topic for discussion and what is actually meant under 発売元.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Feb 24, 2018, 02:07 PM
nstz nstz is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 383
Default

So, can we just "promote" ariola back to a publisher for consistency since it doesn't seem like we are changing any of the other Sony labels?

I don't see any difference on releases from ariola and other Sony labels (i.e. Ki/oon, SME Records, SACRA MUSIC), yet they are all "publishers" and ariola is an "imprint".

Also another unrelated question with regards to Sony's labels; should onenation albums really have Sony Music Associated Records linked as a publisher? I notice that the imprints of Sony Music Records are simply linked directly as publisher with no mention of Sony Music Records.

Also another question, for Sony Music Records releases with no imprint, which should be the publisher: https://vgmdb.net/org/1338 or https://vgmdb.net/org/1339
Examples of such releases are https://vgmdb.net/album/68262 and https://vgmdb.net/album/49897

Last edited by nstz; Feb 24, 2018 at 02:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Mar 1, 2018, 01:57 PM
nstz nstz is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 383
Default

- Updated ariola back to publisher for consistency with other Sony Music Labels' labels (i.e. SME Records, Ki/oon Music, SACRA MUSIC)
- Updated onenation and Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Records to publisher for consistency with the the imprints of Sony Music Records (i.e. MASTERSIX, gr8! Records, Sony Records, breakvag)
- Imprintless Sony Music Records releases are now linked to the Sony Music Records entry rather than Sony Music Labels Inc.

Please let me know if you have issues with any of the changes.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Mar 1, 2018, 03:21 PM
Phonograph's Avatar
Phonograph Phonograph is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 5.342.482.337.666
Posts: 3,795
Default

I have issues with the changes
ariola is no more a (publisher) company, just a (imprint) label belonging to sony so your changes are wrong
onenation and yeah yeah are labels, not publishers

sony music records is nothing, just the copyright holder from the pre-sony music labels inc period so linking that is wrong too
sony music labels inc is the real manufacturer to link (aka publisher on vgmdb)

man, seriously, all your changes are wrong

Last edited by Phonograph; Mar 1, 2018 at 03:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Mar 1, 2018, 06:22 PM
nstz nstz is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phonograph View Post
ariola is no more a (publisher) company, just a (imprint) label belonging to sony so your changes are wrong
I'm aware that ariola is no longer a company. But the same is true of SME Records, Epic, Ki/oon etc.. yet they all continue to be linked as publishers. Why should ariola be the odd one out? I'm fine with listing ariola as an imprint post-2014 but if we are going to do that I think it should be consistent with other labels under Sony Music Labels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phonograph View Post
onenation and yeah yeah are labels, not publishers
Once again, other equivalent cases of "labels" in the Sony umbrella are linked as publishers, not imprints - I don't see why these should be different. See https://vgmdb.net/org/1267, https://vgmdb.net/org/712, https://vgmdb.net/org/1390 etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phonograph View Post
sony music records is nothing, just the copyright holder from the pre-sony music labels inc period so linking that is wrong too
Isn't Sony Music Records (minus the Inc.) the parent label of gr8! Records, Sony Records, MASTERSIX etc.. even after 2014? How exactly is it "nothing"? The twitter account of Sony Music Records implies that Sony Records, gr8! records, MASTERSIX FOUNDATION, N46Div., K46Div. and Around the World are their current imprints, which are usually linked as publishers on vgmdb (see above). But since these releases are lacking a specific imprint it makes sense to me to link the parent label as a "publisher".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phonograph View Post
sony music labels inc is the real manufacturer to link (aka publisher on vgmdb)
I mostly see labels linked as publisher on vgmdb rather than the manufacturer or record company.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Mar 2, 2018, 12:58 AM
Phonograph's Avatar
Phonograph Phonograph is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 5.342.482.337.666
Posts: 3,795
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nstz View Post
I'm aware that ariola is no longer a company. But the same is true of SME Records, Epic, Ki/oon etc.. yet they all continue to be linked as publishers. Why should ariola be the odd one out? I'm fine with listing ariola as an imprint post-2014 but if we are going to do that I think it should be consistent with other labels under Sony Music Labels.
"all" shouldn't be linked as publishers, you didn't get my point about ariola
if ariola mustn't be linked as a publisher, it means the rest mustn't be linked as a publisher either
to use a math expression, you made 10 +1 whereas you should make 1 +10

Quote:
Originally Posted by nstz View Post
Once again, other equivalent cases of "labels" in the Sony umbrella are linked as publishers, not imprints - I don't see why these should be different. See https://vgmdb.net/org/1267, https://vgmdb.net/org/712, https://vgmdb.net/org/1390 etc
there is a thing that you must understand, because of the shitty system of labels/manuf of vgmdb some stuff are badly made
during a long moment the only way to link a label (imprint) and display on album page was to link it as a publisher (honestly I don't remember if that problem got resolved since I'm no more trusted for 2 years)
if that problem is resolved, so all labels should be linked as imprint

Quote:
Originally Posted by nstz View Post
Isn't Sony Music Records (minus the Inc.) the parent label of gr8! Records, Sony Records, MASTERSIX etc.. even after 2014? How exactly is it "nothing"? The twitter account of Sony Music Records implies that Sony Records, gr8! records, MASTERSIX FOUNDATION, N46Div., K46Div. and Around the World are their current imprints, which are usually linked as publishers on vgmdb (see above). But since these releases are lacking a specific imprint it makes sense to me to link the parent label as a "publisher".
sony music records inc was a record company that became sony music labels inc
smr was the copyrights holder as the time of smr inc, and is still after smr inc became sml inc
but smr isn't a label, maybe I'd have had to specify, I used smr as publisher for convenience (but normally it's smr inc that should be showed, not smr)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nstz View Post
I mostly see labels linked as publisher on vgmdb rather than the manufacturer or record company.
for convience with the system (see above)

to sum up, all "publisher" (manuf) links that are "imprints" (labels) should be linked as imprint, not as publisher
and normally publishers should be linked in their company name like distro (it's more convenient for people to continue as usually)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Mar 2, 2018, 01:43 AM
nstz nstz is offline
VGMdb Staff
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 383
Default

I see your point regarding ariola, onenation etc but I'm not sure if I want to restructure all SML releases considering there seems to be little consesus on what is actually linked as a publisher (just see the current thread). If we can reach a consensus I'm willing to change them (although I'll probably regret it the moment I start considering how many releases there are..)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phonograph View Post
sony music records inc was a record company that became sony music labels inc
smr was the copyrights holder as the time of smr inc, and is still after smr inc became sml inc
but smr isn't a label, maybe I'd have had to specify, I used smr as publisher for convenience (but normally it's smr inc that should be showed, not smr)
Fair enough, I moved those releases back to Sony Music Labels Inc.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Mar 2, 2018, 01:59 AM
Phonograph's Avatar
Phonograph Phonograph is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 5.342.482.337.666
Posts: 3,795
Default

the problem is that since the beginning of vgmdb, that label system is shitty
blah and ss are aware of that but it's not a priority (I even wonder if there are even priorities ;p)

I tried to use some tricks to make some stuff working (like starchild, lantis, etc) but for convience with stuff already linked, there are a lot of things I never started to correct because there is too much to do
that's why I said "it's more convenient for people to continue as usually" (usual* actually)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump