KICA-1139: Perfect Collection Ys IV The Dawn of Ys Vol. 1

[XISMZERO]

Music represented on this disc reflect the music arranged by Ryo Yonemitsu from Ys IV Dawn of Ys from the PC Engine version. I've clarified here: http://shufflerinthedark.blogspot.co...awn-of-ys.html

[Matron]

Nice article. I enjoyed the read, but...

It all started when he was commissioned to arrange Yuzo Koshiro's Ys series

Still, the original PC Engine Dawn of Y's

Please fix all that.

[Crash]

The strange thing is that on the PC-Engine SCD for Ys IV, they include an apostrophe in the title on the disc face.

[Secret Squirrel]

So, about these Falcom albums. The Obi says that the publisher is King Records (bottom left), so I don't think it is correct to list King as the distributor and Falcom as the publisher. At best (and I'm not completely certain), we could list both as publishers.

How often does the game publisher have a logo on the spine though? It might be common, and perhaps we shouldn't list Falcom as a partner publisher here (if they are just the game publisher).

[Phonograph]

actually using falcom as publisher is more correct, king records only made the rest (manufacturing, distributing)
it's the "falcom label" used by falcom to release their stuff long ago (like konami etc)

[Efendija]

Why isn't a simple 'publisher: Falcom / distributor: King Record' present then?

I get this as 'Published by King Record under exclusive license from Falcom' kind of thing.

Maybe both as publishers is good.

[xakdrek]

A lot of the older Falcom albums, that were distributed by King Records, are reappearing on digital download websites (iTunes, Amazon, etc.) with Falcom as the publisher. It would probably be beneficial to list both publishers since many older albums are starting to get thrown in as unneeded submissions

Ex.
http://vgmdb.net/album/33963
exact same as this
http://vgmdb.net/album/3736
There are many more examples like this as well.

Heres a list of King Records albums
http://falcomcdcatalog.jeremyevans.net/publisher/5

[Efendija]

It's not unneeded submissions when you have 15+ years gap between original jp CD release and digital download. Publisher of the digital release is Falcom, they don't need King for that.

[Phonograph]

man, if you remove falcom, so remove konami too
and while you're at it, remove all starchild records links (since it's not in publisher line, only seen by its logo)

note for SS: labels don't manufacture, they produce so it's normal it's not in that publisher line

[xakdrek]

Originally Posted by Efendija

It's not unneeded submissions when you have 15+ years gap between original jp CD release and digital download. Publisher of the digital release is Falcom, they don't need King for that.

The problem is that they are doing this with EVERY King Records release, so you would need to make separate pages for each of these albums

Albums Published By King Records
http://falcomcdcatalog.jeremyevans.net/publisher/5

plus, if you want to separate every physical and digital release, then you would need to do this for every single album!

Physical
http://vgmdb.net/album/29735
Digital (which is unneeded as well)
http://vgmdb.net/album/30511

Keep in mind that these are the EXACT same albums with no differences whatsoever.

It would be better to do what is being done like with this album
http://vgmdb.net/album/1462
(or fix this album for consistency sake)

[Efendija]

Originally Posted by xakdrek

The problem is that they are doing this with EVERY King Records release, so you would need to make separate pages for each of these albums

I wouldn't "need" to make. Anyone, when the years difference is 'stronger', can make a reprint for the digital release (even if it's exactly the same).

As for albums 29735 & 30511 it's released on the same day so I wouldn't have made the reprint page but apparently Myrkul had some reason.

Originally Posted by Phonograph

man, if you remove falcom, so remove konami too
and while you're at it, remove all starchild records links (since it's not in publisher line, only seen by its logo)

Starchild as a label of its parent record company is normal to be entered. Falcom is not a label / imprint of King, however it is closer to format 'Falcom / King Records' than to just list King as the distributor.

[xakdrek]

Originally Posted by Efendija

I wouldn't "need" to make. Anyone, when the years difference is 'stronger', can make a reprint for the digital release (even if it's exactly the same).
As for albums 29735 & 30511 it's released on the same day so I wouldn't have made the reprint page but apparently Myrkul had some reason.

I didn't mean you in particular would make the albums. Sorry.
Also many of the digital Falcom album release dates are different by 1 or 2 years throughout different distributors (iTunes, Amazon, Mora.jp etc.) and different regions (US & Japan). This would easily get out of control fast.
And Digital and physical albums such as 29735 & 30511 were not released on the same day until about a few months ago. Each digital website (itunes, amazon, Mora.jp) has different dates of release as well.
ex.)
http://mora.jp/artist/299183/all
Depending on what system is going to be used, a child album could be added for every King Records album distributed digitally by Falcom and just put the JP year as the release date. I'm just not certain what the best direction is for this yet.

[Efendija]

29735 & 30511 are listed with the same release dates here, I just assumed that info is good, if you have better info, you're free to correct the release date of iTunes version. iTunes release dates aren't so reliable anyway, at least when existing CDs are the topic. They'll put the date of the CD and not the actual date when the digital version was added to iTunes which would be the real release date of the reprint.
I understand your concern about the digital version overload but for really old releases such as those when Falcom still needed King, digital entries aren't all that bad (and a single one is enough, not by different digital vendors). That is one of the reasons when the reprint can be added - big time gap. Even more when it's not really a reprint, meaning it's missing some tracks from the CD release (sometimes digital version can have also an extra track though), such entries already exist in the database.

Also a ~2 years old thread with Fearin's great info (second to last post currently):
http://vgmdb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9919

[xakdrek]

I'm probably not wording myself well. Sorry.
30511 doesn't really need to exist. The digital release is just meant to compliment the physical release.

So I'm still not certain. Would "Falcom / King Records" be the best option, or a child album under the "King Records" album with the digital falcom album, or both?

[Efendija]

Maybe I'm not reading it in the right way so I'm sorry too.

We'll see what's best.

And just to repeat, I don't know why 30511's added, Myrkul probably does.

[Secret Squirrel]

Whenever I see 発売元, I know that the company mentioned has to be at least the partner publisher. It seems like the consensus is to List both Falcom and King as the publishers (actually it'll end up as Falcom, King Records, since Falcom / King Records only results if I assign Falcom as an imprint.)