Merge request: Composers Recordings Inc. (CRI) / Composers Recordings, Inc.

Both Composers Recordings, Inc. are in the database, which are exactly the same.
CRI stands for... Composers Recordings, Inc.

There are various logo's for this label & company. Some just showing "CRI", some Showing "CRI" & "Composers Recordings, Inc." next to each other, some showing just Composers Recordings, Inc.. Often appearing mixed on the same releases (sleeve vs. labels, for instance)

I haven't seen any appearance as "Composers Recordings Inc. (CRI)"

I propose invalidating Composers Recordings Inc., as it makes no sense using a name followed by its abbreviation, unless it would appear that way.

Unrelated but came up when searching for CRI. Is (CRI)2 correctly entered? Sorry for the hijack, carry on.

Relvet
Is (CRI)2 correctly entered?

An unrelated CRI, but while we're at it: It looks it is effectively entered as it appears: "(CRI)2", it appears consistently like that, looking at the images.

I propose invalidating Composers Recordings Inc. (CRI) and keep Composers Recordings Inc., as it makes no sense using a name followed by its abbreviation, unless it would appear that way.

+1

Brrummpppingg the topic

Dr.SultanAszazin
Brrummpppingg the topic

they are obviously the same, so they should be merged
the majority of the ones I checked have 'CRI' as the main logo, though, like this
https://i.discogs.sie.com/EiM1VxYELAO1JXXyRN-G95I18_V2n84auOZ92welp7s/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:600/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTkzNjc0/NC0xNDgxNTIwMjY2/LTM3MDQuanBlZw.jpeg
'Composers Recordings Inc. ' appears mostly as the record company
shouldn't the label be just 'CRI'? (like EMI or RCA)

marcelrecords
the majority of the ones I checked have 'CRI' as the main logo, though, like this

They have a Bandcamp page for the reissues: https://composersrecordingsinc.bandcamp.com/

It's one of the rare cases where the "inc." is just included in the label name.
I don't think it's right to consider "CRI" the label and "Composers Recordings Inc." the record company.

But just CRI certainly is a candidate, as there are plenty of releases which show a logo only containing CRI mostly newer ones, on first sight. Older records (although the ones I have seen) mostly have CRI & Composers Recordings, Inc. together.
Here for instance, it's just the label "Composers Recordings Inc." on front: https://www.discogs.sie.com/master/1328450-Quincy-Porter-Elliott-Carter-The-Stanley-Quartet--Of-The-New-York-Woodwind-Quintet-String-Qua/image/SW1hZ2U6MzMxNzU1Mzc=

As those showing a CRI logo, would often have textual company roles like ℗ and ©, where the name is written in full, it would probably end up in two profiles for the same thing. CRI being the imprint, Composers Recordings, Inc, the full name.

I have never been a fan of these artificial split ups, based on graphical representations of the same thing. But it's an accepted approach and possible.
I'd prefer just "Composers Recordings Inc." for both "CRI", "Composers Recordings Inc." or them appearing combined. Regardless in what role it appears.

Hawnster
I propose invalidating Composers Recordings Inc. (CRI) and keep Composers Recordings Inc., as it makes no sense using a name followed by its abbreviation, unless it would appear that way.

+1

+1