No, you do not make up fake labels based on a matrix number. Most of these, if not all of them, were made up by you!
A label and a series are based on branding, not on you taking a matrix number and inventing what you are calling a pseudo-series (most are actually entered by you as pseudo labels - putting the word Series in a label name doesn't make it a series).
A matrix # can be matched with a manufacturer (if discussed beforehand) but you can't just invent a label, something that you seem to have done over and over. What's worse, many of these Not on Labels have been entered on releases that clearly do have a label.
RSG §4.4.2. Not On Label pseudo-labels have been created to gather distinct series of releases without labels. The most common groupings are based on similar content and catalog numbers, and by artist. ... a more common naming scheme is now recommended:
- Not On Label (SeriesName Series) -- for material with a clear pattern but no actual label name associated, like sequential catalog numbers and similar content, or the inclusion of an email address
Are they any more or less fictional or useful than groupings such as (to choose some examples at random) Not On Label (RAL Series)?
How on earth can a release have a label and then have a second label called Not On Label based on a matrix. By the logic applied here (or lack of logic) we can create a second label based on a matrix number for any release in the database.
In the case of all these we are looking at an unnamed manufacturer it seems and these numbers can be applied to that company or entity, however it is named, in the correct field. The bigger problem here is the continuation of a process by vsa2011 and others to add a non-existent label to an already branded release because it has a matrix number.
The branded label here is Arista, so it should be Arista (2). It has a cat # on the label. Those facts have been ignored to add a label concocted from the matrix which may or may not refer to an entity.
Many of these so called labels only have 2 or 3 entries so I doubt they are a manufacturer reference as such, rather a matrix subset that may refer to a bigger manufacturer - what we seem to have is a brand new 'label' created every time a manufacturer varies its matrix number.
This stuff is just bizarre, and from experienced submitters too. We went through the same thing with Beatles bootlegs last year from the same group - ignore the label on the release, add one that doesn't appear: for 'collectors' we are told.
In general I believe there's a lot of ground to win when it comes down to how unofficial releases are cataloged here. It's an area where people seem to apply a lot of legacy logic.
Star Mark is another one that really needs a good look. It was discussed before ( http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/5215126a9469733cfcfa75bb#5215126a9469733cfcfa75a9 ) but wasn't really settled I think.
It seems to me Star Mark is just a brand and many of the releases on the page don't have the logo so shouldn't be there. In my opinion it also shouldn't be entered as Record Company as it's a brand and in many cases the logo is not present.
Some releases mention Russian companies ("OOO ......"). If any company should be entered, it's those in my opinion.
That said, two major entries for official releases, Soyuz Music, also need a lot of work.
jweijde
It seems to me Star Mark is just a brand and many of the releases on the page don't have the logo so shouldn't be there. In my opinion it also shouldn't be entered as Record Company as it's a brand and in many cases the logo is not present.
I agree, it was mostly left because the at the time was unable to deal with pursuant to the RSG so a compromise was reached to keep the peace. However it was less than correct.
On these, if a manufacturer could found or even agreed on then I have no problem with these being listed. However, what I do object to is made up labels and, worse, made up labels that sit next to branded labels or replace them.
There is an ongoing argument that these Russian releases are 'special'. I'm unsure why. Because they carry a sequential or a series of sequential matrices? Lots of releases do exactly that from all over the world and we don't manipulate that into fake labels.
Opdiner
How on earth can a release have a label and then have a second label called Not On Label based on a matrix. By the logic applied here (or lack of logic) we can create a second label based on a matrix number for any release in the database.
BUT - other releases from the 'Series' do not mention any labels: http://www.discogs.sie.com/viewimages?release=3777162 - has no label logo !
So - why can't we can apply RSG §4.4.2. with the 'clear pattern' thing ???
In some other discussions s suggested that Not On Label (xxx series) is actually a MANUFACTURER, not a label. And on both releases linked above we can add it as a manufacturer.
But Opdiner insists that there's no such role Not On MANUFACTURER (xxx series)
I agree with that, but as you know this is historical on Discogs - previously Discogs had no 'type=manufacturer' profiles, and even now Manufacturer and Record Company profiles are treated as Labels (for example,. SONOPRESS page on Discogs is http://www.discogs.sie.com/label/Sonopress) - did you notice the word 'Label' in the link ? Isn't it illogical, Opdiner ? :)
jweijde
It seems to me Star Mark is just a brand and many of the releases on the page don't have the logo so shouldn't be there. In my opinion it also shouldn't be entered as Record Company as it's a brand and in many cases the logo is not present.
But there are so many releases under Star Mark, that nobody took the work to edit them all.
I personally have only edited the releases that I have (in collection or for sale), but I had no time to edit all others.
Opdiner
There is an ongoing argument that these Russian releases are 'special'. I'm unsure why. Because they carry a sequential or a series of sequential matrices? Lots of releases do exactly that from all over the world and we don't manipulate that into fake labels.
But this are Pirate CDs, and the pirate CD market has it's own rules. While official CDs use colourful label logos to promote their releases, pirates of the '90s - early '00s could allow such things - as they were working in the 'shadow' market. And they used various other tricks to make their products be distinguishable from products of other pirates - such as using special styles of writing matrix numbers. And in such countries as Russia matrix numbers often speak to people more then logos - when you see the given symbols on the matrix, you may often know even if the audio quality is good or not, among other things. This was a special code, secret language :) And guys like vsa2011 try to share their knowledge of this language with the rest of the world.
And what is your mission, Opdiner ? To stop them from sharing knowledge with others ?
Why do you keep denying the fact that in some countries Matrix numbers are more then 'just matrix numbers' ?
Opdiner
Many of these so called labels only have 2 or 3 entries so I doubt they are a manufacturer reference as such, rather a matrix subset that may refer to a bigger manufacturer - what we seem to have is a brand new 'label' created every time a manufacturer varies its matrix number.
Not long ago there were Not On Label (CDDANSK Series) and Not On Label (CDNSK Series)
Then it was revealed that they are both from NSK record company (revealed by finding a wholesale catalogue of the company) - and both series were merged into Record company.
But - the Series were an important step to collect, sort, arrange and prepare the data for this Merge.
If the Not On Label (Series) were not created on Discogs, than nobody would probably have got an idea to research if these releases are of common origin.
So what do we have: Discogs is an evolving site, like WikiPedia.
I often see pages of official labels merged, edited, dropped or divided.
So I take these Series as a temporary page to group releases of similar origin.
Later, when the real name of the manufacturer will be revealed, we can always merge and edit the Label\Company profiles.
But there are so many releases under Star Mark, that nobody took the work to edit them all.
I personally have only edited the releases that I have (in collection or for sale), but I had no time to edit all others.
It was a compromise. One I don't agree with because there's no indication there actually is a company called "Star Mark".
Aside from this, there are a number of releases which don't seem to belong on the Star Mark page anyway.
Example: http://www.discogs.sie.com/viewimages?release=2315392
In my opinion label should be Синерджи (not completely sure, but it seems this is what's written underneath the "S" logo). The companies in the release notes can be entered with the appropriate company roles.
test01
And what is your mission, Opdiner ? To stop them from sharing knowledge with others ?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with stopping people from sharing knowledge about unofficial releases.
It is about properly cataloguing unofficial releases. When it comes to cataloguing them, they are really hardly any different to official releases. All guidelines that apply to official releases also apply to unofficial ones.
vsa2011
OK and what we have now? Are series based on the matrix legitimate?
I would say only and only if there is some alphabetic code in the matrix that could be seen as the 'name' of the manufacturer.
If there's only a numeric code, then the only way to group them would be by creating a list. You can't make up series names and the matrix does not contain enough to determine a name.
Thanks for that nik. I think it would be good to have a standardized name for these unofficial series though. This wouldn't be much of a problem I think, because these series names will mostly be 'made up' already (e.g. they're not officially existing) With a standardized name, they're easier to spot as 'unofficial' entities.
My suggestion would be "Unofficial [matrix pattern] Series", see the example below.
An example how I think they should be entered taken from the Korn - Life Is Peachy
Label - Not On Label (why is it Storm Records (2) now? See no indication of that label)
Catalog# - none (no cat# present on artwork)
Series - Unofficial AIN Series
Series catalog# - AIN812308 (though I'm wondering where that comes from, don't see it on the release)
Matrix - BRA 229
I figured out now why Storm Records (2) was entered as label. It is based on the matrix it seems. I think it would be better if this was changed into a series called "Unofficial BRA Series" instead. Label should be "Not On Label".
The BRA series can be linked to the Storm Records page via the Parent Label.
Series - A branded series of releases. These will usually be a number of releases on one label, carrying a distinct extra branding indicating a series.
A matrix does not create a branded series, nor does it create a series under the legacy rule as that requires a "sequential catalog numbers and similar content". A matrix is not similar content, it's a matrix. Or are all sequential matrices now be deemed a series?
Opdiner
A matrix does not create a branded series, nor does it create a series under the legacy rule as that requires a "sequential catalog numbers and similar content".
The way I read it the "sequential catalog numbers and similar content" was not a requirement, but merely an example.
Legacy issue #1 - Not On Label (SeriesName Series) was used for material with a clear pattern but no actual label name associated, like sequential catalog numbers and similar content, or the inclusion of an email address. These should now be entered with the label as a plain 'Not On Label', and the series name in the series field.
In the topic about the guideline change I also adressed the fact that these series are not branded and thus not series by definition. But it's a compromise I can live with as long as the naming of them is standardized.
jweijde
My suggestion would be "Unofficial [matrix pattern] Series"
The matrix must contain an alphabetic code that is the same on all releases to be considered a 'series'. For releases with only a numeric matrix, there is no other option than to create a public list I think.
jweijde
Series catalog# - AIN812308 (though I'm wondering where that comes from,
jweijde, AIN812308 is from CD - not from the matrix, but from the picture (upper) surface of the CD.
Opdiner
A matrix does not create a branded series, nor does it create a series under the legacy rule as that requires a "sequential catalog numbers and similar content". A matrix is not similar content, it's a matrix. Or are all sequential matrices now be deemed a series?
Opdiner, please TRY to be open-minded and try to read and to understand what other people are explaining to you.
Please try to understand that each country has it's own traditions, which apply to CD manufacturing also.
Such countries as Russia and China have taken 'their own way' in history, and speaking of CDs and DVDs, there are many things here, which you won't see in any other parts of the world.
For example, in China there are such releases as CD-ROMs with video in Real Video format (usually contain films, but may feature music programs too). Also I was surprised to find out that Chinese Video CDs may contain up to 1 GB of video (while normal Video CDs are limited to 700 Mb) - it's because they remove the error correction codes (which are implemented in the Video CD standard, and which require a lot of space) - that's how they manage to fit longer video programs on a CD-ROM.
In Russia instead of 'Real Video CD-ROMs' in between 1999 and 2004 'MPEG4 CD-ROMs' were manufactured - this are CD-ROMs which contain video (sometimes music programs) as AVI files in MPEG4 (usually XVid) format.
Also Russia has such type of release as MP3 CD-ROM - which contains many albums & singles on one disk as a collection of MP3 files. This format was invented by the pirates, but has gained huge popularity - and now many MP3 CD-ROMs are released officially.
At the same time, believe me or not, such type of release as CD-Single is hardly known in Russia (while in Europe and USA it's one of the most popular music formats). The reason is - at the 'golden age' of CD-Singles (in the '90s and early '00s) in Russia the life level was very low - and most people could afford themselves only several CDs per month. So people were buying only CDs which contained A LOT of songs, which are Albums and Compilations. So from thousands of recording Russian artists probably less then 5% have ever released a CD-Single.
NOW BACK TO THE TOPIC. Due to the poor economic situation in the '90s, the CD-market of Russia was taken over by the pirates. At first they imported CDs manufactured by the pirate plants in Bulgaria. But around '98 Bulgaria was forced (by EU and USA) to suppress the pirate production - and the production moved to Russia.
In Russia there were also local Official plants (such as Ekaterinburg CD factory known as UEP or UEP-CD), which also switched to pirate production due to economic crisis (known as 'default') which hit the country in the '90s.
At the same time, after the Bulgarian piracy was defeated, the Western companies started demanding from the Russian government to shut down piracy in Russia too.
In '98 these requests were discarded by the Russian government, because the country was a bankrupt and was hardly making its living.
But around 2000-2002 the Russian government was forced to start the war with piracy. The police has taken over such companies as http://www.discogs.sie.com/label/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA or http://www.discogs.sie.com/label/CD+Media+Records which were marking their production with logos and label\company names.
But the market was still in demand for cheap CDs. The pirate companies have started to work in new conditions - now they couldn't brand their productions with any logos, which would give away the fact the pirate CD was made in Russia.
But there were many such companies, they were working on a market with rivalry.
The pirate companies were competing against each other, so they had to invent a way to mark their production - so that the buyer would know that the CD comes from a 'good' company, which has produced the CD from quality source.
As you know, pirates often compile CDs from lossy source - such as MP3 files. Such CDs have poor quality - and all buyers tried to avoid them.
That's why the 'good' companies had to use some 'id' to mark their production.
And they have found a way - IT'S THE CD MATRIX.
In Russia of that time most of pirate CDs were sold in NOT SEALED condition - the buyer could hold the release in his hands, open it, look at the CD.
Also many of the buyers of that time, after buying a pirate CD, would rip it to hard drive and then inspect the audio with a Spectral Analyser, such as build in such programs as Cool Edit (now Adobe Audition) and Sound Forge - as you know, in Russia 95% software on home computers is pirate, so every audio enthusiast has Audition or Sound Forge at home and can do basic tricks with it.
Not so experienced or more busy s were using such tools as AudioChecker and auCDtect, which are less accurate, but are fully automated.
Why do you keep insisting they are against Guidelines ?
Previous edition of Guidelines said: RSG §4.4.2. Not On Label pseudo-labels have been created to gather distinct series of releases without labels. The most common groupings are based on similar content and catalog numbers, and by artist. ... a more common naming scheme is now recommended:
- Not On Label (SeriesName Series) -- for material with a clear pattern but no actual label name associated, like sequential catalog numbers and similar content, or the inclusion of an email address
So - is Not On Label (Bolt Thrower) = 'actual label name associated' ???
LOL, this is ridiculous :D
As for releases with "a clear pattern", but some fake label logo printed - if the Guidelines do not explicitly allow to create a series - THEN WE MUST UPDATE THE GUIDELINES TO ALLOW THIS.
After all, the Guidelines do not come as a Holy Bible, which was written ages ago and cannot be changed, 'updated' or 'clarified'.
I see the Guidelines are progressing all the time and changes are applied every month.
So why this 'DOUBLE STANDARDS' policy - why accept and apply other changes to Guidelines, but deny the request for this clarification, the one which allows the Series as they come from ex-USSR ???
timetogo
Russian "traditions" don't trump Discogs Guidelines, sorry. These series are NOT correct for Discogs.
Exactly. The above might be good for an academic history but it has little to do with Discogs and how labels and series are created.
And even then has assumptions that are incorrect. For example:
test01
Also Russia has such type of release as MP3 CD-ROM - which contains many albums & singles on one disk as a collection of MP3 files.
These are found all over the world - nothing uniquely Russian about them.
In the close to a decade I've been here I've witnessed countless nationalities try to argue that their releases need to be treated uniquely. I can see nothing in the above that argues to me that we need to create fake labels to satisfy the Discogs guidelines. If a matrix is important, then simply enter it in the correct matrix field. If you know which factory it refers to, then enter it next to the factory as allowed by the RSG.
test01
All the material in question has a CLEAR PATTERN
It's a matrix. Pretty much every matrix on every release has a clear pattern. That does not make them a series.
test01
So why this 'DOUBLE STANDARDS' policy - why accept and apply other changes to Guidelines, but deny the request for this clarification, the one which allows the Series as they come from ex-USSR ???
Because there seems to be nothing more to see here than a manufacturer's matrix. That such a matrix does not create a series no matter where you come from. There is no double standard - it's you that's asking for one.
And please stop quoting the bible over and over (as you were in submission histories) - this is not a seminary nor a Sunday school
Opdiner
Exactly. The above might be good for an academic history but it has little to do with Discogs and how labels and series are created.
Discogs is evolving through the years.
As a veteran of the site you that previously there were no Manufacturers and Companies, only the Labels.
Also, I'm not sure now, but I think that in early years there were no fields for Matrix Numbers and Barcodes in the BAOI, because the management of the site thought these were not as important as cat#s and people can use Notes to store them if they want.
So the thing which is not important to you can be important to others.
Distributors, Manufacturers... Designers and other credit roles - these were missing before, but added earlier.
So why do you keep insisting that Matrix numbers mean nothing ? While they actually ARE, and that's what I'm trying to tell you
The releases with the same 'matrix style' are of the same origin - and this origin is important to collectors of the CDs and not to the 'academic studies' - please leave to 'academic studies' to the scientists.
My suggestion is the following - maybe we should leave RSG 4.4.2. as it is now, but add the following new Guideline:
Unofficial releases with a clear pattern, like sequential catalogue and\or matrix numbers and similar content can be added to a Series. The label for these releases should be added according to RSG 4.4.2.
The only question is how to standardize the name of the series.
it's clear to everyone that "Not On Label" should be removed from the names of the series :)
"Anonymous Manufacturer (XXX Series)" - this is IMHO too complicated :)
"Pirate (XXX Series)" or "Counterfeit (XXX Series)" - sounds good to me, but the submitters may debate if the given series is Pirate or Counterfeit
Or another suggestion: we may use the Manufactured By role, but the manufacturer should be added as "Anonymous (XXX Series)". This sounds good to me, there's no logical conflict (between added 'Label' and 'Not On Label', and even serious reworking of the Guidelines are not required
test01
Distributors, Manufacturers... Designers and other credit roles - these were missing before, but added earlier.
And we have fields for these. Please enter things correctly. There is not one rule for you and a few mates and one for everyone else as you are arguing. This is really straightforward despite all the bogus claims to be special.
There is a clear branded label, and a cat # on the spine and yet you've put it a Not On Label label and overridden the correct cat # with the matrix. It's making stuff up and yet you seem to have done this sort of thing over and over.
test01
Even BLIND people will see a PATTERN in the matrix, as the pattern is not only "OR" letters, but also the barcode (?) symbols around the matrix
In other words they are like matrices the world over. I can show you the matrices from almost any plant and there will be a pattern like that. That is not a series. It's a plant matrix. We have discussed these over and over and how to use them. These are no different. They can be entered in the cat # field of the factory that made them once each case is discussed here.
There is no reason I can see that these should not be treated the same way. What a few of you get excited about in another forum is NOT a reason to invent a series or a label that does not exist and override the rules, and yet that seems to be what your argument revolves round.
test01
Unofficial releases with a clear pattern, like sequential catalogue and\or matrix numbers and similar content can be added to a Series. The label for these releases should be added according to RSG 4.4.2.
No. There is no good reason to add that and you've not put one forward that I can see. We've just got rid of the messy dated rule that said something similar, and it was removed by consensus with a ruling from nik. And now you are asking that it is partially reverted primarily to satisfy these fake labels you've created.
Not sure this is going anywhere. I'm happy with the new guidelines for this.
There is a clear branded label, and a cat # on the spine and yet you've put it a Not On Label label and overridden the correct cat # with the matrix. It's making stuff up and yet you seem to have done this sort of thing over and over.
Have you looked at the date when it was submitted ?
"about 1 year ago"
Everyone can be wrong. And not only me.
Few days ago you've changed CDs of ' Not On Label (AIN Series)' to Not On Label (Artist Name), while many of them have this AIN... on the CD picture surface, so RSG 4.4.2 applies to them exactly.
Also as were are still debating here, it's not clear how this should be changed.
I will be happy to update the releases you mentioned, when we will have an agreement that will accepted by everyone.
Opdiner
Not sure this is going anywhere. I'm happy with the new guidelines for this.
Please stop thinking you're the only person on the world who should be 'happy'.
Discogs was not created just to please your ego. It's the site for music collectors!
Opdiner
We've just got rid of the messy dated rule that said something similar, and it was removed by consensus with a ruling from nik
When Nik updated the Notes, he was mostly engaged by you and your followers, and he didn't hear the arguments of the other side.
Actually his decision was based on another topic (linked above in Nik's post), where your opponents from this thread were not participating, as they were not aware of the thread.
Opdiner
If you know which factory it refers to, then enter it next to the factory as allowed by the RSG.
What about my suggestion from previous post:
another suggestion: we may use the Manufactured By role, but the manufacturer should be added as "Anonymous (XXX Series)". This sounds good to me, there's no logical conflict (between added 'Label' and 'Not On Label', and even serious reworking of the Guidelines are not required
IMO a matrix is a matrix and that's it. Also "official" pressing plants have a certain matrix number formatting, and we don't create series for that either, because we have the manufacturer company credits. We shouldn't make rules or guidelines which apply only on unofficial releases. If sorting these releases together is important, and it can't be achieved within the existing rules, make a public list for it.
Is there a limit in the number of paragraphs in the guidelines or what ? :)
azzurro
"official" pressing plants have a certain matrix number formatting, and we don't create series for that either, because we have the manufacturer company credits
The problem here is that the Manufacturing company name is anonymous
My last suggestion was to use Manufactured by = Anonymous (XXX Series)
I do not see the problem in that... If later we figure out that Anonymous (XXX Series) and Anonymous (YYY Series) are from same manufacturer, we may merge them!
Like we do Merge for 'normal' labels and companies.
Ah I see. Can it be linked to a specific company? Or is it just a sequential code that appears on several releases?
test01
Unofficial releases with a clear pattern, like sequential catalogue and\or matrix numbers and similar content can be added to a Series
Isn't this already addressed in the new guideline?
Legacy issue #1 - Not On Label (SeriesName Series) was used for material with a clear pattern but no actual label name associated, [...]. These should now be entered with the label as a plain 'Not On Label', and the series name in the series field.
The question remains whether you can enter something as a series, when that series is not 'branded' on the release. Afterall, according to the guidelines a series is a "branded series of releases". In general a matrix is not considered branding, so that would mean these matrix-based series are not allowed.
Having these unofficial releases from the same origin grouped together is a good thing, but it looks like the List feature is the only way to do this right now.
This reaches further than just the unofficial releases though. There are quite a lot of catalog#/matrix based series like Not On Label (PICT Series)
I believe we need to decide what we're going to do with these. We can't keep them but get rid of the 'unofficial' ones.
Handling all of them via lists isn't very handy since lists are only editable by the owner of the list.
IMO, that's just the same as the normal artist naming conventions. If not the same company (cause a fake one), you add a number behind it.
test01
The problem here is that the Manufacturing company name is anonymous
My last suggestion was to use Manufactured by = Anonymous (XXX Series)
I can live with that idea, maybe some different wording (e.g. call it XXX Matrix Format or whatever, Personally I'd drop the "series" wording to avoid confusion with real branded series.)
I do not how the Guidelines looked 3 years ago, but probably they allowed this.
In recent years other s (like me) only contributed new CDs for the series.
I also took the opportunity to compose a profile for the series - but this was more then A YEAR AGO.
I agree this should be changed, but...
Nik, I don't know if you took time to read all this thread... But the last suggestion was about Manufactured by = Anonymous (XXX Series) (where XXX is 'HB', 'DK', 'LXZ' and other related series)
What do you think of that ?
If you allow this, I would be happy to update all the 'Matrix Series' I contributed to...
azzurro
I can live with that idea, maybe some different wording (e.g. call it XXX Matrix Format or whatever, Personally I'd drop the "series" wording to avoid confusion with real branded series.)
Yes, I agree that 'Series' may be a little confusing... Probably not as much as current 'Not On Label (XXX Series)', which utilizes both words 'Label' and 'Series' :)
However, 'XXX Matrix Format' is not good too, because 'Not On Label (AIN Series)' (and some other series mentioned above) have Series ID both on CD (surface) and Matrix: part of releases on CD, other part on Matrix
( probably the manufacturer first followed one practise, then changed to another)
What about Manufactured by = Anonymous (XXX) ?
(where XXX is 'HB', 'DK', 'LXZ' and other related 'series identifiers')
Not long ago there were Not On Label (CDDANSK Series) and Not On Label (CDNSK Series)
Then it was revealed that they are both from NSK record company (revealed by finding a wholesale catalogue of the company) - and both series were merged into Record company.
But - the Series were an important step to collect, sort, arrange and prepare the data for this Merge.
If the Not On Label (Series) were not created on Discogs, than nobody would probably have got an idea to research if these releases are of common origin.
So what do we have: Discogs is an evolving site, like WikiPedia.
I often see pages of official labels merged, edited, dropped or divided.
So I take these Series as a temporary page to group releases of similar origin.
Later, when the real name of the manufacturer will be revealed, we can always merge and edit the Label\Company profiles.
Hey, guys i think listed above should stop endless arguments from Not On Label (XXX Series) opponents!
I wonder how people could be so stubborn saying that issue that will help to identify manufacturer is absolutely USELESS?
I think matrix info for PIRATE RELEASES is much more useful that Cat# for example because cat# in most cases it's just copy of already existing Official release! And this cat# giving to us much less info that MATRIX!
As for me no matters in what way label can identify himself among hundreds or thousand labels over the world, it could be Colorful LOGOTYPES, SPECIAL NUMBERS or WORDS as an element of design, SPECIAL PACKAGING or INFORMATION ON MATRIX I'm find information or message to the collectors useful if i can identify and group such releases into separate Label or Series!
And what the best way to identify UNBRANDED PIRATE release? Sure it is Matrix Info! But if we (music collectors) will loose this info or instruments that will help us to group such releases so we will be very angry!
And i don't wanna listen those who saying that discogs is not wikipedia or this kind of information is not for discogs or any bullshit about discogs, the first thing i want to do is to ask him "Who you hell are???" I think it is not your business to decide which information is for discogs and which is not! And it is not your own business to decide which functions should to perform discogs! It is have to be solved by discogs community and I'm a part of discogs community which would like to continue collecting information from CD Matrices and i like suggestion that listed below!
test01
Or another suggestion: we may use the Manufactured By role, but the manufacturer should be added as "Anonymous (XXX Series)". This sounds good to me, there's no logical conflict (between added 'Label' and 'Not On Label', and even serious reworking of the Guidelines are not required
I'm absolutely agree with this suggestion!
I want to encourage discogs istartion to us by changing discogs rules to keep matrix info alive, it is very important for the most post USSR music collectors and for those who submitting such kind of releases!
Romantus
I think it is not your business to decide which information is for discogs and which is not! And it is not your own business to decide which functions should to perform discogs! It is have to be solved by discogs community and I'm a part of discogs community which would like to continue collecting information from CD Matrices and i like suggestion that listed below!
So basically you're saying a decision cannot be made unless it's the one you want?
Romantus
I wonder how people could be so stubborn saying that issue that will help to identify manufacturer is absolutely USELESS?
Of course valid data from a release is not useless. Nobody is claiming it is - but creating false labels to represent that is wrong.
Romantus
And what the best way to identify UNBRANDED PIRATE release? Sure it is Matrix Info! But if we (music collectors) will loose this info or instruments that will help us to group such releases so we will be very angry!
Valid matrix data will not be removed. That has never even been suggested.
StaticGuru
Valid matrix data will not be removed. That has never even been suggested.
Opdiner - made a lot of no good things before majority have any decision!
here one example of his job: http://www.discogs.sie.com/Rammstein-Mutter-Bonus-Trax/release/4232325
So he simply destroyed useful information!
As he did it not for one or two releases but with whole series so information from the series page was lost!!!
I'm sure that Opdiner wanted to help to discogs community but doing such important changes is very perkily!
Ok folks, can everyone please 'take 10' and relax... please don't edit anything else until we can resolve this in a calm way that we can reach a consensus on.
test01
I do not how the Guidelines looked 3 years ago, but probably they allowed this.
This was never allowed in the whole history of Discogs. The label listed on the release is the label and must be entered as such.
test01
Nik, I don't know if you took time to read all this thread... But the last suggestion was about Manufactured by = Anonymous (XXX Series) (where XXX is 'HB', 'DK', 'LXZ' and other related series)
What do you think of that ?
That may be a solution. I can see and understand the desire to catalog this info. Maybe "Unknown (XXX)" would be better?
I'd be interested in other peoples input. Anyone see a problem with doing it that way?
This is a label group of convenience. It does not reflect correct information. It all needs to go. They are not on this label, there is no series. I dont see why this needs discussion other than a handful of s want their own way. It seemingly wasnt created with any discussion.
Can someone get nik back in here to give a ruling on this as some people are being insistent on this incorrect information remaining in discogs for their own convenience.
The matrix codes exist on the submission, the submissions are labelled unofficial, release notes can and should be used. The fake label can and should be removed.
test01
Have you looked at the date when it was submitted ?
The rules were exactly the same on branded labels a year ago. It was as wrong then as it is now. And you knew it was as we'd already had discussions with you about labels then.
Romantus
and look what this person "Opdiner" continuing!!!!
That release is as per the guidelines now. It is not "Not on Label". It has a label, which you lot had decided to ignore, it has a matrix # which is now listed in the matrix field. Why is it wrong? Why should these Russian releases not be subject to the same rules every other release in Discogs is subject to??
Romantus
I want to encourage discogs istartion to us by changing discogs rules to keep matrix info alive,
It is alive on all these, it's in the matrix field.
5.4. Matrix / Run-Out information is often stamped in the run out grooves of records, or in the inner ring of CDs. Vinyl run out etchings can also contain mastering engineer / mastering studio / pressing plant information (often as initials), and extra text. This information can all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.
We can also use that data when we know the plant or manufacturer.
Eviltoastman
Why wouldn't series work as planned though?
Or indeed Label :-)
I think the crux of the issue is no one knows what they are. They are just string of identifying marks. So all we have to do is decide what the closest fit is to what we think they are representing.
Opdiner
It is alive on all these, it's in the matrix field.
Just info and linked info is two big differences as you may know! Buy edit releases you also destroyed label's info in some cases that's why your fast editing is no good i think!
So why can't I start a STEBBING IFPI P801 series for http://www.discogs.sie.com/label/Stebbing+Recording+Centre+Ltd. ? These all carry that deliberate branding in the matrix and have a sequential number? There's no difference in the intent from these Russian releases surely? Lots of other plants we can start a series for too.
You see the problem? This opens a floodgate and was not what the series field was intended for surely.
I have no problem recording this stuff, it's just the endless fake labels that ignore the branding or add a Not On Label tag to a clearly labeled release that is the issue that needs taming.
yep, but it;s not insurmountable as demonstrated by comments from nik above. We just need to keep feeling our way and come to a decision as to how best reflect this clear pattern.
Opdiner
it's just the endless fake labels that ignore the branding or add a Not On Label tag to a clearly labeled release that is the issue that needs taming.
Indeed. Whilst series may fit, it;s not a good fit, but labels taking the burden was a good makeshift which like all fields got abused. We just need to find the best method on how to log this thing. I'm not opposed to using the manufactured by tag as this seems the most likely role. I don;t think Nik's recommendation is that bad.
Romantus
Just info and linked info is two big differences as you may know! Buy edit releases you also destroyed label's info in some cases that's why your fast editing is no good i think!
Nobody 'destroyed' the label info as the label is still there. There are literally dozens of these where the correct label info was never entered - it was completely ignored by you lot and fake labels created for your own convenience as "collectors".
If manufacturing company \ label would like to be anonymous so we can't do anything... Only we can do is to mark him as NOT ON LABEL but it's not enough because NOT ON LABEL tell us nothing! But Label's signature via Matrix Number telling us much more! And company \ label that has been manufacturing such releases is really exists isn't it???! So why we can't mark it in right way = Label or at least company or maybe series? Why we trying to limit yourself with simply text in matrix\runout section? Why we don't want to see linked information that will lead us to the manufacturers or Label's page wher we can find additional information about who has made this product?
but because my reply was under 10 digits it didn't . i assumed that it had. I was wondering why you took so much time out to speak with me after I basically said "I agree".
Not on label must written - if you don't know who made it or artist pressed vinyl or cd himself. but this series must written NoN (xxx) or manufactured by: XXX.
that's correct!
Sounds good, although I personally would use "Pressed By" instead. It's a credit based on info found on the disc and "Pressed By" is what we are supposed to enter when there is no specific role given in the matrix.
So I think "Manufactured By" role is more correct.
From the Guidelines: Manufactured By - A general term for making the physical release, this term is used a lot of the time to indicate the company that oversaw the manufacturing process, rather than the company that physically did the manufacturing, but the role can be used by either if it is used on the release.
schokh
You can not delete establishing communications between releases, only to change
Yes, yes you can if they are incorrect added. Which they are, as has been established in this thread.
schokh
Not On Label (DJ Tiësto) - Cat# none
Manufactured By : Unknown (LDB)
maybe simply Manufactured By : LDB - Cat# 1478
Then you agree that opdinder edit was in effect correct. To remove the fake label was correct in itself. Other information needs now to be added but that is a different matter.
You and others can now make these changes. Please do so and we can put this matter to bed.
It should be Manufactured By - Unknown (LDB), Catalog# LDB 1478
This only counts for unofficial releases with alphabetic characters in the matrix though. I do not think you can enter a Manufactured By credit when there are only numbers in the matrix (like Star Mark).
I have updated some CDs I've previously contributed to. Please VOTE to confirm the new 'Manufacturer' profiles, so that I can fill them with info from the old 'Series' profiles:
vsa2011, schokh - please edit the series you have created before, and ask here for votes, so that the new Manufacturer profiles will be available for editing.
I suggest the following steps:
1) edit 1-2 releases of each 'Series'
2) ask here for votes
3) after you receive a vote, please move the info from old 'Series' profile to the new 'Manufacturer' profile.
4) then please completely move your Series releases to a new profile.
p.s. As Opdiner have completely 'destroyed' some of your 'series', you can try to find your releases in the history his edits: http://www.discogs.sie.com/submissions?=Opdiner
Before someone voted Correct on them, they are available in a list of his Pending submissions (link given above)
