Potential Mass Edit §14.1.2 Violation Involving Caribbean Records Mfg. Corp.

mikeyman66
** These following labels have been verified as being Pressed By: Caribbean Records Mfg. Corp. by direct communication from Jose Armada Jr. @ Linked in & directly from wife Annette Armada @ Facebook.

mikeyman66
** > Joey Boy Records
** > JR Records
** > On Top Records
** > Halogram
** > HHH Records

+1 Agreed

elcholopaco
+1 Agreed

How can you agree without any proof? Realistically, I'm confident that, at the very least, CRMC pressed many of the releases on those labels. However, that doesn't mean we should automatically assign CRMC to the pressed by role as there is not a reasonably verifiable (RSG §1.1.2) factual basis for doing so. If there is a reliable way to ID a CRMC pressing, e.g., a runout stamp, label embossment, etc., then by all means please share that so we can add it to the common runout etchings list and begin ID'ing more releases that were CRMC pressings. If not, then all what we can do is add it whenever it's explicitly mentioned on the release.

@RSG §10.7.1 - Credits From External Sources

mikeyman66
** These following labels have been verified as being Pressed By: Caribbean Records Mfg. Corp. by direct communication from Jose Armada Jr. @ Linked in & directly from wife Annette Armada @ Facebook.

+1 Agreed

understanding that this guideline adheres more towards actual "artist credits" but the guideline does state "Credits that do not appear on the release can be added under certain circumstances. The (credible) credit source must be stated in the submission notes..."

Perhaps Discogs Management can shed a little light here:
Diognes_The_Fox

"For What It's Worth" - Jose Armada Jr. being the record label's owner; would undoubtedly have confirmation as outlined above.

berothbr
How can you agree without any proof?

Maybe the same reason as the CC's for every nonsense …

berothbr
However, that doesn't mean we should automatically assign CRMC to the pressed by role as there is not a reasonably verifiable (RSG §1.1.2) factual basis for doing so.

+1 Indeed.

The blanket statement that they work for label XY and YZ isn't enough for a company credit IMNSHO.
We don't even have the possibily – different from artist credits – to mark these as [Uncredited] as per the quoted Guideline about artists.
The [Uncredited] solution is in no way comparable with a company credit.
For companies was always valid: either it's credited on the release or verifiable from the runouts or not.
If not = no credit.

typoman2
For companies was always valid: either it's credited on the release or verifiable from the runouts or not. If not = no credit.

100% agreed. What I do when I am pretty sure it's a particular pressing, engineer's etching, etc., but am unable to sufficiently it, I just explain my suspicions in the submission history with the hope that someone else might see it, investigate further, and be able to prove (or disprove) it.

With CRMC, because Jose Armada Jr., the best outcome would be if they could ask them about how we can identify a CRMC pressed record independently just like how are able to with the other pressing plants. If there isn't a runout identifier, maybe there's a combination of a particular typeface, ring diameter, embossment, etc. — basically some kind of an observable physical characteristic. If we could do that, then we would not only be able to ID the releases on the labels mentioned above, but also perhaps contract jobs, 'metalwork', and so forth, which would cast a much wider net.

elcholopaco
Perhaps Discogs Management can shed a little light here:

Discogs has repeatedly done this not only in numerous posts, but also explicitly in numerous RSGs ranging from RSG §1.1.2 (external info must be reasonably verifiable) to RSG §4.1.2 (other companies mentioned on the release are optional).

elcholopaco
"Credits that do not appear on the release can be added under certain circumstances. The (credible) credit source must be stated in the submission notes..."

RSG §10.7.1 applies to credits, which is entirely different as it applies to credit roles. §4 regulates labels and companies.

elcholopaco
Jose Armada Jr. being the record label's owner; would undoubtedly have confirmation as outlined above

Unless the RSGs are changed, I don't think this makes a difference here.

Same old same old really.
When are management going to limit this 's editing rights?

berothbr
Inviting djindio to discuss their comments posted here, here, and here.

ok. if you are intent on mass-removal of this data, who am i to stop you? what could i possibly contribute or say over what has already been said?

djindio
if you are intent on mass-removal of this data, who am i to stop you?

If you review my initial post, specifically, the third question, you will see that this was never my intent.

djindio
what could i possibly contribute or say over what has already been said?

You added Pressed By - CRMC to the LCCN of several releases. So maybe you can explain how you were able to ID those releases as CRMC pressings so that we can hopefully restore the info to the LCCN and learn how to ID other CRMC pressed releases. This would be the best outcome.

berothbr
If you review my initial post, specifically, the third question, you will see that this was never my intent.

Your actions simply speak louder than words.

berothbr
So maybe you can explain how you were able to ID those releases as CRMC pressings

Had access for a time to some test pressings from the plant & those labels at the time, along with the distinctive stamper ring impressions COUPLED WITH the known relationship between the label(s) and the pressing plant(s), years of pestering (ex)label owners for such manufacturing info.

Basically, a 1980's Caribbean Records Mfg. Corp..

The known connection between the label and the pressing plant + the distinctive stamper ring impression is enough to justify including the pressing plant in the releases entry data. With the direct comparisons made between Caribbean Records Mfg. Corp. labeled test pressings and retail pressings also having been done, that equals more than enough justification for inclusion of the pressing plant in said data.

cheers.

djindio
The known connection between the label and the pressing plant + the distinctive stamper ring impression is enough to justify including the pressing plant in the releases entry data.

tsivihcra any opinions?

Update:

djindio
Your actions simply speak louder than words.

I posted to every potentially affected release, some multiple times, over the course of about 11 months, asking about the pressed by, linking to this thread, etc., to no avail in an effort to substantiate the edits as per RSG §1.1.2. I only proceeded after being advised by other s to do so. Those are my actions.

berothbr
any opinions?

A stamper ring can be a very good means to "ID" a plant. However, my experience has showed me that as soon as the plant is confirmed, it happens that, e.g., MPO started using presses with the same ring impression and everything is in shambles again. So, I have become very cautious using stamper rings as criterion (and certainly not as only one).

Based on this caution, I'd recommend NOT to credit, except where a commercial edition has the same stamper ring as the related test pressing.

Without denying djindio's knowledge about the plant, some other fire-proof confirmation would certainly be helpful.

sebfact
Based on this caution, I'd recommend NOT to credit, except where a commercial edition has the same stamper ring as the related test pressing.

+1

Bumping this thread — it appears that the same has begun re-adding Caribbean to the LCCN without any explanation, BaOI info, etc.

Bump.

Thoughts here?

Diognes_The_Fox
Thoughts here?

Thanks for posting!!

For some of the 12"/LP releases, because the label rings appear consistent with TPs and were issued by Caribbean Records Mfg. Corp. d companies/labels, there is a good chance that the LCCN info is accurate. Therefore, we have a few options:

1. Remove all unsubstantiated info.

2. Post comments to all releases with unsubstantiated info.

3. Basically combine #1 and #2 by
a) Remove all unsubstantiated info from only releases without images, BaOI data, and/or images that appear inconsistent with
Caribbean Records Mfg. Corp. pressings.
b) Post comments to the releases that appear to be CRMC pressings.

I am +1 for option #3 (but do not object to 1 and 2).

berothbr
3. Basically combine #1 and #2 by
a) Remove all unsubstantiated info from only releases without images, BaOI data, and/or images that appear inconsistent with
Caribbean Records Mfg. Corp. pressings.
b) Post comments to the releases that appear to be CRMC pressings.

This sounds fine to me.

Removing unsubstantiated info + putting those subs in a public list as "potentially pressed by Caribbean.." might be a good option as well.

typoman2
For companies was always valid: either it's credited on the release or verifiable from the runouts or not.
If not = no credit.

I still feel this principle should apply. s should not need specialized knowledge to make a submission. Anyone should be able to the data. A private cell phone number should NEVER be a valid way to anything. Put me down as in favor of option #1,

berothbr
1. Remove all unsubstantiated info.

Well, I am with Fauni-Gena here. I am really tired of unsubstantiated data which gets added based on hearsay, one mention on one fan site by a single person or indulgence utterances on FB or Twitter after the fact which are only supplied after other enforcing artist's input.
I thought we deal in facts.

Reading the arguments above again we maybe should offer the FB address in the Notes of every affected release so that Annette Armada can confirm then every single pressing from 10, 20 or whatever years back to s which are interested, or what?

As we say always to label owners with an own agenda in the Forum: this isn't a site for promotional purposes.
If the Armada family would be that interested in being recorded as mastering or pressing plant they would implement an identifier on the cover, center labels or runout. Well, they haven't … so why document things which are not present on release and only can be proved by making handstands?

typoman2
Reading the arguments above again we maybe should offer the FB address in the Notes of every affected release so that Annette Armada can confirm then every single pressing from 10, 20 or whatever years back to s which are interested, or what?

Sorry for the delay. There was a thread a few years ago where some music industry professional posted and asked permission to mass edit releases by adding specific dates after coming across some old documents. To make a long story short, they scanned a big pile of documents, ed it to a free file sharing service, and shared the URL. It was a great easy way for someone to share their direct/personal knowledge while making it verifiable. Maybe there isn't anything left to scan, but all what we need is a push in the right direction about maybe the equipment they used, typesetting, companies they worked with, where they d, etc.

berothbr
I am +1 for option #3

Me too :-)

+1 for opt.#3

Thanks. I think I'll start going through everything soon.