Merge Latin American labels & companies - Post and discuss here.

jweijde
I'm not sure it's a good idea to have such a generic thread for this. Label and company merges should be discussed in separate threads for each company / label.

Attempts to discuss and get consensus on the validity of existing entries and on how to proceed with those considered invalid / duplicates have already been made in the main Forum with minimal or zero community attention. Bringing the subject here we know that we will have the due attention to at least analyze each question.
Perhaps the analyzes and decisions agreed here can be taken individually for a referendum, but I believe and trust very much in the experience and in the research capacity of the who are participating here or that will still come to collaborate.

*grammar edit (acho que vou escrever tudo em BR Português também, para que fiquem claras as intenções originais...)

About

borderes
Electrosonora Manufacturas Saavedra S.A. ...

VVVVV

UriahCego
EMSSA Industria Argentina for sure is invalid.

+1, the same as Indústria Brasileira, only a slogan.

UriahCego
we should keep EMSSA Argentina for copyright roles and probably mass move Electrosonora Manufacturas Saavedra S.A. to BMG Electrosonora Manufacturas Saavedra S.A.

Agree, but if Electrosonora Manufacturas Saavedra S.A. is mentioned / credited on releases (labels rim texts, cover footnotes) without BMG it should be kept separate. Analog to BR BMG Ariola Discos Ltda. Divisão Sonopress: same company but named differently, separate pages

E: About my "black notebook", I have a good list ready. I'll post it in full, but we can discuss each issue separately, at any time.
P: Sobre meu "caderninho preto", tenho pronta uma boa lista. Vou postá-la inteira, mas podemos discutir cada problema separadamente, a qualquer tempo

Brazilian companies which have duplicated pages. Some are already marked /!\ Invalid, but edit their releases are always dangerous without the background of a forum consensus. Some others have a huge number of releases to be edited, probably a job for a Bot.

Sonopress Indústria E Comércio Fonográfica Ltda, 9 releases - misses part of the name

We can also call for dance teninchfan, not exactly "Latinos" but interested on the subject with large and frequent contribution in releases of Latin origin.

tele52
if we apply RSG §4.2.1.b. then Decca Discos should be used. Seems most of s ignore label variation and use Decca as on cover. Decca Discos records were released in Spain by Fábrica De Discos Columbia S.A.

I understand you, Narciso Yepes - Juegos Prohibidos is an example. Same as Brazilian/Argentinian CBS vs. Discos CBS
As far as I see Decca Discos should remain as regional branch.
The images are speaking for themselves.

A brief profile update is needed in its page, as recommended by Nik in the old thread. Decca via the Parent Label function.

UriahCego
As far as I see Disques Decca & Decca Discos should remain as regional branch.

agree

lbamaral
Som Indústria E Comércio S.A., 217 releases Som Indústria E Comércio S/A, 818 releases - the variant way of shortening "Sociedade Anônima" on company name is the only difference.
Som Industria e Comércio S/A (Discos Copacabana), 105 releases - carries together the name of the parent record company which have its own page, Discos Copacabana.

It was discussed before (with not much participation). As result: 2 in favor - 1 against
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/405896 had a better result.

I believe this company/ies would be a priority, but its on you to decide when to start, Mr. L.

lbamaral
Som Indústria E Comércio S.A., 217 releases
Som Indústria E Comércio S/A, 818 releases - the variant way of shortening "Sociedade Anônima" on company name is the only difference.
Som Industria e Comércio S/A (Discos Copacabana), 105 releases - carries together the name of the parent record company which have its own page, Discos Copacabana.

no objections for this merge

lbamaral
Companhia Industrial de Discos, 103 releases
Cia. Industrial De Discos, 190 releases - the variant way of shortening "Companhia" on company name is the only difference.

Same here

lbamaral
Indústrias Elétricas Sinter S.A., 9 releases
Sinter S/A, 18 releases - variant with incomplete name. (some records mentions both forms)

Sinter S/A is sometimes in use as "Record Company" - i would say to keep both seperate with updated profiles

lbamaral
Sony Music Entertainment (Brasil) Ind. E Com. Ltda., 1685 releases
Sony Music Entertainment (Brasil) Ind. Com. Ltda., 31 releases - the er article "e" is missing in some releases.

no objections for merge

lbamaral
VAT - Video Audio Tape do Amazonas S.A., 88 releases
VAT - Video Audio Tape Do Amazonas S/A., 109 releases - the variant way of shortening "Sociedade Anônima" on company name is the only difference.

merge

lbamaral
Sonopress-Rimo Indústria e Comércio Fonográfica Ltda., 461 releases
Sonopress Indústria E Comércio Fonográfica Ltda, 9 releases - misses part of the name

I would also keep this company seperate - i don't think that Rimo was forgotten - on other hand i have no idea about history of Sonopress in Brazil.

tele52
Should we keep Decca Discos label on database or should we merge into general Decca?

These should also kept seperate in my opinion.

UriahCego
As far as I see Disques Decca & Decca Discos should remain as regional branch.
The images are speaking for themselves.
A brief profile update is needed in its page, as recommended by Nik in the old thread. Decca Discos can be linked to Decca via the Parent Label function.

Would you keep both variations Discos Decca? (I had check all 40s/50s + year 1960 Spanish Decca releases) and parent to Decca both?

teninchfan
i don't think that Rimo was forgotten

You are right. Besides being apparently the same company - sharing the same CGC code - one release listed there mentions a place in São Paulo-SP as the headquarters, while Sonopress-Rimo was sited in Manaus-AM since 1992.
There may even have been a mistake in crediting the correct name, but among the 8 releases on page 5 have pictures mentioning the company with that name. There is even one naming the company as Sonopress da Amazônia Ind. E Com. Ltda...

tele52
Would you keep both variations Decca Discos and more used Discos Decca? (I had check all 40s/50s + year 1960 Spanish Decca releases) and parent to Decca both?

Why not merge them? Apparently only one word changed position in the brand...

lbamaral
Why not merge them? Apparently only one word changed position in the brand...

Right, I have to check some other 60s years to conclude if is Discos Decca the more common used.
40s and 50s are only 148 releases but 60s are 744 at this moment. As far as my experience also early 70s also should be checked.

^^^ Agree CBS Discos is an example for how to handle.
This is a Peruvian branch, however there are some Brazilian releases which use "CBS Discos" instead of "Discos CBS. I will add CBS Discos to a watch list so I will be notified of new releases and . A kind of Discogs Cop. :-)

EDIT: fixed shuffled stuff.

You have already mentioned above much more than the 3 records listed on Decca Discos... I think the case is closed, Discos Decca is shown on more releases - although still uncredited... Do you think that there are still many uncredited releases for Decca Discos?

lbamaral
Why not merge them?

agree

UriahCego
there are some Brazilian releases which use "CBS Discos" instead of "Discos CBS". IMO the Brazilian one should be moved to Discos CBS.

I never saw one here, but that is the reasoning. By using the "Explore - Advanced Search" tool with CBS Discos + Brazil returned 0 matches. If there is, it should be edited.

UriahCego
A kind of Discogs Cop.

Hated by the careless and lazy

lbamaral
You have already mentioned above much more than the 3 records listed on Decca Discos... I think the case is closed, Discos Decca is shown on more releases - although still uncredited... Do you think that there are still many uncredited releases for Decca Discos?

Right, I have to check some other 60s years to conclude if is Discos Decca the more common used.
40s and 50s are only 148 releases but 60s are 744 at this moment. As far as my experience also early 70s also should be checked.

UriahCego
EMSSA Argentina is the most common form and sometimes appears with no role on release. Just a logo on the back as seen at Electrosonora Manufacturas Saavedra S.A.

In that case it must be added as label - Logo =Label.

Duplicate spanish label:
BB Records (8) was created first and also seems to use the correct spelling.

popcrimes
Duplicate spanish label:
B.B. Records (2) and BB Records (8)

BB Records (8) was created first and also seems to use the correct spelling.

ok for merging to BB Records (8)

borderes
ok for merging to BB Records (8)

I second that motion.

Also, duplicated spanish studios:
The Sound (3)

lbamaral
Why not merge them? Apparently only one word changed position in the brand...

+1 for merging.

Duplicated Spanish studios, The Sound (3), address is not part of studios name!

Maherto
Duplicated Spanish studios, The Sound - Madrid, correct name is The Sound (3), address is not part of studios name!

except if other "The Sound" exist in other places ... >> this is why the rule of having the town in the name of recording studios is often used @ discogs.
In this case, "The Sound" is such a generic name, that I'd recommend, in alignement to Discogs common practice, to keep "The Sound - Madrid"

Tejano label from Texas, created by Bob Grever
- Cara Records, created first, over 100 entries ... "Records" doesn't seem to be in the logo, but seems to be often referred to as "Cara Records", eg. in http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/tejano-music-giant-bob-grever-es-away, or in book "Tejano Proud" : "When EMI Latin bought Cara Records in 1990" ... we could also assume "Cara Records" is the legal name
- maxxyme "over 3 years ago"
>> Could we confirm Cara Records so that we could complete the merge.
... an re-allow Cara for the Irish release
thoughts?

+1 for Cara reenabled as the logo/brand/label profile
"Cara Records" kept for copyright credits & other company credits as on Bobby Naranjo Y Dirección* - Te Voy A Dar Mi Corazon

popcrimes

BB Records (8) was created first and also seems to use the correct spelling.

+1

lbamaral
tele52Would you keep both variations Decca Discos and more used Discos Decca? (I had check all 40s/50s + year 1960 Spanish Decca releases) and parent to Decca both?
Why not merge them? Apparently only one word changed position in the brand...

+1
French label as been as "Disques Decca" even though it sometimes appears as "Decca Disques"
Disques Decca

mtwallet
+1 for Cara reenabled as the logo/brand/label profile

if for Cara records, that would mean 100+ moves

This profile "Cara Records" has been hijacked: it's been created 9 years ago for a Maryland label, see:
The Dupont Circles - The 53 Bicycles EP
So it would make perfect sense to move it elsewhere Cara + it would match what appears on the releases
+ "Cara Records" never appears as a brand.

mtwallet
This profile "Cara Records" has been hijacked: it's been created 9 years ago for a Maryland label, see:

Good point!!
So: move from Cara Records to Cara all entries relating to Bob Grever / tejano label (after re allowing Cara)
Keep Cara Records for its initial use (and update the profile)
Sounds ok ?

borderes
move from Cara Records to Cara all entries relating to Bob Grever / tejano label (after re allowing Cara)
Keep Cara Records for its initial use (and update the profile)
Sounds ok ?

Sounds perfect. +1

Maherto
Duplicated Spanish studios, The Sound - Madrid, correct name is The Sound (3), address is not part of studios name!

Agree

Maherto
In that case it must be added as label - Logo =Label.

We have to be very careful when defining roles, mainly on the pages profile texts. All labels must have brands / logos, but not all brands mentioned on releases are Labels. Lots of record companies, production companies, studios and third part entities (private and governmental sponsors, ing foundations etc) have their brands / logos mentioned, yet not being them "Labels" as defined on RSG §4.6.2
I get goosebumps when I see things like McDonald's being credited, but I've always been unsuccessful in that opinion

mtwallet
+1 for Cara reenabled as the logo/brand/label profile

+ 1

I came across an entry that may be considered incorrect. Academia Santa Cecília De Discos Ltda was created as a Label, but this is the complete name of the record company. The brand shows only the initials of the record company name, A S C (with no dots, according to images).
The best images I've found showing the brand are this and this
I am proposing to create a Label page for ASC, which would be ASC (4) or A S C, edit all 13 LCCN entries by crediting the new label + record company and to edit both the company and label profiles to guide s for new entries.

lbamaral
You have already mentioned above much more than the 3 records listed on Decca Discos... I think the case is closed, Discos Decca is shown on more releases - although still uncredited... Do you think that there are still many uncredited releases for Decca Discos?

Yes, I am listing all my findings on my post above as a work in progress. I am listing "Discos Decca" and "Decca Discos" separately and when I end on searching until mid seventies then we can decide go for the more use.

borderes
except if other "The Sound" exist in other places ... >> this is why the rule of having the town in the name of recording studios is often used @ discogs.
In this case, "The Sound" is such a generic name, that I'd recommend, in alignement to Discogs common practice, to keep "The Sound - Madrid"

That would be OK if The Sound (3).
And it should be The Sound, Madrid, not The Sound - Madrid - see CBS Studios, London.

Another duplicated studios: Aurha Studios (correct name according to web page, http://www.aurha.com/)
and wrong ones, Estudios Aura.

...or different Portuguese studios? See Fiat Lux (2) - Leanor.

lbamaral
I am proposing to create a Label page for ASC, which would be ASC (4) or A S C, edit all 13 LCCN entries by crediting the new label + record company and to edit both the company and label profiles to guide s for new entries.

Well, I don't know about this one; the logo is quite tricky (very small letters) and the abbreviation doesn't always appear on labels: Babi De Oliveira, Lauricy Avila Prochet*, Vitor Prochet - Babi De Oliveira E Suas Canções . + it's a small catalog & the "record company" doesn't seem to have other activities with other labels, so I guess everything under one profile is fine by me... Splitting wouldn't be incorrect though...

Maherto
Estudios Aura

Seems is a Portuguese studio.....

tele52
Yes, I am listing all my findings on my post above as a work in progress. I am listing "Discos Decca" and "Decca Discos" separately and when I end on searching until mid seventies then we can decide go for the more use.

Hola tele52! I've checked the images of the first 10 releases in your "Discos Decca list" and its logo appear only on sleeve, Labels shows Decca.

Can you point me to releases which labels carry the Discos Decca logo as the one that show up on Discos Decca?

Otherwise the issue is closed as pointed by lbamaral.

Gracias!

lbamaral
I came across an entry that may be considered incorrect. Academia Santa Cecília De Discos Ltda was created as a Label, but this is the complete name of the record company. The brand shows only the initials of the record company name, A S C (with no dots, according to images).
The best images I've found showing the brand are this and this
I am proposing to create a Label page for ASC, which would be ASC (4) or A S C, edit all 13 LCCN entries by crediting the new label + record company and to edit both the company and label profiles to guide s for new entries.

Mmm, tricky one. I've checked images on some releases and, Academia Santa Cecília De Discos Ltda without the abvreviature dot is what I see. On others appear the A S C logo only. And in others are combined.

I'd would leave the things as they are as posted by mtwallet. This is a company too, its C.G.C. appears right below Academia Santa Cecília De Discos Ltda on label.

However a mention in profile about the A S C logo would be helpful, add A.S.C. & ASC too. When s type A S C or ASC on label field of a draft, Academia Santa Cecilia Ltda will appear as an option. Also will appear when browsing labels.

UriahCego
By hence label on these first 10 is Decca.

Both should be credited, according to RSG §4.6.2: "if a release has a label or labels mentioned, they are required to be entered". There is no mention in the text which part of the release where the brand should be, so if there is a brand on the cover and another on the center labels the two must be credited.

This reasoning also serves to argue that the ASC logo is mentioned in the cover of the release pointed out by mtwallet at

mtwallet
the abbreviation doesn't always appear on labels: Babi De Oliveira, Lauricy Avila Prochet*, Vitor Prochet - Babi De Oliveira E Suas Canções .

UriahCego
Academia Santa Cecília De Discos Ltda without the abvreviature dot is what I see.

The company name is also credited with the dot after "Ltda" on the release above and others. Another mistake on the page creation.

UriahCego
Hola tele52! I've checked the images of the first 10 releases in your "Discos Decca list" and its logo appear only on sleeve, Labels shows Decca logo only and sometimes with the ffrr technology legends. By hence label on these first 10 is Decca.

Can you point me to releases which labels carry the Discos Decca logo as the one that show up on Discos Decca?

All records "Discos Decca" and Decca Discos" on my lists are labeled somewhere on release.
I will not remove "Decca" as label, I will add as second label the Spanish logo.

lbamaral
Both should be credited, according to RSG §4.6.2: "if a release has a label or labels mentioned, they are required to be entered". There is no mention in the text which part of the release where the brand should be, so if there is a brand on the cover and another on the center labels the two must be credited.

Agree

Puerto Rican label:
- Bronco, created first and
- Bronco Records (10), more entries
same label, both logos exist with or without "Records"
merge ... but to which target?

borderes
merge ... but to which target?

Quite difficult, needs check records one by one.....

Bronco Records (10), 28 entries:
- 10 for license or distrib credits
- 16 with a label logo "Bronco"
- 5 with a label logo "Bronco Records", apparently a late logo variation from the 1990s
>> we could keep Bronco for the label credit.
other thoughts?

borderes
- 5 with a label logo "Bronco Records", apparently a late logo variation from the 1990s
>> we could keep Bronco Records (10) for the record ompany, licenses, ... credit and dedicate Bronco for the label credit.

Sound fine to me

Argentinian labels Pampa (4) are the same.
You can see their logos are the same with a sightly variation, but the "sunrise" style is common in both entries.

Looks that the first page is exclusive to EMI-Odeon S.A.I.C. and I disagree, MAI has migrated to IEMO and then to EMI Odeon SAIC.
When a company is sold or change the name, their catalogue, repertoire, contracts of artists, studios, labels, offices, pressing plant, stores and personel goes to the new entity.

To me there is no sense in keep a separate page for a releases pressed by another company. Usually we do not use Capitol Records (1) for MAI pressings and Capitol Records (2) for IEMO or EMI-Odeon pressings. No sense on it.

BTW: this label was released in Colombia too with a different logo, Los Bambucos were Pampa's exclusive artists. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Bambucos

So, my proposal is to move all releases under Pampa and update profile of Pampa linking their companies to profile.

Any objection?

Gracias!

EDIT - Typo

UriahCego
Any objection?

Ninguna. Whoever manages the Label can change its name or become completely different company, in one or more countries. Take Columbia's case, for example.

UriahCego
So, my proposal is to move all releases under Pampa (4) to Pampa and update profile of Pampa linking their companies to profile.

perfecto

tele52
borderes- 5 with a label logo "Bronco Records", apparently a late logo variation from the 1990s
>> we could keep Bronco Records (10) for the record ompany, licenses, ... credit and dedicate Bronco for the label credit.

Sound fine to me

to me too +1

UriahCego
So, my proposal is to move all releases under Pampa (4) to Pampa and update profile of Pampa linking their companies to profile.

+1 for me

What about Pampa Records (2): dupes?
Probably linked to Pampa Producciones.

UriahCego
So, my proposal is to move all releases under Pampa (4) to Pampa and update profile of Pampa linking their companies to profile.

Agree

¡¡Viva San Fermín!!.......os dejo por unos días ;-)

Thanks for your agreement.

mtwallet
What about Discos Pampa & Pampa Records (2): dupes?
Probably linked to Pampa Producciones.

Pampa
I can't mess into something without images, regarding Discos Pampa
Different logo, same EMI company. but there are some incorrect entries here like Los Shakers - Los Shakers which has a 3rd variant of Pampa "Sunrise" design on logotype. (Bear in mind logos are whitout the word "Discos")
However Discos Pampa is for (c) Copyright credits.

María Teresa Márquez Con Armado Imperiale Y Su Conjunto - Volumen Nº 2 has Discos Pampa on sleeve. It's the same marketing wording that appear on shellac's generic sleeves and LP sleeves. I'd risk for migrate to Pampa.
Its labels might be like VVVV
Pampa

Let's keep Pampa Producciones
It's unrelated, belongs to a different and "rival" company: DBN. But it seems to me Pampa Producciones is an artist boureau for representation. A manager credit not a company role.

Maherto
Another duplicated studios: Aurha Studios (correct name according to web page, http://www.aurha.com/)
and wrong ones, Estudios Aura.

If their own web says that is Aurha, then there is no doubt. I think that we should explain the different typo in notes in the involved releases where appears as Estudios Aura and add in the label info that sometimes appear as Estudios Aura. Plus left the Estudios Aura profile for that Portuguese studio ;)

Merged the Pampa releases.

UriahCego
Different logo, same EMI company.

i'm not clear on this. do we merge all Discos Pampa articles or just the ones you mentioned? if it's the same company it should be merged. I think it may be a 60s logo, there's a skip between Pampa 1 and Pampa 4 in that decade.

What does it say right above the Pampa logo on Illya Kuryaki & The Valderramas - Fabrico Cuero ? Others have this logo too.

Erit_Invictus
i'm not clear on this. do we merge all Discos Pampa articles or just the ones you mentioned?

Then, why you started changing the labels before discussion is closed?

jweijde
What does it say right above the Pampa logo on Illya Kuryaki & The Valderramas - Fabrico Cuero ?

It is very difficult to say. If I guess, I'd say it says "Discos". It is microscopic. 8-)

UriahCego
Then, why you started changing the labels before discussion is closed?

more than a dozen people agreeing on merging pampa 4 and pampa seems like a pretty sure agreement. I'm asking about a specific detail regarding what seems to be an entirely different label.

Please mark as invalid duplicated wrong company, Get, S.A.
I don't have voting rights and cannot invalidiate it.
Thanks.

Maherto
Please mark as invalid duplicated wrong company, Get, S.A, missing final dot - correct one is Get, S.A.

Done and cleaned

tele52
Done and cleaned

Thanks!

New Spanish duplicated label: Muxivoz - with X, not S. But fonetically seems more correct "Musivoz" - a broken S on logo design, that seems an X?

Seems according to late image added correct one is Musivoz.

On the same release is Muxivoz on the spine of the J-card and Musivoz on the shell label. Really looks like a broken "S". See Beethoven*, The Hamburg Symphony Orchestra* Director Peter Holzman - 5a Sinfonia as an example.
IMHO It's just a design variant. Keep Musivoz as unique label page.

Edit: TYPO

UriahCego
Keep Musivoz as unique label page

Agree

Muxivoz, I would leave both labels and linked them as variant on both profiles.
Also clear display on Piel Morena - Late Mi Corazón Y Otras

^^^ I was specting another point of view.

tele52
I would leave both labels and linked them as variant on both profiles.

Yes, makes sense y parece apropiado pero...
But... should we tag with both labels these Beethoven cassettes Beethoven*, The Hamburg Symphony Orchestra* Director Peter Holzman - 5a Sinfonia and other shuffled things?

Very hard one. :-)

UriahCego
But... should we tag with both labels these Beethoven cassettes Beethoven*, The Hamburg Symphony Orchestra* Director Peter Holzman - 5a Sinfonia and other shuffled things?

Yes, it is strange but I would do it ;-) to reflect the reality of the release.
On artists we have ANV but on labels we don't and seems we will not have in the future, according to what I read on threads seems staff is in favour to linked them on profile or parent. The more common case is xxxx / xxxx records or xxxx / discos xxxx only allowed to merge if the backing company is the same and do not change. In this case I presume the label is backed by the same company but the word is totally different Muxivoz / Musivoz.

when both logos exist on a same release, this would demonstrate that they actually don't care that much about one or the other IMO
+ see "marca MUSIVOZ, registro solicitado por la empresa DISCOS MERCURIO SA" on https://www.empresia.es/distintivo/musivoz/oepm/m-2196687/
See also http://www.patentes-y-marcas.com/marca/musivoz-m2196687
Discos Mercurio, S.A. Should also be parent of Musivoz

borderes
his would demonstrate that they actually don't care that much about one or the other IMO

Right, but should we lost that typo/trend/design variation? If you search for "Muxivoz" or even "Muxi" Musivoz does not appear as a possibility to choose. Next time a with a Muxivoz label release will create a new Muxivoz (2).

borderes
Discos Mercurio, S.A. Should also be parent of Musivoz

I would do it.

I see 2 solutions:
- keep both, and credit both when adequate - but we will loose the sequence (some cat # at one side or the other)
- keep only Musivoz, stating in the profile that there is a logo variation as Muxivos (I prefer that one, but the other is acceptable too)

borderes
but we will loose the sequence (some cat # at one side or the other)

Right but I would give more importance to the name variation to keep on database as profile ;-)

borderes
I see 2 solutions:
- keep both, and credit both when adequate

+ 1

borderes
- but we will loose the sequence (some cat # at one side or the other)

I take the risk to say that Muxivoz was used in the late 80s and early 90s onwards.
The cassettes that carry both logos show a transition between both denominations.

Unfortunately, it seems that we will never have the ANV function for labels and companies. It would be a great solution in this and many other cases. :-(
Shall we put both labels on those Beethoven cassettes. LOL

And yes, Discos Mercurio S.A. must be added as Parent label in both profiles, if we decide to keep both.

tele52
I would leave both labels and linked them as variant on both profiles.

+1

borderes
keep both, and credit both when adequate

+1. Sorry guys for being late and away from the last discussions. Too busy with boring issues.

lbamaral
+1. Sorry guys for being late and away from the last discussions. Too busy with boring issues.

Always appreciate your criteria ;-)
Yeah, usually boring issues give us something to eat everyday :-D

tele52
boring issues give us something to eat everyday

I don't care for eating. Money to buy records is my priority :-D

Yeah.....let's say sex, health and good music :-D

lbamaral
I don't care for eating. Money to buy records is my priority :-D

If I love eating, does that mean I've got too many records?
Nooooooooooooo

Well, friends, to break the silence, I'm going to bring up a rather thorny subject: Revivendo was created as a Label, and a large series of releases, most (all?) Compilations of ancient RCA artists have been ed on it. The actual label (RCA) is being ignored by s, and there are not many releases that have images proving this. To me there seems to be no doubt that the use is incorrect, just see the covers of the releases and the way "Revivendo" is presented (as a title in common to all releases) to realize this.
My opinion is that the page profile should be corrected and updated, directing s to use "Revivendo" as a Series instead of Label.

Opiniões, Idéias, Sugestões?

lbamaral
Revivendo was created as a Label

- Profile mentions its founder
- Francisco Alves - Canta Brasil! do not mention RCA but a record company "Revivendo Músicas Comércio de Discogs Ltda." With address and phone nb.
Looks like a label...

borderes
Looks like a label

+1, fits the Discogs definition of a label, e.g. Bando Da Lua, Conjunto Tupy, Trio T.B.T. - Cadê Vira-Mundo

Yeah, I know it fits on the guidelines definitions of label, so it does on Series definitions. But do you think it looks like a label? The same layout on most releases, front cover only... I did not perceive it as that...