Breaking up Festival Records into Austr. Ltd & NZ Ltd-separate labels?.Do it?

Trying to follow the long history regarding the confusion over the Festival Records page in relation to other similarly challenging Australian/New Zealand releases, I find this advice in http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/help/forums/topic/153065#1972845
from asylum, who claims to now be no longer active, from "over 2 years ago":

asylum
the Festival page stays...pretty much every Australasian mod agrees is that it would be silly to break up the Festival page.

However, now there are pretty clear guidelines, confirmed C, for the following label/releasing company pages:
Universal Music (Australia)

And from how this all works in principle leads me to query extensively the still-overwhelming Festival Records listing.

So, Should I continue to try to take on re-ordering the Festival Records page by detecting which releases (C or otherwise) can be ascertained correctly to be re-categorized elsewise, particularly when it results in moving releases from where the primary label of Festival Records is changed into whatever other label is predominant, according to label scans, or otherwise, and edited to *Primary Label / Secondary Festival Label* (eg, Island Records / either Festival Record Pty. Ltd OR the (NZ) Ltd. one Or both? This would clear out a vast amount from the Festival Records page as I think it should be, but seems a herculean task.

Or, should I refrain from editing or more usually, just posting comments for existing releases from the Festival Records page (both those needing votes or those already voted correct)? Should I try to re-align releases into these other Correct label pages? Or is the threat of mucking up the Cat#'s ordering system, neatly captured by the Festival Records entry, too great or vast to mess with?

The usual thing I'm finding is that Cat#s "L ######", will usually belong to only to Festival Records Pty Ltd, NZ Ltd, or rarely, sometimes both.

So does asylum's commonsense still apply, or does the newer convention now developing more precisely? Therefore, carry on trying to get these correctly all aligned into the above 'correct' labels, splitting the flow of all the cat#s from the Festival Records page or stop?

1skinnylad
So does asylum's commonsense still apply, or does the newer convention now developing more precisely? Therefore, carry on trying to get these correctly all aligned into the above 'correct' labels, splitting the flow of all the cat#s from the Festival Records page or stop?

I'm not active anymore but the gist of what you are saying is correct. The way it was structured then is no longer the Discogs norm.

Festival Records Pty. Ltd should be listed as the second label on the Oz issues when mentioned and Festival Records (NZ) Ltd. on the NZ ones. Festival Records should only go on the ones that carry that branding.

1skinnylad
The usual thing I'm finding is that Cat#s "L ######", will usually belong to only to Festival Records Pty Ltd, NZ Ltd, or rarely, sometimes both.

That's not correct though. L simply means LP and it was used by both offices from the early 1960s to 2000. The numbers were assigned in Australia for trans-Tasman use, with NZ having a custom batch reserved for their own unique issues - when that was used up, a new batch was assigned.

However the way it was applied changed. The original use was with a label code and a comma. This series began at 30,001 for full price albums. On stereo it had an S prefix too and an 9 prefix on the number. To complicate matters the 9 was sometimes not used on mono issues but rarely. And the comma seems to have been dropped as were various hyphens used on some but this was at best random.

Thus an early A&M licensed album was:

Mono: AML31,818
Stereo: SAML931,818

An Island one:

Mono: IL-33,865
Stereo: SIL-933,865

In the very early 70s, as mono went, this was simplified with the the 9, the S and the comma all going. Thus the above would, if repressed, have been AML31818 and IL33865 for a pressing from 1970 to 1972.

In 1972 it was simplified again with the label code being dropped. Thus you had all albums appearing with just the LXXXXX sequence. When CDs came along the just substituted D for L but used the same sequence.

Doubles appeared in the L45000 and L75000 sequences. Mid price numbers began with L2(XXXXX) and budget L1(XXXX).

RML simply meant it was marketed by the Retail Marketing division - a TV d album, and the RML numbers (in the 52XXX and 53XXX) sequences were only kept whilst it was so marketed.

Excellent!! I'd been craving this sort of info re all things 'Festival', especially pertaining to the 1980s and 1990s (the bulk of my stuff). Thank you so much for taking the time, clarifying details with such clarity that I'd been earnestly seeking.

The reason I'd been searching for something as solid your response is because I hope to suggest amendments or simply change so many incorrectly posited Australian releases all over this DB. And, more importantly, to alter the Festival Records (NZ) Ltd. page, and others like it, to have them replicate this sort of 'bold-type instruction' first thing on the page:

How I'm hoping these pages start:
"Profile: Please Note, This label should only be used for releases...etc, etc..."), which would clearly guide subbers, like on the other two Festival pages, Festival Records. Although I'd like to underline "only" on these too.
As you say, which is same as stated on the label pages (you composed?):

asylum
Festival Records Pty. Ltd should be listed as the second label on the Oz issues when mentioned and Festival Records (NZ) Ltd. on the NZ ones. Festival Records should only go on the ones that carry that branding.

This clear guide is absent on other similarly-approached Australian labels.
So, further to this convention, I was actually hoping to achieve the same page-instruction changes for these other Australian labels:

CBS Records Australia Limited

[NB: Preview function still not working so hope this comes out ok, otherwise I'll edit post]

Hi all,

As an Australian resident and record buyer for the last 40 years, I agree that Festival Records Pty. Ltd/Festival Records (N.Z.) Ltd. should be shown as second label, at least until distributor fields are introduced. As for the other companies:

EMI - for singles, same approach, as they used one overall numerical series (actually, two, as they started again from - I think - # 100 in late 70's/early 80's). Full-price albums had separate series for each label, so no need to show a second label there. Budget LP's, though - again, one numerical series for the entire EMI group, this was originally designated as "series 259" (at least on the MOTOWN GIANTS lp I submitted yesterday), but later in the 70's this became the "Drum" series, with a "Drum" logo and second catalogue number appearing on the sleeves,but my recollection is that the actual records still had their previous label and number without the "Drum" logo!

RCA/RCA-Ariola/BMG - my memory tells me that the parent label (originally without the "Victor", but later with it) had a 6-digit numerical series 1xxxxx. This series was occasionally used by distributed labels (ABC from about 1976, Motown from 1984/85) but for the most part the distributed labels retained their original catalogue numbers. but then they had to go and confuse things with, say, Stevie Wonder's "IN SQUARE CIRCLE" album, which had a Tamla label (for a while, the Australian company was using Motown's subsidiary labels, whereas elsewhere in the world only Motown was used), but had a Starcall catalogue number, and a cover legend that read "Manufacured for and distributed by Starcall Records, a divsion of RCA Limited", so how do I show the second label there - just Starcall, or Starcall/RCA, or RCA?

CBS, later Sony - probably no need to show a second label until the late 80's, because before then each label (CBS, Epic, and later Philadelphia International and Portrait) had its own number series and prefixes. In the late 80's a common numerical series (6xxxxx, with no prefix) was introduced, which I *think* covered both singles and albums (suffixes 1, 2, 4 and 7 were used, in a similar fashion to PolyGram's numbering system), so I think that each label page *might" need a note to say that CBS or Sony should be entered as the second label. Or, it might just be easier to enter a second label for all Australian releases distributed by Australian Record Company (the original corporate name until the mid 70's), CBS or Sony - your thoughts, please!

PolyGram - a complication with this mob is that in the late 80's or early 90's, they set up two marketing divisions, Polydor (primarily that label, A & M, Motown, and probably others), and Phonogram, which later became Mercury (for Mercury, Island, Rocket, etc), and put either a Polydor or Phonogram/Mercury logo on the back covers of albums (in addition to the primary label), BUT NOWHERE ELSE ON THE ALBUM. Again, these were marketing divisions only, because the company name was still shown as "PolyGram Records Pty. Ltd", so for simplicity's sake I recommend just using "PolyGram" as the second label.

Hope this is useful!

Further to the above, I don't know if this has previously been discussed (I've only been here a week) but how are we handling Australian-distributed overseas pressings? Festival catered for this by slapping a sticker with their own catalogue number on the package, but in the early days of CD's especially, the majors imported the bulk of their copies from their European s, and Universal in particular still do this to a large extent with jazz, blues and classical. As their is usually no indication anywhere on the package on these pressings that it is an Australian release, can I take it that we are just relying on the submitter to add something along the lines of "Australian distributed European pressing"? In my case, I have several years back copies (1992-2008) of the PLATTERLOG catalogue to help me that an Australian company released something.

Oh, and @ asylum27,
on Festival Records (NZ) Ltd.'s page, the list of the NZ Festival Records' addresses, which you've kindly put up in the comments section, shouldn't they go into the ' Details" field of the label page? They're currently not showing up on the page, being only evident in the 'Comments' area, when opening up the history/edit on the webpage.
I haven't yet edited it yet to be so, as I thought it best to hope to confirm here first with you if possible, before I go to cut n paste in the info you've kindly provided; if this would be right to edit in there into details, as I'm suggesting? :-)

1skinnylad (love that name, because I used to be a skinny lad too!)

Sorry it's taken a couple of days to get back to you, but I've been heavily involved in discussions about The Company Or Companies Operating Under Various Versions Of The Name "Vogue"! It's turned into quite a saga!

Anyway, easiest one first - as the only logo and label on the Stevie Wonder LP is Tamla, I will enter that as the main label, with Starcall as the second label, same cat # for both, and will reference the US cat # in the release notes.

EMI - for the singles at least, I think we can use EMI (Australia) Ltd as the second label after the main branded label, going by what is said on the EMI (Australia) Ltd page, and use the release notes to show the actual credit line that appears on the record.

Festival imports - I am inclined to list these under the original US or UK label and cat # first, with Festival Records Pty Ltd and their number second. These were included in Festival catalogues, and are a somewhat different situation than the myriad of distributors who were importing Ace or Charly albums, for example. I will also state in the release notes that these are overseas pressings with Festival cat #'s attached.

Imports from the other majors - usually no mention of Australia anywhere on the packaging, so it might be best to just add to release notes "Distributed in Australia by (company name)". One recent release that needs further investigation, though, is Eli "Paperboy" Reed's COME AND GET IT! album, which is a European pressing on Capitol, apparently distributed by EMI (Australia) Ltd (I bought it at JB Hi-Fi), but the cat # and cover are different to the European version already in the database, so is this a version made in Europe for the Australian market, or what? Anyway, it needs to go in as a unique release because of the differences in cat # and cover, but I will enter the country as Europe, and mention Australia in the release notes.

PolyGram - yes, I meant "PolyGram Records Pty Ltd" to be entered as company name in the second label field. However, there is a complication - PolyGram pressed records in both Australia and New Zealand for circulation in either or both countries, so with, for example, Motown (my main label of interest), I have various albums that state either "Manufactured and distributed in Australia by Polygram Records Pty Ltd" or "Manufactured and distributed in Australasia by Polygram Records", the latter I believe to be the actual New Zealand pressings, I have never actually seen one that says "Manufactured in New Zealand". As well as that subtle difference in the wording, there are also slight differences in the label copy layout, and in the case of Motown, the label is a slightly lighter shade of blue. I think similar differences exist for the other PolyGram group labels too, so I think we are going to need another company page for PolyGram Records (Australasia), to enter as a second label for those releases that say "Australasia".

ARC/CBS/Sony - we seem to have pages for the various company names that can be entered in the second label field; as I said before, probably only really needed for when everything started coming out under one numerical series.

Apologies to everyone else that this has gone off the original subject of Festival quite a bit, but it is useful and important information for anyone entering Australian and New Zealand issues.

philsoul
I think we are going to need another company page for PolyGram Records (Australasia), to enter as a second label for those releases that say "Australasia".

I strongly recommend against doing this. Whether they were released in Oz, NZ or Australasia, the company that released them stayed the same - PolyGram Records Pty. Limited (often credited simply as PolyGram Records or PolyGram).

It's the creation of fake label names like this that has caused the misplacement of hundreds of Australian release on BMG Music (Australia), etc.

The only example I've ever seen of a NZ-made PolyGram release is Dire Straits - Making Movies) but unfortunately no images to compare with.

Myriad
I strongly recommend against doing this. Whether they were released in Oz, NZ or Australasia, the company that released them stayed the same - PolyGram Records Pty. Limited (often credited simply as PolyGram Records or PolyGram).

No, not quite - the "Pty" only applies to Australian companies, and that's one of the reasons how we are able to distinguish Australian PolyGram pressings, by the full Australian company name. The New Zealand pressings marketed in both countries all say "Australasia", with the company name just shown as "PolyGram Records", and this entry below shows the NZ company name as "PolyGram New Zealand Ltd" in the (P) & (C) credits.

http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/Sina-Dont-Be-Shy/release/1865926

If Polygram Records (Australasia) as a company name is not desired, then the only other option I can see - assuming we want to use company names at all - is to enter both "PolyGram Records Pty Ltd" and "PolyGram New Zealand Ltd" whenever we see an "Australasia" release, even though the full company names might not be spelled out on the record.

The label layout on that Dire Straits release is similar to the NZ Motown pressings that I have, with the right of the label showing the cat #, side and "stereo". An Australian Motown PolyGram pressing in my collection (Stevie Wonder's Original Musiquarium 1) shows the speed and the side on the left of the label, and the cat # and matrix (MXnnnnnn) on the right, and no "stereo".

EDIT: typed "Australia" in one spot where it should have been "Australasia".

Myriad
I strongly recommend against doing this. Whether they were released in Oz, NZ or Australasia, the company that released them stayed the same - PolyGram Records Pty. Limited (often credited simply as PolyGram Records or PolyGram).

if that is the company listed, then I agree. However the two releasing companies were not the same - the NZ company was PolyGram New Zealand Limited. PolyGram Records Pty. Limited did not operate in NZ.

Myriad
The only example I've ever seen of a NZ-made PolyGram release is Dire Straits - Making Movies. There's also a separate entry for the Australian one (Dire Straits - Making Movies) but unfortunately no images to compare with.

PolyGram NZ manufactured almost 100% of their catalogue in NZ (at their factory in Wellington - I went there countless times) and the pressings are quite distinct from Oz issues. The pressings were thicker (and the sound way better as a result) and the sleeves were also more substantial.

Here's one: http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/viewimages?release=2387590

philsoul

http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/Sina-Dont-Be-Shy/release/1865926

I released that, via PolyGram. We tly owned the copyright but it was listed under their P&C.

But it's correct to say that NZ pressings were used in Oz. The factory in NZ was used as a back up and catalogue items were pressed in on country or another, rarely both, and then shared. PolyGram Records Pty Ltd and PolyGram New Zealand Ltd were the two of the component companies of PolyGram Australasia (which was headquartered in Sydney but was distinct from PolyGram Records Pty. Ltd) which also included the pressing companies and the publishers.

philsoul
The label layout on that Dire Straits release is similar to the NZ Motown pressings that I have, with the right of the label showing the cat #, side and "stereo". An Australian Motown PolyGram pressing in my collection (Stevie Wonder's Original Musiquarium 1) shows the speed and the side on the left of the label, and the cat # and matrix (MXnnnnnn) on the right, and no "stereo".

Usually the vinyl had quite a different feel and the NZ ones had paper inners whilst the Oz ones had translucent plastic bags.

Great. I'd been wondering why there's been that vinyl pressing differentiation between most of my Australian-made records & the odd occasional, seemingly, NZ ones (I'm not being a very patriotic Australian when I it I find they are better!!). This helps to explain much.

Festival Records then, in its variations we now have, appears refined enough within the DB as a pretty clear cut, & sorted way/methodology to have correctly categorized labels, cat#s and countries, all helping s to align up, properly enough for even editing-suggestions/edit-corrections (without even actually owning a specific release with which to ) the Oz pressings and NZ ones with the correct Festival Records labelling accordingly. Yes? And particularly when a Festival Records, as the fully-functional Australian independent label, was actually relevant as the prime label (which would cut right down I reckon, probably near 2/3rds of the entries currently under that label page right now, if it was severely tackled - something I'm kind of now really hesitant to do when I don't own the items!). Would you guys think so too?

It seems more complicated for the PolyGram one, which I still don't fully follow yet, so should more explanatory notes perhaps go into the pages for the various PolyGram 'companies-as-labels' that we have already or may yet even need to add, referring to asylum27 explained above? Or just start putting automatically, 'Australia & New Zealand' as the country option for PolyGram/Polydor Oz or NZ vinyls when they're made in either Oz or NZ?

I'm not sure if it relates to this topic, but the one big stumbling block that confounds me in the basic Discogs rules (what I find is a bit of a red-herring sometimes) is that there seems to be more of a directive for countries to be entered whereupon the focus is supposed to be upon the releases' intended market/s [and by extension I would assume thus which secondary label/sub-label/company-as-label might apply]. I find this distractingly troublesome since a place of manufacture would seem to me to be a far greater indicator of pressing quality (learning now from this conversation what I always suspected but now know, I know I'll certainly be more on the lookout for a better quality, thicker vinyl version of NZ 80s Australasian records if there is the apparent option between that and our Australian thin & flimsy 80s pressings!). But perhaps the intended market is more important? And, most of the time, does align with where releases (in vinyls at least) were actually released? I have difficulty in following some edits that vacillate between picking a specific European country, the UK, or both, when only the basic label is entered skeletally, without much further back-up of country pressing source identification being provided. So, it starts to become an argument whether some of these should just be Europe, UK, 'UK & Europe', and so on. This then affects whether things are or become dupes or not I suspect.

It makes it a deterrent for me now to vote on whether they might be correct or not as they fall way out of my field of knowledge about those 'markets'. But I would so dearly love to have the Oz/Nz and the 'Australia & New Zealand' country options clear as to when which can, can't or shouldn't be used.

> 1skinnylad: I've discovered in the last week that the use of the second label field for the distributing companies is a highly contentious matter here at the moment (go the threads about the French label and company Vogue, if you dare), in spite of the guidelines, and the comments on the company and label pages. There are some suggestions for distributor fields to be introduced (and more than one would probably be required to cater for those nuisance companies who can't keep their names consistent on covers and labels!), so it might be wise not to add any second labels at the moment, and stick to correcting any first labels that are wrong (e.g. Festival Records shown instead of the branded label) or deleting any incorrect second labels (I saw one with Festival Records earlier, when, if anything, it should be Festival Records Pty. Ltd. - haven't changed it yet, though). As far as PolyGram's Australasian releases go, I have used "Australasia" as a country where that appears on the release and neither Australia nor New Zealand are specified, and stated in the release notes that it is believed to be either Australian or New Zealand pressing as appropriate.

Re to the company pages, the first and last paragraphs on the Festival Records Pty. Ltd. page seem to be at odds with each other. I think the last paragraph probably should come out, but I'm not going to take my life into my hands and do that!

One thing I've been wondering about is this text:

"Manufactured And Distributed By The EMI Music Group Of Companies, Sydney, Australia And Lower Hutt, New Zealand."

My current assumption is that "The EMI Music Group Of Companies, Sydney, Australia And Lower Hutt, New Zealand" is not actually a releasing company itself but just the umbrella company that owned EMI (NZ) Ltd. and whatever else, since I've never seen only "The EMI Music Group Of Companies, Sydney, Australia And Lower Hutt, New Zealand" credited on a release. Does anyone know if this is correct?

philsoul
Re to the company pages, the first and last paragraphs on the Festival Records Pty. Ltd. page seem to be at odds with each other. I think the last paragraph probably should come out, but I'm not going to take my life into my hands and do that!

Do you mean the first and last paragraphs of the Festival Records page? I added that first paragraph recently but didn't bother looking at the other stuff. I agree that the last one should be removed. (I'd actually like the start a discussion sometime about whether the original catalog#s on Festival labels should ever actually be listed, because I'm not so sure that they should.)

Myriad
Do you mean the first and last paragraphs of the Festival Records page?

Yes, that's what I meant, I was in too much of a rush during a break at work!

I don't think the original labels' cat #'s belong in the label fields; if put anywhere, they should go under Barcodes and other identifiers as "Other" with the text comment "Original U.S./U.K./wherever cat #".

Forgot to comment on EMI! This Thelma Houston single on Tamla Motown:

http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/viewimages?release=2650915

appears to indicate two or three companies in New Zealand - was H.M.V. (N.Z.) Ltd the same as His Master's Voice (N.Z.) Ltd? I expect some people will say "yes", but if NZ corporate rules are the same as Australia's, a different name would mean a different corporate entity.

I think I have that "EMI Group of Companies" wording on something, but otherwise in Australia I've only ever seen "EMI (Australia( Ltd", and later in the 70's or 80's this was supplemented on sleeves with "EMI RECORDS AUSTRALIA".

philsoul
I don't think the original labels' cat #'s belong in the label fields; if put anywhere, they should go under Barcodes and other identifiers as "Other" with the text comment "Original U.S./U.K./wherever cat #".

I agree. They're no longer acting as the catalog#s for these releases, since new ones have been added by Festival. The old ones only appear in brackets after the real ones, like some UK major label releases: http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/image/R-1788681-1244234214.jpeg

I've never seen UK releases like that one with the original catalog# listed in the catalog# field, so I don't see why Australian releases should. It's the same situation with Australian CBS releases IMO.

philsoul
appears to indicate two or three companies in New Zealand - was H.M.V. (N.Z.) Ltd the same as His Master's Voice (N.Z.) Ltd? I expect some people will say "yes", but if NZ corporate rules are the same as Australia's, a different name would mean a different corporate entity.

It was an abbreviation. The name was His Master's Voice (N.Z.) Ltd from 1926 onwards to 1972. There is another thread here where all this was worked through in some detail.

Myriad
I agree. They're no longer acting as the catalog#s for these releases, since new ones have been added by Festival. The old ones only appear in brackets after the real ones, like some UK major label releases: http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/image/R-1788681-1244234214.jpeg

Not sure I agree. Festival used the OG cat numbers for ing purposes which is why they were almost always listed. Thus they still had catalogue number application.

Festival also exported under the original catalogue numbers. It's also a bit like the PolyGram releases (and various other labels) worldwide where an international number is listed on a release that is given a local number. In the case of most labels we list these. They are still catalogue numbers rather than identifiers.

And in the case of local Australasian labels (esp. NZ ones) the bracketed catalogue number was a parallel one used by the local label, which is what I did as did others. We sold under our own numbers and the Festival numbers were used when they sold the item.

Gee, I agree with so much here, coming from a layperson's perspective of how to deal with Australian releases. I hope we can establish the parameters accurately so ultimately past (especially), present and future s may become close to an 'unlikely to be altered again' set of rules (which I've learned the hard way, incurs aggravating or ignored (dropped-out s?) NmCs or NMCs - which I was dishing out willy-nilly for a few days, not understanding the etiquettes in the beginning of voting a couple of weeks ago, just trying to grab attention to update the Australian pressings especially from now redundant non-existent labels like "EMI Music Australia" & philsoul, I wished I'd warned you about the company-as-labels heated debates that I find the northern-Atlanticists refuse to accomodate (anti-capitalist attitude perhaps? Especially the Europeans! - no companies at all, even those operating as labels to get into Discogs full-stop!!) As you said,

philsoul
go the threads about the French label and company Vogue, if you dare

....no way hosay!

philsoul
I saw one with Festival Records earlier, when, if anything, it should be Festival Records Pty. Ltd

...well wait until I get going with my future subs, as it seems my youth was back-boned hardcore by Festival Records explosion in my vinyl ownership, just the odd occasional one. I thus find it's pretty easy from my limited ones to locate these proper, actual Festival Records releases anyway thus. Only one unresolved issue for me now with Festival; when there's a "Thru Festival" logo, does that satisfy as a Festival Records release, because I actually suspect it doesn't; I suspect just a Rupert Murdoch's Festival Records Pty. Ltd. company releases' "kind=of=logo". Often found on compilations I haven't got round to entering yet.

I am curious nik said

nik
nik wrote:
quote selection
ABOUT: the EMI Group: two main problematic labels / companies:

EMI Music - According the the EMI Group, EMI Music is the Major Record Company, directly down the hierarchy from the group itself. EMI Music is divided into many regional divisions, such as EMI Music UK And Ireland, EMI Music (), EMI Music (Greece), etc... there is a plethora of EMI Music (*country*) divisions. I am worried that there are a lot of releases incorrectly placed under EMI Music, where they should be under a regional division and / or a related sub label. I also wonder if the current usage of this label on Discogs is mainly shorthand for EMI Music UK And Ireland.

EMI - According to the EMI Group, EMI is a label. but again I am worried that it is being used incorrectly in Discogs to cover everything from the EMI Group, to the Record Company, to various labels using the EMI branding.

What I propose we do is the following. We define the hierarchy as;

Group = EMI Group
Major Record Company = EMI Music
Record Company Regional Divisions such as [Invalid Label] (not entered into Discogs yet), EMI (Hong Kong) Limited, EMI () etc etc.

All the associated labels should be a part of either EMI Music or it's regional divisions - many will need to be researched. There should be no labels listed under EMI Group.

There should be a standard disclaimer added to all the regional companies, something like:

--------------------------------------------------
The company EMI Music (Region) is a regional office of EMI Music.

When submitting to this company, please be sure to use the exact name. Please use the search or ask in the forums if you are in doubt. Be aware that the company's name may be shortened, for example EMI (Hong Kong) Ltd. instead of EMI (Hong Kong) Limited. Please use the version that has the most entries in Discogs.

Please also enter the other label or labels mentioned on the release, there should be at least one.
--------------------------------------------------

For EMI Music:

--------------------------------------------------
EMI Music is one of the four main record companies worldwide. In the EMI major label hierarchy, it is directly down from EMI Group plc. EMI Music is divided into many regional divisions, such as EMI Music UK And Ireland, EMI Music (), EMI Music (Greece), and other EMI Music (*country*) divisions. These companies operate the many labels under the ownership of the EMI Group.

There are a lot of releases incorrectly placed under EMI Music, where they should be under a regional division and / or a related sub label. Please double check any submission that links to this EMI Music page, and if possible place them under the correct country division and / or label.
--------------------------------------------------

For the EMI label:

--------------------------------------------------
EMI is a label operated by EMI Music for the EMI Group plc. Please take care to only place releases on the EMI label on this page. Please check your release - usually there will be a specific company (for example, EMI Music ()) and / or label (for example, EMI Classics) that you should use instead. You should search Discogs to confirm the correct label, please ask in the forums if you are in doubt.
-------------------------------------------------

Does anyone have any comments about this? Anything to add? I think the biggest problem is going to be keeping the label EMI clear of incorrect submissions - I am wondering if it is possible to write up how to distinguish a release on this label from the other EMI releases.

**end of my giant nik quote...**

Does this help at all?

I agree I haven't seen either a release ONLY crediting "The EMI Music Group Of Companies, Sydney, Australia And Lower Hutt, New Zealand" because they seem to always indicate (most times? always?) the original derivation, usually a UK or US original cat#, like Island records, WEA or whatever major international label, from my limited experience here already. It's all a bit tricky but I firmly believe not impossible to sort out. We do need to clarify whether it's ok to put "Australia and New Zealand" on some releases ('bundling' two different actual records into one release page IMO). I agree with comments earlier made by asylum27 that due to diferent pressings, they should be separate, not combined - despite how tempting this would be to 'bundle'.

But one thing I do disagree with is the drifting notion to ditch the original label (like the Chrysalis/Festival Records Pty. Ltd. ones such as this - Blondie - Parallel Lines, where this suggested logic would dispense with Chrysalis) maybe just because the most prominent labelling (as seen in the scans) is the Chrysalis label, not the qualifier that makes it an Australian pressing (the tiny writing of Festival Records Pty. Ltd.).

I like the idea of both personally, both retained as we've been exercising with the primary label/secondary label formula, so much, so far. I think it works well for Festival Records Pty. Ltd. philsoul, as said earlier, there's heaps to swing over that are currently on the Festival Records page! Not just a few...like, 2/3rds of it I reckon!
Maybe I'll shut up now ;-)

philsoul
I've discovered in the last week that the use of the second label field for the distributing companies is a highly contentious matter here at the moment

Indeed but if the odd logic used in other threads is applied here, we would actually remove the international label from many of these and just use Festival as the likes of Island, A&M etc were just licensing them and their branding only appears as a reference to where they were licensed from. That logic says that they were not a label as such - Festival was, especially when the Festival logo appeared which was not uncommon.

However, Festival in one form or another was the label here, or 'acting as a record company' as per the guidelines. They manufactured, distributed and promoted which is a big part of what a record company does. They arguably A&Red too by deciding what parts of the catalogues they had access to they released.

I agree that there is some very odd logic around the place, in that people don't always fully appreciate the context in which a company's logo is being used. Most of the time, it is merely to indicate that such-and-such a company is the parent, or licensee, or manufacturer, or distributor of a release. In years past in Australia, this was most common for EMI and Festival, and also Astor to some extent, but especially nowadays most of the majors the world over put their logo on the release alongside the main label - is there any Universal release from Europe that does not have a "Universal Music International" logo on it? NO WAY should that be entered as the main label on any release, the only label that is branded with Universal is the Universal Records label based in New York. Generic company sleeves in Australia for Festival, EMI, Philips/Phonogram/Polygram, WEA, RCA/BMG also indicate the distribution role only, and "Thru Festival" should be read as "Manufactured and distributed by Festival Records Pty. Ltd" (or the NZ equivalent). The branded label should ALWAYS, ALWAYS, be listed as the main label, and the second label (or distributor field, if it eventuates) can be used to put in the company names for those companies like Festival, EMI Australia (singles) and others who use a common numerical series (which has become more of the norm these days). In fact, another group of labels that could benefit from being collected under a second field of some description is the US CBS Group (later Sony) who, starting in 1971, issued all their new LP's under a common series (30000 onwards) - the only difference between them and Festival would seem to be that there is no "CBS, Inc." logo anywhere, or no generic company sleeve for their singles. But, let's see if we can get any indication on the likelihood of a distributor field first (nik?) before opening up any more hornets' nests!

EDIT: corrected typo ("their" changed to "there")

Another reason for not adding a second label to the US CBS Group yet is that the Columbia page still has a lot of EMI Columbia releases in it (sigh!)

philsoul
"Thru Festival" should be read as "Manufactured and distributed by Festival Records Pty. Ltd" (or the NZ equivalent)

I agree and will do for future such releases with such a logo.

asylum27
if the odd logic used in other threads is applied here, we would actually remove the international label from many of these and just use Festival as the likes of Island, A&M etc were just licensing them and their branding only appears as a reference to where they were licensed from. That logic says that they were not a label as such - Festival was, especially when the Festival logo appeared which was not uncommon

I sort of agree, but not entirely, because I gather one of the great unwritten rules in Discogs becomes the order of the placement in label attribution (primary/secondary/thridly, etc). For example, on this basis I just re-edited Festival Records Pty. Ltd., replicating the cat# for [Invalid Label] the first-listed/primary label.

I don't know if this works but i think it covers all bases (release thus lays claim to being both on the Festival Records actual label, also handled thus by the releasing company, and the 'proper' label of originating source, credited most prominently on the release, is covered and all would sort properly on their respective label pages, helping identify other subs nearby it on the label page, whether they might by reissues too, I've noticed.

I also think they (Festival) were then unlikely to have dealt with all other Sunday's releases that the band may have released further under their Rough Trade label, so this surely concurs with your summation about the company acting fully as a label in determining A&R, by picking and choosing how far to go representing an artist, doesn't it asylum27? I think this would be ed by you from what you said earlier:

asylum27
Festival used the OG cat numbers for ing purposes which is why they were almost always listed. Thus they still had catalogue number application.

.

Myriad
(I'd actually like the start a discussion sometime about whether the original catalog#s on Festival labels should ever actually be listed, because I'm not so sure that they should.)

If the cat# appears on the record with the main label-identification on the item indicating a foreign label, as my Sundays' LP example above indicates, then I think we should keep the overseas label and Cat# absolutely, as well all that clarifies the item as an Australian-pressed release too, utilising the shadow cataloguing system. However, when the label is Festival labelling all over the label-on-vinyl, and only a bracketted indication of originating label exists (usually top-let, right-side corner), then, I agree that the label credit for the parent licensor of the bracketted cat# might be best dropped, perhaps just mentioned in the Release Notes' field? What do you think?. Or just continue to keep finding out what the cat# is through 'Advanced Search' methods and keep including it?

philsoul
let's see if we can get any indication on the likelihood of a distributor field first (nik?) before opening up any more hornets' nests!

what a jolly good idea!

I have now posted request for assistance under the Forum topic "Major Label Reorganisation": http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/help/forums/topic/185035 .

I'm seeking any assistance in re-aligning many releases that currently are just under White Label Records', for instance.

Each individual case may warrant either of these approaches accordingly, I believe.

This will allow proper 'sorting' under the Festival Records Pty. Ltd. page to demonstrate the type of release properly, as regards its Format (Single, LP, Maxi-Single, etc) and for properly locating its correct Year Of Release for it too.

I know folk are seemingly not fond of using the 'company-as-label' thing, as labels, but I can't see how else the correct sorting order for works for the Festival Records label (it's too bulky & is sheer wrong in so many cases entered under it). Mostly though, my reasoning is that so many of the artists currently under that label, obviously were not signed to it at all (being signed under other labels, like Mushroom or any of the other big international labels, but their releases effectively fully released by Festival Records Pty. Ltd.)

oh, further, the Matrix sequencing also begins to make some sense too, as to which was pressed after which.

I can help with that, in between the other bits and pieces that I'm working on! The actual branded label MUST come first, and the company name second. Your post reminded me that I saw a Toots & The Maytals single recently that was entered udner either Festival Records or Festival Records Pty. Ltd, but the image clearly showed that the label was Island, and the text on the label said that the songs were "taken from the Island album...", so I need to go back and fix that one!

Found that Toots single, and added comments to it:

http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/history?release=620667#latest

I've also added a comment you might like to see philsoul, regarding the Toots single you questioned ^^.