Label/Label Code: Difference between revisions

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
((Imported from MoinMoin))
((Imported from MoinMoin))
Line 1: Line 1:


<small>[[Label]] > Label Code </small>
"The Label Code (LC) was introduced in 1977 by the IFPI (International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Industries) in order to unmistakably identify the different record labels (see Introduction, Record labels) for rights purposes. The Label Code consists historically of 4 figures, presently being extended to 5 figures, preceded by LC and a dash (e.g. LC-0193 = Electrola; LC-0233 = His Master’s Voice). Note that the number of countries using the LC is limited, and that the code given on the item is not always accurate." [http://www.iasa-web.org/icat/08_0.htm http://www.iasa-web.org/icat/08_0.htm]


{{LabelsStatus}}
It should not be confused with the [[Catalog Number|CatalogNumber]]. A catalog number identifies a particular album, whereas a label code identifies an entire [[Label]].
==Description==


"The Label Code (LC) was introduced in 1977 by the IFPI (International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Industries) in order to unmistakably identify the different record labels (see Introduction, Record labels) for rights purposes. The Label Code consists historically of 4 figures, presently being extended to 5 figures, preceded by LC and a dash (e.g. LC-0193 = Electrola; LC-0233 = His Master's Voice). Note that the number of countries using the LC is limited, and that the code given on the item is not always accurate." [http://www.iasa-web.org/icat/08_0.htm http://www.iasa-web.org/icat/08_0.htm]
----


A '''Label Code''' should not be confused with a [[Release Catalog Number|ReleaseCatalogNumber]]. A catalog number identifies a particular release, whereas a label code identifies an entire [[Label]].


When entering a '''Label Code''' in [[MusicBrainz]], use only the numerical part.
[[User:ClutchEr2|ClutchEr2]] [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-June/021163.html reports] that very recent CDs do not have a [[Catalog Number|CatalogNumber]]. Instead they use the [[Barcode|BarCode]] without the trailing zero and 13th check digit number.


==Discussion==
==Discussion==

[[User:ClutchEr2|ClutchEr2]] [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-June/021163.html reports] that very recent CDs do not have a [[Catalog Number|CatalogNumber]]. Instead they use the [[Barcode|BarCode]] without the trailing zero and 13th check digit number.
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">This is only partly true as far as I can tell. A lot of (small) labels still use internal catalog numbering, and I've also seen some labels using a smaller part of the barcode. Anyhow, this should be moved out from this page, as it pertains to [[Release Catalog Number|ReleaseCatalogNumber]], not to LabelCode. -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
</ul>


I have never encountered a label code with a hyphen before. I suggest we stick to just LCxxxx in [[MusicBrainz]] to stay as close to what's printed on covers and discs as possible. -- [[User:Prodoc|Prodoc]] 22:11, 08 November 2006 (UTC)
I have never encountered a label code with a hyphen before. I suggest we stick to just LCxxxx in [[MusicBrainz]] to stay as close to what's printed on covers and discs as possible. -- [[User:Prodoc|Prodoc]] 22:11, 08 November 2006 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I don't think we should even store the LC(-) part. Storing xxxx in the database IMO is enough, as this is the only relevant part. -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 01:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I don't think we should even store the LC(-) part. Storing xxxx in the database IMO is enough, as this is the only relevant part. How it is displayed is another and IMO irrelevant problem. -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 01:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
</ul>
</ul>


There have been [http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2007-January/015517.html some discussion] lately about concurrent/additional label identification systems in the wild, apparently dependent of the country. At that time, we lack informations about how these relate to the '''Label Code''' system, and there is no solution foreseen. '''Please provide input''' on that thread if you have more informations. -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]]

[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Terminology]] [[Category:Label]]

Revision as of 19:28, 29 January 2007

Label > Label Code

Template:LabelsStatus

Description

"The Label Code (LC) was introduced in 1977 by the IFPI (International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Industries) in order to unmistakably identify the different record labels (see Introduction, Record labels) for rights purposes. The Label Code consists historically of 4 figures, presently being extended to 5 figures, preceded by LC and a dash (e.g. LC-0193 = Electrola; LC-0233 = His Master's Voice). Note that the number of countries using the LC is limited, and that the code given on the item is not always accurate." http://www.iasa-web.org/icat/08_0.htm

A Label Code should not be confused with a ReleaseCatalogNumber. A catalog number identifies a particular release, whereas a label code identifies an entire Label.

When entering a Label Code in MusicBrainz, use only the numerical part.

Discussion

ClutchEr2 reports that very recent CDs do not have a CatalogNumber. Instead they use the BarCode without the trailing zero and 13th check digit number.

  • This is only partly true as far as I can tell. A lot of (small) labels still use internal catalog numbering, and I've also seen some labels using a smaller part of the barcode. Anyhow, this should be moved out from this page, as it pertains to ReleaseCatalogNumber, not to LabelCode. -- dmppanda 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never encountered a label code with a hyphen before. I suggest we stick to just LCxxxx in MusicBrainz to stay as close to what's printed on covers and discs as possible. -- Prodoc 22:11, 08 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think we should even store the LC(-) part. Storing xxxx in the database IMO is enough, as this is the only relevant part. How it is displayed is another and IMO irrelevant problem. -- dmppanda 01:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There have been some discussion lately about concurrent/additional label identification systems in the wild, apparently dependent of the country. At that time, we lack informations about how these relate to the Label Code system, and there is no solution foreseen. Please provide input on that thread if you have more informations. -- dmppanda 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)