Discussion about labels

At that time, there are no known cases of two or more "collaborating" labels jointly issuing a release (please don't confuse this with distributors/holding mentioned on sleeves), so there should theoretically be no need for rules regarding collaborations.

I know of a few examples of this - eg, http://www.discogs.com/release/529682 (happens a LOT with split releases). -- Gecks
- Ok... I'm too conservative for such stuff :p - please go ahead and add thoughts about it: do we want "collabs"? ampersand versus "and"? new AR needed? etc, -- dmppanda 11:53, 05 April 2007 (UTC)
  - :) ok i would suggest only using "collabs" (ie separate label called "Label X and Y" or something) for long term label collaborations, where a specific cat# scheme is used. Eg http://www.discogs.com/label/Quattro%2FUK+Discs (not a great example but notice the unique cat#). regarding how to name them - IMO just do it as on the sleeve. if they list them seperately, use '&', as seems to be the custom. one thing though - it's important not to get confused with sublabels and collaborations. a sublabel could be a collaboration - eg, Quattro may own UK Discs, but they have created this unique imprint to issue records, so it's a new label, but it is a sublable like any other, and not really a 'collaboration' beyond the label name, so in this case i don't think a new AR would work. -- Gecks

The last point (4) of LabelSortName style may be discussed, and one may argue that some label can use the name of their founder, and that such names may follow the usual artist SortNameStyle. I don't think so, and I would like to see concrete examples before taking decision and add additional sorting rules. -- dmppanda 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Eg, "David Geffen Company", though to be honest as this is a trademarked company name, I don't think re-arranging it would be right. I imagine this is true with all other examples. -- Gecks

Talk:Label