Talk:Publisher Relationship Type: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: ==Discussion== The introduction of this relationship type implicitly created a new kind of artist, without creating a new ArtistType to support that. This [http://lists.m...) |
(→Discussion: Fix formatting) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Publishers, as far as I know, publish albums, not tracks. Compilations have their own separate publisher (which may have "appears courtesy of..." to credit the original publisher). What I find particularly odd is the above "Hey Boy Hey Girl" example, where I would have thought that MCA published the album "Surrender", and linking individual tracks would be a waste of time. I'd recommend that this relationship be limited only to albums. Failing that, there should be a [[Style Guideline|StyleGuideline]] specifying that the relationship to entire albums is favoured over relationships to individual tracks. |
Publishers, as far as I know, publish albums, not tracks. Compilations have their own separate publisher (which may have "appears courtesy of..." to credit the original publisher). What I find particularly odd is the above "Hey Boy Hey Girl" example, where I would have thought that MCA published the album "Surrender", and linking individual tracks would be a waste of time. I'd recommend that this relationship be limited only to albums. Failing that, there should be a [[Style Guideline|StyleGuideline]] specifying that the relationship to entire albums is favoured over relationships to individual tracks. |
||
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Publishers are usually not the same as record labels. If you look at the Hey Boy Hey Girl example, you'll notice that it was published Global Music, JD Music and MCA Music Ltd., while the album was released by Astralwerks. --[[User:LukasLalinsky|LukasLalinsky]] |
|||
* No. Publishers most definitely publish tracks, not albums. The publishing company is concerned with collecting songwriting royalties on behalf of whoever is credited as the composers and lyricists for particular tracks. This is particularly important in the case of cover versions and tracks that include samples. (This is why the Chemical Brothers's songs have a variety of co-publishers). It is also the publishing company that grants permission for the releasing company to print lyrics on a sleeve. Some of the more famous publishing companies include Warner-Chappell, Copyright Control, Northern Songs (The Beatles). The Publisher does NOT (usually) play any part in manufacturing or distributing releases. That is the job of record label companies. While many record labels have sister companies that act as publishers, they are entirely separate. A general rule of thumb is that the releasing company will have the word "Records" in its name, while the publisher uses "Music" although this has become confused of late. For example, "EMI Records" is a record label, "EMI Music" is a publisher. The publisher may license the songs it owns to many non-EMI labels. This "published" AR is ripe for confusion, and until the situation is rectified, I don't think there is even any need for it to be used on MBz. --[[Arty Smokes|ArtySmokes]] |
|||
</ul> |
</ul> |
||
Latest revision as of 21:42, 27 March 2010
Discussion
The introduction of this relationship type implicitly created a new kind of artist, without creating a new ArtistType to support that. This caused some confusion (and also here). In future, these two things should be considered together, especially if we get around to adding labels, recording studios, distributors and so forth.
Publishers, as far as I know, publish albums, not tracks. Compilations have their own separate publisher (which may have "appears courtesy of..." to credit the original publisher). What I find particularly odd is the above "Hey Boy Hey Girl" example, where I would have thought that MCA published the album "Surrender", and linking individual tracks would be a waste of time. I'd recommend that this relationship be limited only to albums. Failing that, there should be a StyleGuideline specifying that the relationship to entire albums is favoured over relationships to individual tracks.
- Publishers are usually not the same as record labels. If you look at the Hey Boy Hey Girl example, you'll notice that it was published Global Music, JD Music and MCA Music Ltd., while the album was released by Astralwerks. --LukasLalinsky
- No. Publishers most definitely publish tracks, not albums. The publishing company is concerned with collecting songwriting royalties on behalf of whoever is credited as the composers and lyricists for particular tracks. This is particularly important in the case of cover versions and tracks that include samples. (This is why the Chemical Brothers's songs have a variety of co-publishers). It is also the publishing company that grants permission for the releasing company to print lyrics on a sleeve. Some of the more famous publishing companies include Warner-Chappell, Copyright Control, Northern Songs (The Beatles). The Publisher does NOT (usually) play any part in manufacturing or distributing releases. That is the job of record label companies. While many record labels have sister companies that act as publishers, they are entirely separate. A general rule of thumb is that the releasing company will have the word "Records" in its name, while the publisher uses "Music" although this has become confused of late. For example, "EMI Records" is a record label, "EMI Music" is a publisher. The publisher may license the songs it owns to many non-EMI labels. This "published" AR is ripe for confusion, and until the situation is rectified, I don't think there is even any need for it to be used on MBz. --ArtySmokes
ArtistsThatShouldBeLabels has a partial list of artist entries that should be entered as labels instead, once we have label--track publisher AR type added. -- LukasLalinsky 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
