I have many more "label" forum examples, but all are discussions that have been hampered by a blind "as on release" response from many, other than CykoMF & Diognes_The_Fox and similar who can see this is a dilemma that will need resolving one day. But they too wanted the issue to be thrashed out at some point. One very experienced user and a staff member raised valid points about the public searching for a release "thinking" that the repro artwork for nostalgia purposes (artwork licensed or not) was the reissuing label and so in a way it should or could stay like this. Just linked to a thread on that very matter. In the release history you claim that "this is the way all these fake Scorpio releases should be listed". release because there is no Scorpio Music, Inc. Makes no sense to me to mark and list a Scorpio release for Mulatu Astatke as 'Worthy Records (2)'. Why has this been entered with a label that does not appear on the release at all ? This release is branded as Worthy Records so that's that the label.Īlso, where is the claim that it is a "fake release" based on ?īut it is responsible as marketing company, right?.īased on what? The company is not mentioned on the release at all. +1 (See Mulatu Astatke & His Ethiopian Quintet - Afro-Latin Soul's history)
The company is "who released it", the label is the brand used. The only problem is that people keep on confusing the term "label" with "record company" or simply "company" causing all kinds of incorrect data in this database. It's simple: labels are about branding and not about "who released it".
0 kommentar(er)
