Further, this is not a company, and a company by this name cannot/does not exist. The entity (if it is one) would be "Poncap" only. "Production" is the action the entity undertook, not a part of an entity's name.
Since I can find no external references to this entity, and there's no entries/credits for Poncap, proposing to DNU this entry, and place this entity reference only in release notes (per "'A XXXXXX Production' is added to notes and that no assumptions are made" precedent ), until such time LCCN database functionality is expanded to accommodate generic production entity roles.
Pinging a small group of s (with many thanks) who have shown forum interest in similar LCCN topics, to avoid spamming everyone. If you'd like to be removed from this list, please let me know.
tzes666
Poncap appears to have been a production company, active in 1983-4 and associated with D&D Records (3),
Agreed, that's what seems likely!
tzes666
I don't agree with the DNUing it since it is mentioned on, at least three, releases.
"A Poncap Production" is what's mentioned on the release. The current LCCN entity is Warner Bros. Recording" exists. These now-invalidated LCCN entries are conflated with the action taken ("Recording," "Production, parent "company") by an entity (Warner Bros, Warner Communications).
So the suggestion to not DNU means we would be preserving a completely nonexistent "company" in LCCN. Is there value to the database to preserve that which cannot exist?
So back to...
tzes666
Poncap appears to have been a production company
As you state, the name is Poncap. Which would be valid for LCCN. Or Poncap Productions if it existed, could be a plausible entity. But not Poncap Production.
But as with the forum thread I cited above, all we know is that it appears on a handful of releases. We don't know what it means. If it's really an artist? If it's really a production company? Or if it's just a made-up term? That's why the forum precedent is to make no assumptions and place in release notes to capture production entity text that we cannot otherwise identify.
Hmm, interesting! This is obviously a different presentation than on the releases I was inspecting.
I guess the question is, is that an additional copyright role attributed, or is the comma a separator/delimiter to yet again a generic reference of "Poncap" and its action on the release (production).
j_lit
I guess the question is, is that an additional copyright role attributed, or is the comma a separator/delimiter to yet again a generic reference of "Poncap" and its action on the release (production).
pfue
I think it would be not good to remove Poncamp Production from the database
If we think that's a legitimate entity with the copyright roles, then agreed and will rescind my DNU proposal.
If we are only basing on Produced For "A Poncap Production," it's a violation of RSG §4.6.2. and it's an entity that cannot and never will exist, and goes against database forum precedent.
avalon67
I don't agree with the DNUing it since it is mentioned on, at least three, releases. IMHO, Record Company is the most appropriate role with
Agree
avalon67
I do however agree that the name should be Poncap, for the reasons given.
How do we square these two statements? The proposal is that Poncap Production cannot exist as an entity. So it's either valid (as some have stated) or not valid.
If we think the releases should be edited to be *changed* to newly generated entity of "Poncap" only, and for a record company release, that's fine and follows other forum precedent. That's not what was in the scope of what I was proposing, since I was making no assumptions about what Poncap may be, but it's fine by me (even though ideally LCCN would be enhanced to accommodate these types of roles and not dump into Record Company).
While I'm not as clear on the precedent (despite checking the cited links), it does seem as if Poncap (only) would be an effective catch-all, unless someone were to try to re-create "A Poncap Productions." As for squaring things with Guidelines that have clearly morphed/shifted a bit through the years, that's a tougher assignment. Using the Forum for matters like this helps establish at least some precedent for respecting how things have 'changed' over the years, not to mention hopes for more LCCN options. My .02 or plugged nickel, whichever is least valuable.
PastorTim
precedent (despite checking the cited links)
Indeed ... the evergreen issue of things "decided" upon in certain forum discussions, potentially in conflict with other discussions, and none of it filtering into the RSG. Heckuva way to run a database. But here we are...
j_lit
Since I can find no external references to this entity, and there's no entries/credits for Poncap, proposing to DNU this entry, and place this entity reference only in release notes
I'm so sorry, I returned home after a 13 hour flight this morning and didn't read all the posts thoroughly. Still a little tired.
The entity needs to be linked, under whatever name is chosen, excepting that 'A Poncap Production' is obviouely not a correct name to keep.
Maybe we should look at 'A Mainman Production' for inspiration?
I really don't have the time or inclination to keep discussing this and other 'A XYZ Production' threads ad nauseam, or to be on Discogs constantly, so as long as nik's wishes, that once linked these entities in some form are kept linked, I don't see the need to comment further.
berothbr
Since I can find no external references to this entity, and there's no entries/credits for Poncap, proposing to DNU this entry, and place this entity reference only in release notes
Definitely +1
There are several entities linked to me that there is no record of outside Discogs, would you remove them too?
Once linked, they should not be de-linked
Nothing's changed here as far as I can see. If there's a company that can be identified out of "An XYZ Production" statement, we can credit that company "XYZ" as Record Company. If we don't know if it's a company (or a producer/artist PAN), it goes verbatim in Release Notes. But Produced For An XYZ Production, the consensus always reached is that it's not a company to be credited in any fashion, it can just go in the release notes.
avalon67
There are several entities linked to me that there is no record of outside Discogs, would you remove them too?
It depends on the release. I just reviewed this release more carefully. I'm ok with using Record Company - Poncap Production being that it's embedded with all of that company info.
avalon67
j_litHow do we square these two statements?
I'm so sorry, I returned home after a 13 hour flight this morning and didn't read all the posts thoroughly. Still a little tired.
The entity needs to be linked, under whatever name is chosen, excepting that 'A Poncap Production' is obviouely not a correct name to keep.
Maybe we should look at 'A Mainman Production' for inspiration?
I really don't have the time or inclination to keep discussing this and other 'A XYZ Production' threads ad nauseam, or to be on Discogs constantly, so as long as nik's wishes, that once linked these entities in some form are kept linked, I don't see the need to comment further.
Fair enough! And as always, this should not be contentious. And that was not my intention.
Presumably we all just want to get it "right," whatever that may be.
And while I'm responding to your above comment, this is for the community participating here.
avalon67
Once linked, they should not be de-linked
If something was linked to an LCCN entry called "An Avalon67 Production," I would be in favor of de-linking. Since it contains both an entity name and an activity/action. Just as if a PAN was created that said Recording Engineer Avalon67, it would not be a valid PAN.
If someone had created an entity called "Poncap," well, I wouldn't have felt any need to start a thread, I would've just edited it to that based on precedent (Record Company - Poncap).
berothbr
I'm ok with using Record Company - Poncap Production being that it's embedded with all of that company info.
Can we (the entire participants here) at least agree that the LCCN entry should be Poncap only? What is the value to the db to retain Poncap Production? It was not validly generated. It does not follow RSG §4.6.2.'s role definition. And it contains a conflated name with an activity.
If we change LCCN to Record Company = Poncap, will that satisfy both the forum precedents and those commenting here who wish to avoid a "notes only" solution? That is:
avalon67: these entities in some form are kept linked
berothbr
I still think it's fine as is just with the role changed to Record Company.
I don't want to keep belaboring the point, but on what basis can "An XYZ Production" -- the conflation of a company and a role -- be considered valid for the database in LCCN? Every thread that I have read and cited above states "XYZ" or "XYZ Productions" is the valid company to credit, not "XYZ Production" or "An XYZ Production."
j_lit there's no evidence to suggest "production" is or is not part of the name, so there's no reason to change what's been entered other than personal preference. That's why my +1 is for leaving it, but if a bunch of people feel strongly that it's just Poncap, then don't let me stand in the way.
j_lit
I think based on general experience with Japanese reprinting of English text, we can presume this is a typo of sorts.
Thank you for research. So the copyright credit on Dial M - Dial M is misinterpreted by mine. Let's generate Poncamp only and use the record company role for A Poncamp Production and Poncamp Production.
Ah yes, I forgot about that part of the equation.
Ruling 1: “A ???? Production” goes in notes only.
Ruling 2 (after much protest): ???? goes in as a Record Company.
Thanks all for confirming and the discussion. For my benefit (and anyone else), since it's suggested here that the consensus on this scenario has evolved since the initial discussions, I'm going to list out my understanding here for future reference -- given the RSG will unlikely be updated, and we no longer have the Undocumented Guidelines wiki to capture these kinds of documentation.
If I've misrepresented the consensus here or if anything to add/change, please advise.
======
On release: An XYZ Production
A. If "XYZ" or "XYZ Productions" is a company/entity:
- Credit that entity in LCCN as Record Company (otherwise unspecified role).
- Add the statement "An XYZ Production" to Release Notes.
Example: "A MainMan Production" (David Bowie - John, I'm Only Dancing / Hang On To Yourself)
B. If "XYZ" is an artist with a producer role on the release:
- Credit XYZ in Main Credits as Producer.
- Add the statement "An XYZ Production" to Release Notes.
Example: "A Shel Talmy Production" (The Kinks - Something Else By The Kinks)
j_lit
The scenario given in TNT (69) is one for which I am unfamiliar. Do we agree that's still a valid approach (was discussed by Showbiz_Kid in Is "TNT Production" a valid Artist?)?
That really was a weird one-off where the discussion went in a different direction because "TNT" referred to a person rather than a production company. I think it's still valid, but should be applied judiciously in future only to identical situations.
Showbiz_Kid
That really was a weird one-off where the discussion went in a different direction because "TNT" referred to a person rather than a production company. I think it's still valid, but should be applied judiciously in future only to identical situations.
Thanks for clarifying. I'll strike that from the reference above.
If any other on what I've listed there, please advise.
And in the meantime, I've edited the initial release with Poncap and added all available info to this point, including the "PC" logo associated with this entity. If we find out further from any sources, it can easily be amended.
A. If "XYZ" or "XYZ Productions" is a company/entity:
- Credit that entity in LCCN as Record Company (otherwise unspecified role).
- Add the statement "An XYZ Production" to Release Notes.
Example: "A MainMan Production" (David Bowie - John, I'm Only Dancing / Hang On To Yourself)
B. If "XYZ" is an artist with a producer role on the release:
- Credit XYZ in Main Credits as Producer.
- Add the statement "An XYZ Production" to Release Notes.
Example: "A Shel Talmy Production" (The Kinks - Something Else By The Kinks)
C. If it is unknown what "XYZ" represents:
- Add the statement "An XYZ Production" to release notes.
- Optionally create "XYZ" as an company and credit that entity in LCCN as Record Company (otherwise unspecified role).
Example: "A Righteous Bros. Production" (April Stevens - Falling In Love Again / Wanting You)
D. Do not create or credit a company "An XYZ Production" in LCCN, as it represents an activity of "XYZ," not a company/entity.
E. Do not assign the "Produced For" role to any entity when the only words "An XYZ Production" appear (see RSG §4.6.2.).
If any further on this distillation, please advise. Otherwise will consider this matter resolved.
Looks right to me, but your example for “C” actually falls under item “B”, as The Righteous Brothers were a known entity as performers and production partners.
Showbiz_Kid
Looks right to me, but your example for “C” actually falls under item “B”, as The Righteous Brothers were a known entity as performers and production partners.
Thank you!
That one's a bit of a hairy one since it was generated violating the magic words of "Produced For" and conflated the activity with the entity's name.
Further discussion here, in case that needs to be revisited: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/1053838
And I'll try to find another representative example for "C."
The existing Scratchy Records profiles do not seem to align to this release.
Closest would be Scratchy Records (2), which has one sub distributed by Chrysalis, the label on which the above example release is issued, but that seems to be the only connection.
If it turns out that's the one or there is a another known company under this name, I can again try to find a different example.
j_lit
The entity (if it is one) would be "Poncap" only.
mr_mando
I've just sent an email to Mr. Kapitan via the kontakt adress on his website. Hopefully he kan klear things up recarding "Poncap".
I got an answer in the meantime from Mr Kaplan. He states that Poncap is derived from ... Pony Canyon, a Japanese record conglomerate that funded D&D records. Don’t know where the “p” came from .....
My guess would be that the "p" is for "Productions". Pony Canyon Productions = Poncap.
mr_mando
j_litThe entity (if it is one) would be "Poncap" only.
mr_mandoI've just sent an email to Mr. Kapitan via the kontakt adress on his website. Hopefully he kan klear things up recarding "Poncap".
I got an answer in the meantime from Mr Kaplan. He states that Poncap is derived from ... Pony Canyon, a Japanese record conglomerate that funded D&D records. Don’t know where the “p” came from .....
My guess would be that the "p" is for "Productions". Pony Conyon Productions = Poncap.
Amazing - thank you tracking that down! Yeah, that would certainly seem plausible, and good fodder for the profile.
Which IMO, means because "production" was the activity, the only "entity" there would be "Elevator" (which is not present in the database), and that would be a "company," not a producer/artist.
Therefore I believe the PAN should be DNU'd. And because there is not (yet) any existing "Escalator Productions" company entry in the database, and this info can go to notes only per this thread's option C.
Similarly, per the outcome of this thread, I also had come across Escalator Production, which was generated and appeared on one release that says "An Esculator Production," and So I DNU'd accordingly to this thread's option D.
Again, there are no "Esculator" or "Escalator" LCCN profiles in the database.
j_lit
Therefore I believe the PAN should be DNU'd. And because there is not (yet) any existing "Escalator Productions" company entry in the database, and this info can go to notes only per this thread's option C.
Similarly, per the outcome of this thread, I also had come across Escalator Production, which was generated and appeared on one release that says "An Esculator Production," and So I DNU'd accordingly to this thread's option D.
Nobody thinks you’re surprise I know, but I completely agree with both courses of action. Unless someone can mine trade mags and come up with info for a company called “Escalator Productions” or some similar, this goes in Notes only (until such time as staff makes some accommodation for entering this info somewhere properly).
j_lit
Therefore I believe the PAN should be DNU'd. And because there is not (yet) any existing "Escalator Productions" company entry in the database, and this info can go to notes only per this thread's option C.
As noted above and as the result in several previous similar discussions, Escalator should be created as a company.
EDIT
As you mention here
Which IMO, means because "production" was the activity, the only "entity" there would be "Elevator" (which is not present in the database), and that would be a "company," not a producer/artist
avalon67
I've invalidated A York-Pala Production and redirected to York-Pala.
As and when I'll move the entries and credit as Record Company unless it categorically states another role.
avalon67
Escalator should be created as a company.
I actually disagree that there is any “company” that is named “Escalator.”
Escalator Productions, Inc., yes. But not Escalator.
And given we aren't dealing with a publisher here, we don't (IMO) need to deal with a multitude of entity name forms.
So if anything should exist in the database at all (and I don't necessarily agree that it should at this point, per RSG §4.6.2.'s absence of production company roles), IMO it should be a real entity, not a contrived extraction.
The rub for me is that Escalator (or Esculator) Productions or Productions Inc. doesn't seem to appear on *any* release. So a catch 22, to me: No physical release source, no actual company name on release.
Which means we're potentially polluting the database with nonexistent data.
But if the precedent as noted byavalon67 is we move this to LCCN regardless of the physical release, that's what I guess we'll do...
So the lone question will be whether it's Escalator (#) or Escalator Productions Inc. that gets generated.
I actually did participate there too! Though, IMO that's a little different flavor than this scenario, because we had an actual verbatim "Produced by [...] for a Fish-O-Baby Production" physical credit (Hot Tuna - Hoppkorv). But if there wasn't, is there really a company named only "Fish-o-Baby"?
From that thread to here, I still see four distinct scenarios:
A Mickie Most Production = artist Mickie Most.
A York-Pala Production = known label/entity York-Pala Records, Inc., etc.
A Fish-O-Baby Production = Valid "Produced For" entity (even if grammatically awkward).
Compared to here and other so-called "An XYZ Production" situations, where we don't already have "XYZ" or "XYZ Productions" valid entities generated in the database.
j_lit
But if the precedent as noted by avalon67 is we move this to LCCN regardless of the physical release, that's what I guess we'll do...
Just because there’s precedent doesn’t make it right. Until the 1960s, there was precedent for bathing in pools of radium-infused cancer as a “health cure”, but we found out that was wrong. IMO, until there’s a proper way to document this stuff, it belongs in Notes…no matter what ‘precedent” there is. I know I’ll get shouted down on this but I won’t keep quiet about endemic illogic.
Don’t we make up enough stuff around here that didn’t exist in the real world? Like insisting that
j_lit
we move this to LCCN regardless of the physical release, that's what I guess we'll do...
Well that's what should happen.
SBK has issues (Gatefold, Misprint, A XXXXXX Production) but they have all been discussed previously and protocols agreed, some when nik was still active and others since.
We also have several staff comments outside of the RSG, nik has said any entity that doesn't have a distinct role should be entered as Record Company, despite being asked for repeatedly we still don't have a 'Production Company' LCCN, so Record Company it is for those mentions, while Brent has said on another type of credit, that it's best to capture the data and if necessary change the credit in the future.
j_lit
A York-Pala Production = known label/entity York-Pala Records, York-Pala Records, Inc., etc.
You've shown that there is an entity named Escalator Productions, Inc., so the sortened form, Escalator, is valid.
Is there a company named York Pala, or is it
j_lit
I actually disagree that there is any “company” that is named “Escalator.”
Escalator Productions, Inc., yes. But not Escalator.
There's no reason that A York/Pala Production should lead to a Discogs entity but An Escalator Production should not.
j_lit
The rub for me is that Escalator (or Esculator) Productions or Productions Inc. doesn't seem to appear on *any* release. So a catch 22, to me: No physical release source, no actual company name on release.
An Escalator Production, as noted by yourself above.
j_lit
It's given a producer role in the sub The Jelly Beans - I'm Hip To You / You Don't Mean Me No Good (and since copied via draft to others).
Thank you,avalon67, for going through this in detail, I appreciate it.
And with these examples/explanations, namely:
avalon67
You've shown that there is an entity named Escalator Productions, Inc., so the sortened form, Escalator, is valid.
I'll proceed to generate Escalator (#), so the Sydney Shaw fixes can be completed.
Briefly ... Mainman has a large sample size, and plenty of name variations present in the database to justify all those entries (including a branded "Mainman" logo). So...
Whereas here, Eskee Records has a small sample size, and we don't have such variations/brand presentations to choose from. AFAICS, it's either "An Esculator Production" or "An Escalator Production" on releases, and that's it, before Eskee folded.
avalon67
I don't see why you accept shortened forms for some but seem unwilling to in this instance.
In the case of York-Pala, I seem to recall branding showing that name form, not just in the text "A York-Pala Production."
But just to be clear, not unwilling at all — I just want to get it "right." Whatever that may mean. Sometimes it takes me a while to embrace the DiscogsWorld™ definitions of things that don't exist in the real world (e.g., repress vs. reissue). So I thank you for your patience.
Last question related to this topic for anyone who may still have a thought:
The parent of Eskee (and Bildo Music) as documented in the Record World/Cash Box/Billboard notices is "Escalator Productions" (or Escalator Productions, Inc.").
Escalator Productions, parent company of Eskee Records, has acquired Bildo Music.
Since we don't (yet) have a release with that full entity name and therefore don't have an LCCN entry as such, is it safe to enter "Escalator (#)" as the parent label (RSG §19.2.) of Eskee for now?
