And to get Double Shot Records also linked to the related page - you could use the generic role Record Company (in LCCN) IMO.
Could be this is the best option.
Hi, everyone. I'm the one who made the change for the Count Five single. I think that in this case, the Licensed From descriptor is appropriate because this is a British release of an American single, and Double Shot is the original label.
andygrayrecords
I'd say neither, and add it in the release notes.
I agree with this. Unless it gives a specific role on the release, I don't like to add the credit.
Making assumptions and guessing what the role might be is probably not the best way to go.
Does not mean the same thing. If something was produced for a company, it was not produced by that company.
andygrayrecords
I'd say neither, and add it in the release notes.
As long as there is no Produced by company credit, this is what should be done imo. We should not give a company an incorrect company credits role that means something different like Produced For in any case.
I really hate this mass editing decided by a few s that don't have all the facts. I read a statement above that there is no Mickey Most Productions, but I've had data removed from a sub which states Arranged and Produced for Mickey Most Productions. I don't know what to say about this, except removing data is an EI edit, IMO
mossinterest
Arranged and Produced for Mickey Most Productions
Mickie Most Productions is a completely valid production company that should be used in the above circumstances...
The problem was with the nonsensical "company" Mickie Most Production which had been created based on the text "A Mickie Most Production".
I'm guessing that your release was linked to "Production" instead of "Productions" and was caught in the crossfire...
In a sense, the removal of "Production" on your release was ok but subs with the specific "Produced For" credit should have been changed to "Productions"
(for the record, I haven't made any edits on the above profiles...)
Welcome to this thread.
You can voice your feelings and also the facts.
The release in question is Jeff Beck - Truth which has the following information:
jacket:
Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck for Mickie Most Productions
A Mickie Most Production
label:
Arranged by Jeff Beck for Mickie Most Productions
There is no Produced For credit as far as I can tell.
aasaxell
subs with the specific "Produced For" credit should have been changed to "Productions"
I checked all images before making the changes and none had Productions.
mossinterest
decided by a few s that don't have all the facts.
velove
label:
Arranged by Jeff Beck for Mickie Most Productions
There is no Produced For credit as far as I can tell.
You conveniently linked to other sub with little different wording. The labels on Jeff Beck - Truth read:
Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck
for Mickie Most Productions
velove
I checked all images before making the changes and none had Productions.
No, you didn't
I expect at least the edit on this sub to be reverted
mossinterest
Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck
for Mickie Most Productions
How is that different from
Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck for Mickie Most Productions
A Mickie Most Production
?
It's exactly the same. I don't need to conveniently link to certain releases to make my point.
I really did check the images for all the releases I changed. How would you know that I did or didn't.
It just feels that you are not happy about the changes but so far you haven't shown any evidence for a produced for credit. "Arranged for" is not the same as produced for.
I'd appreciate if you take the discussion from the release into the forum so others can voice their opinion as well. Thank you.
velove
I really did check the images for all the releases I changed. How would you know that I did or didn't.
I don't understand how you can argue if you looked at the images on Jeff Beck - Truth that it is worded as such, Produced and Arranged for Mickie Most Productions. You claimed earlier Mickie Most Productions didn't exist on any of the subs you looked at. Not true. Now you want to mince words to make your unfounded point. The fact remains it is stated for Mickie Most Productions right there on the release, which you stated it did not. So, I gave you the benefit of the doubt you didn't look at the label images. I think common sense is needed here, instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.
velove
I'd appreciate if you take the discussion from the release into the forum so others can voice their opinion as well. Thank you.
That's ironic, as i was asking you why you didn't alert s of your proposed changes in the history until after it was done. The change you made at least on my sub does not apply to your questionable argument. Then you cite nik as deciding it should be changed when nik's only response was he has no decision. That's almost funny.
mossinterest
if you looked at the images on Jeff Beck - Truth that it is worded as such, Produced and Arranged for Mickie Most Productions.
I've just added the company credits on the release.
What I can read on the images (this is only 600x600 and not full size images)
Jacket:
Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck for Micki Most Productions
A Mickie Most Production
Label:
Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck for Mickie Most Productions
I cannot see a "Produced by Mickie Most Productions" credit. I would be more then happy to add a company credit if I could see one. If there is indeed one I apologize for the oversight, but please tell me where I can find it.
mossinterest
You claimed earlier Mickie Most Productions didn't exist on any of the subs you looked at
I never talked about Mickie Most Productions with an S. That must have been somebody else.
as to niks quote:
nik
Hi - I don't feel I can give any definitive answer here. I'd go with what avalon67, Opdiner, el_duro, and aasaxell are advising. Thanks!
so I'll quote the 4
avalon67
There has been discussion about this before
and it was decided that 'A XXXXXX Production' is added to notes and that no assumptions are made
el_duro
avalon67
A Palmer Bros. Production does not mean 'Produced By. Should be in notes verbatim.
This
el_duro
"A XYZ production" is not the same as "Produced by XYZ". Often, the former is used to indicate that company XYZ released the sound carrier. This is quite different from the producer role IMHO.
aasaxell
+1
Nor is it necessarily the same as "Produced For XYZ" which I've seen people use in these instances (incorrectly IMO).
"A XYZ production" is too ambiguous for any current credit role IMO since "production" can mean many different things.
el_duro
Should be in notes verbatim
this
Opdiner
avalon67
Find an external verification, add uncredited and no problem.
All IMO of course
Solid advice - unless you can be assured from external sources it should never be assumed as it's more often as not used for a production house or when a release is licensed under a production deal to a major
Nobody was saying that "A XXX Production" should be a Produced For credit. Everybody advised that it should be put verbatim into the notes unless an external source can be credited.
OMG! There is nothing "assumed" here. Are you telling me you are unable to read those labels which read it was Produced and Arranged for Mickie Most Productions? Where is the debate? Why are you mincing words? It's right there. Why do you reject it? The thread nik commented he "has no decision" is comparing apples and oranges. Nobody in that thread read the labels on this particular release, in which you're trying to overlay one argument over another. The opinions in another thread had nothing to do with this situation, where it clearly states something other than what that discussion was about. Why were you in such a hurry to make edits without allowing the s involved to comment first?
velove
I cannot see a "Produced by Mickie Most Productions" credit.
I can't either. It's not there. That's not what the debate was about. It states Produced and Arranged for Mickie Most Productions. The credit you removed was "Produced For" . I agree it should have been MIckie Most Productions, with an "s", but it was already in the database as only Mickie Most Production, so that's what I used. And I'm not confusing you with anyone else, you most definitely stated earlier you couldn't find any releases with Mickey Most Productions.
velove
I checked all images before making the changes and none had Productions
mossinterest
Produced and Arranged for Mickie Most Productions.
Now I understand where the confusions stems from.
You are interpreting
Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck for Mickie Most Productions
as
Produced by Mickie Most for Mickie Most Productions
Arranged by Mickie Most for Mickie Most Productions
whereas I am interpreting them to mean
Produced by Mickie Most.
Arranged by Micki Most for Mickie Most Productions.
So for me there is no Produced for credit and for you there is.
Glad I finally found out why you are upset about the changes I've made on the Jeff beck releases.
Having looked at the 49 releases that were credited to "Mickie Most Production" afaict none had this arranged by other than the jeff beck ones.
Pretty much all others had
Produced by Mickie Most. A Mickie Most Production.
mossinterest
I agree it should have been MIckie Most Productions, with an "s", but it was already in the database as only Mickie Most Production, so that's what I used.
mossinterest
Produced and Arranged for Mickie Most Productions.
There is no and
With an and the case would be clear and a produced for Mickie Most Productions should be added. The way it is without "and" and on separate lines I feel it would be worth asking the others opinion if that was meant to be "Produced by Mickie Most for Mickie Most Productions" or just "Produced by Mickie Most"
The fact that you chose "Mickie Most Production" and not "Mickie Most Productions" when entering the release leaves some doubt if you really wanted to credit the Produced by Mickie Most for Mickie Most Productions or were just crediting "A Mickie Most Production" like the 47 others did. But that's just assumptions on my side.
velove
Now I understand where the confusions stems from.
You are interpreting
Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck for Mickie Most Productions
as
Produced by Mickie Most for Mickie Most Productions
Arranged by Mickie Most for Mickie Most Productions
whereas I am interpreting them to mean
Produced by Mickie Most.
Arranged by Micki Most for Mickie Most Productions.
First, there are no periods as in your interpretation. Secondly, I interpret it as I see it: Produced by Mickie Most
Arranged by Jeff Beck
for Mickie Most Productions
That is how it is written, but you keep changing the composition.
And there is no periods, as you interpret. I don't know why you are so adamant about removing a valid credit, but I am done with this asinine back and forth. The bottom line here is you should have invited the s you knew to be involved in your private discussion and final judgement before making the changes. Why is it decisions are made only by a few, and others are left out? Anyway, I'm done with this. Right or wrong, it stays the way YOU say it should be. I can't deal with this anymore. Congrats! The database loses data. Cheers!!!
I see this topic to be in forums at least since 9 years without a proper solution.
I agree with mossinterest that release notes entries for fixed common types of entries on releases are not useful. We see that on many old entries, still having newer LCCN/BAOI codes in RN.
In LCCN we have e.g. 'Overdubbed At', 'Engineered At' and 'Licensed Through', which are much less common than the 'A xxx Production' story.
Would it be a problem to add 'Production by' (and maybe 'Production through') as an own LCCN-entry?
Function is clear: Someone has to invest money to get things like engineering and manufacturing started.
Usually this someone is closely connected with the original publisher or with the artist himself.
'A xxx production' is broadly used even today in movies, where this is mentioned on almost every release.
Please Discogs, give us 'Production by' [Company]
('Produced by' could be mixed up with the personal credits)
