Chappell / Chappell & Co. publishers clean-up

Publishers Chappell & Co. appear under a plethora of guises across worldwide releases and they need some adjusting.
I have grouped all (or most of them) as 'sub-labels' so they can be more easily identified, as there are some clear duplicates.
I will need some help in researching which are correct and what should remain in the Database.

Thanks to https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/265256-Chappell-3/history#latest we are starting to identify the misspelled entities and redirecting to the correct ones.

Grouped under Edizioni Chappell S.r.l.

Grouped under Chappells Co. Ltd.

Hi there!

Sorry for the comments just made - was unaware that you had already opened this one, as no links have been placed in the Label histories...
It's a bit late for me now, but i'll try to spare some time off tomorrow morning - thanks already for the effort in bringing this together!

Chappell S.A. Paris when the french company is targeted - instead, the latter should be used, when credited that way

Tarantxon
Chappel & Co.,
Chappel & Co. GmbH & Co. KG,
Chappel & Co. Musikverlag,
Chappel Co Holl. N.V.,
Chappel Music Co. Inc.,

These are all misspelled

Tarantxon
Chappel Music Co. Inc.,
Chappell,

and

Tarantxon
Chappell Music Co.,
Chappell Music Co. Ltd.,
Chappells Co. Ltd.

should be listed as variants of Chappell (3) instead

But: I would disagree to making them all sublabels, because
a) sublabels are different entities/imprints, but some of those are actually just spelling variations that we keep seperate for easier database use
b) sublabel / parent label describes a hierarchical relationship between a Company and it's subsidiaries

Therefore, i would only make an imprint sublabel of another Company if such relationship is proven

For a list of Publishing entities listed under ASCAP, see here: https://mobile.ascap.com/aceclient/AceWeb/#ace/search/publisher/Chappell

For instance, in the US, Chappell is an imprint held by the Hal Leonard Corporation (Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation) - see MPA entry here: http://www.mpa.org/music-publisher/3279

So for US releases, the correct parent for Chappell would be Hal Leonard (Publishing) Corporation, but of course not for releases in other countries

Chappell & Co(mpany) is an imprint held by the Alfred Publishing Company (Alfred Publishing Co., Inc., Website: http://www.alfred.com/) - so that would be the correct parent for the US, but not for other regions

All these things get very complicated, especially with bigger publishers that had publishing arms in regions all over the world - some only existed at some Point in time and where then taken over by other companies, for some it's hard to tell which companies they are subsidiaries of.

Conclusion:
Making all of those sublabels of a "catch-all" Profile is not correct. The only Advantage i see is that they all get visible instantly in the Profile, because the sublabels get a "block" in the Profile Display and are not limited to a few lines.

I would clearly prefer linking them instead in the profile text, together with a note in which case they are to be used. I have done this for Unichappell Music, Inc. recently.

pushing this for more input

Yikes:

Chappell (UK) —This should probably be invalidated because it doesn't appear in the images on the 3 releases linked to it.

Chappell Group Control = ok
Chappell Ibérica — IDK
Chappell International = ok
Chappell International Publishing Ltd. = ok
Chappell Music = ok
Chappell Music Canada Limited + Chappell Music Canada Ltd. —combine
Chappell Music International Ltd. = ok
Chappell Music Ltd. = ok
Chappell Music Of Canada — IDK
Chappell Music Philippines, Inc. — no images, but could go either way
Chappell Music, Inc. = ok
Chappell Musikverlage — IDK
Chappell Nordiska AB = ok
Chappell Norge — IDK
Chappell North America = ok
Chappell S.A. + Chappell S.A. Paris — Chappell S.A.
Chappell Wien — IDK
Chappell-H = ok
Chappell's ∙ Sydney — IDK, but does not look right.
Ed. Chappell S.p.A. —IDK
Editions Chappell — IDK
Edizioni Chappell S.r.l. = ok
Chappel & Co. = ok
Chappel & Co. GmbH & Co. KG — IDK
Chappel & Co. Musikverlag — IDK
Chappel Co Holl. N.V. = ok
Chappel Music Co. Inc. = ok
Chappell = ok
Chappell & Co. (Aust) Pty. Ltd. = ok
Chappell & Co. GmbH = ok
Chappell & Co. Holland B.V. = ok
Chappell & Co. Ltd. = ok
Chappell & Co. Ltd. (Sydney) — IDK (doesn't look like that name appears anywhere, but I could be wrong)
Chappell & Co. Paris —IDK
Chappell & Co., Inc. = ok
Chappell Music Co. = ok (I guess)
Chappell Music Co. Ltd. = ok
Chappells Co. Ltd. = ok

Yes, it's complicated. I've removed the 'parent' from a few and redirected the obvious misspelled entities. The question is whether "Chappell & Co." may be the real company name and this has mutated into Chappell Music Co., Chappell Music or simply (Editions or Edizioni) Chappell. It's possible some are duplicate entities based on name variations.

Trying to group them by territory next.

The following are international entities:
Chappell Group Control, Chappell International, Chappell International Publishing Ltd., Chappell Music International Ltd.
in N America
Chappell North America
USA
Chappell & Co., Inc., Chappel Music Co. Inc., Chappell Music, Inc.
Canada
Chappell Music Canada Ltd., Chappell Music Of Canada
Spain
Chappell Ibérica
and maybe Chappell S.A. (we may need a Chappell, S.A.) to distinguish from

Chappell S.A., Editions Chappell, Chappell S.A. Paris, Chappell & Co. Paris

Chappell & Co. GmbH, Chappell Musikverlage, Chappell & Co. GmbH & Co. KG
Norway
Chappell Nordiska AB, Chappell Norge
Netherlands
Chappell & Co. Holland B.V., Chappel Co Holl. N.V.(check spelling), Chappell-H
Italy
Ed. Chappell S.p.A., Edizioni Chappell S.r.l.
Austria
Chappell Wien
Philippines
Chappell Music Philippines, Inc.
Australia

berothbr
Chappell's ∙ Sydney — IDK, but does not look right.

Chappell & Co. (Aust) Pty. Ltd.

berothbr
Chappells Co. Ltd. = ok

Should be Chappell & Co. Ltd.

Maybe missed a few, not forgetting the UK but we may want to merge Chappell (3), Chappell (UK) and Chappell.

Tarantxon
The question is whether "Chappell & Co." may be the real company name and this has mutated into Chappell Music Co., Chappell Music or simply (Editions or Edizioni) Chappell.

Bevor adding any parent to a Label, this would have been the first step: To do a bit of Research on which Company was ed at some Point in time and which Name changes it went through.

All parent / sublabel additions without proper Research are pure guesswork and misleading and should be reverted.
Again: If different profiles exist, they can be linked in the Profile text - we don't have to and shouldn't misuse the parent Label function for that - as per Guidelines, a parent is the Company that owns a Label.

Please take out all sublabels of which you can't prove such a relationship...

berothbr
Chappel & Co. = ok
Chappel & Co. GmbH & Co. KG — IDK
Chappel & Co. Musikverlag — IDK
Chappel Co Holl. N.V. = ok
Chappel Music Co. Inc. = ok

and

berothbr
Chappells Co. Ltd. = ok

not OK imO, because Chappell (2p & 2l) is misspelled here.

maybe Rossmichael can spent some time on this via companieshouse...?

Warner/Chappell Music International Limited (Incorporated on 7 December 1896)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00050419

Filing history:
incorporated as Chappell & Co., Limited on december 7th 1896
changed Name to Chappell International Music Publishers Limited on december 29th 1978
changed Name to Warner Chappell Music International Limited on September 22th 1988
changed Name to Warner/Chappell Music International Limited on January 25th 1996

Conclusion:
Chappel & Co. is and never was a ed Company and can thus not be parent.
At some time, it was Warner Chappell Music International Ltd..

But we don't have any knowledge yet about all those variants listed above and how they were connected to Chappel & Co., Limited, so they shouldn't yet be added as sublabels

I've removed more 'parent' links. AFAICS there's a lot to re-arrange as the legal names don't match what's on counless release:
There probably never was a Chappell & Co. Ltd. in the UK but rather Chappell & Co., Limited as can be seen https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00050419
meanwhile at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00342744

CHAPPELL MUSIC LIMITED (00342744)
Seventh Floor, 90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6XX
Incorporated on
22 July 1938

Previous company names
Name Period
WARNER/CHAPPELL ARTEMIS MUSIC LIMITED 17 Sep 1999 - 30 Nov 1999
CHAPPELL MUSIC LIMITED 31 Dec 1978 - 17 Sep 1999
ALLIANCE MUSIC PUBLISHING CO.LIMITED 22 Jul 1938 - 31 Dec 1978

Tarantxon
Should be Chappell & Co. Ltd.

Touche / I missed that one.
Also, to clarify ones I added IDK too — I just meant that I either wasn't sure or didn't check those ones too carefully.

Tarantxon
Trying to group them by territory next.

It's a huge list, so maybe it would be advantageous if we broke it up and focused on each region individually instead of trying to attack the whole thing at once.

Loanesloan
the first step: To do a bit of Research on which Company was ed at some Point in time and which Name changes it went through.

berothbr
advantageous if we broke it up and focused on each region

We're going to have to do a bit of both, but first it appears that Chappell & Co., Limited was a different company to Chappell Music Limited.

"Chappell & Co., Limited" in the db as Chappell & Co. Paris.

"Chappell Music Limited" in the db as Chappell Music Ltd., possibly (to be further researched) represented around the world by
Chappell Music International Ltd.
Chappell Music, Inc.
Chappell Music Canada Ltd.
Chappell Music Philippines, Inc.

AFAICS there aren't real companies called Chappell Music Co.

Tarantxon
AFAICS there aren't real companies called Chappell Music Co. Ltd. or Chappell Music Co.

Probably not, but in most threads everyone seems to prefer that we keep those (FWIW my personal preference is to obliterate the ones we can't substantiate).

Loanesloan
maybe Rossmichael can spent some time on this via companieshouse...?

I recently made a start on Warner Chappell Music International Ltd.. (Warner/Chappell Music International Ltd.)

A few links that may establish timeline / name changes for the US company -
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/2027137
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ny/892472
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ny/226140
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ny/226141
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ny/990620

Canada -
https://opencorporates.com/companies/ca/0430773
(https://opencorporates.com/companies/ca/2562537)

Just keeping the thread going and picking out the (hopefully all UK) - with "Ltd." suffix flagged as valid entries:

berothbr

Chappell International Publishing Ltd. = ok
Chappell Music International Ltd. = ok
Chappell Music Ltd. = ok
Chappell & Co. Ltd. = ok
Chappell Music Co. Ltd. = ok

I'll put in some work on the profiles.

budget label Crown Records (2)
issued these: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/Don-Dick-Jimmy-Brand-Me-With-Your-Kisses/master/897248

all 3 releases in MR have on labels: Chappel Music Pub. Co.

maybe the budget label had their own publisher? similar name, different spelling, heard that before: "different spelling, different entity"

are we 100% certain this Chappel falls under the Chappell (3) umbrella? is there proof? thanks

ooops double posted

d-of
are we 100% certain this Chappel falls under the Chappell (3) umbrella? is there proof? thanks

Other releases with tracks by the same writers as on Don, Dick & Jimmy - Brand Me With Your Kisses show Chappell.

Don, Dick & Jimmy - Brand Me With Your Kisses label a bit beat but text looks like: Chappel Music Pub. Co.

{Sic] doesn't belong in the release note

d-of
{Sic] doesn't belong in the release note

Why? it denotes that the discrepancy between the LCCN spelling and the release notes spelling is intentional because it's spelled that way on the labels?

d-of
{Sic] doesn't belong in the release note

[Sic] in square brackets indicates that it's actually written that way on release (and not mistyped by the submitter / editor) - so it's actually helpful and shorter than to make a Phrase like "XXX is misspelled on release as XXX"

ok ty berothbr an Loanesloan, you are right! I see a dict definition here:
1,so; thus: usually written parenthetically to denote that a word, phrase, age, etc., that may appear strange or incorrect has been written intentionally or has been quoted verbatim: He signed his name as e. e. cummings(sic).
--sorry I spoke without checking dictionary first, BUT I don't think [SIC] belongs in release notes in most cases,
the release (ideally) notes are (sic) in verbatim as per guidelines I thought guidelines or this is what I understood to be release notes
{A]: verbatim (b] verbatim, LCCN: true company name
-name mistakes have the ANV function, the release notes can be used if the name appears in a variety of ways, eg. say:"john smith on label, JOhnny Smmitth. spelled incorrect, in the liner"
subs that dont use the release notes dont end up with an unsightly [sic][

I do not want to go through all my subs and add SIC, I use the release and sub notes,
guidelines surely do not say add [sic] for spelling discrepencies
^^^^^^PLEASE IGNORE MY BLITHER

on forum topic please SEE my post last night says:
budget label Crown Records (2)
issued these: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/Don-Dick-Jimmy-Brand-Me-With-Your-Kisses/master/897248

all 3 releases in MR have on labels: Chappel Music Pub. Co.

maybe the budget label had their own publisher? similar name, different spelling, heard that before: "different spelling, different entity"

are we 100% certain this Chappel falls under the Chappell (3) umbrella? is there proof? thanks
------------------------------------------
what about all past publisher splits because of label verbatim differences?
are we sure CROWN was Legit and just spelled Chappell wrong?

d-of
all 3 releases in MR have on labels: Chappel Music Pub. Co.

maybe the budget label had their own publisher? similar name, different spelling, heard that before: "different spelling, different entity"

Not likely to be a different publisher. Other Crown releases by the same artist credit Chappell Music, it's not the first time a misspelling gets repeated.
We are doing the research here and should agree this is sufficient evidence to accept that this is a typo and should be invalidated, redirecting accordingly.

Tarantxon
Other Crown releases by the same artist credit Chappell Music

Then that is sufficient evidence, thanks

d-of
I do not want to go through all my subs and add SIC, I use the release and sub notes,
guidelines surely do not say add [sic] for spelling discrepencies

Not to go too far off topic, but don't worry about that. It's basically useful for emphasizing something in a direct quote is not a typo, but actually misspelled that way in the source material.

What is Chappell? Is it a label that has nothing to do with the publisher?

FromLondon
What is Chappell? Is it a label that has nothing to do with the publisher?

Looks like a merge ahead for me... ("We don't split entities that way")

If it is the same then should be merged of course. Or is it a different company? (That's why I'm asking)

about 1 year ago

Tarantxon
we may want to merge Chappell (3), Chappell (UK) and Chappell.

Chappell Music Ltd., also reminding us we ought to merge

Tarantxon
Chappell (3), Chappell (UK) into Chappell

.

Tarantxon
IMO this would merging the 'typo' variant with Chappell Music Ltd.,

have redirected it.

Tarantxon
also reminding us we ought to merge
Tarantxon
Chappell (3), Chappell (UK) into Chappell

has this been concluded?
at least Chappell (UK) should be redirected to Chappell (3)

FromLondon
What is Chappell?

It is the label imprint of the same publishing firm.
I think we ought to consider migrating all Chappell.

I suppose that, if we interpret 'Chappel' as the company logo, all of the releases that use Chappell Recorded Music Library.

Please :

nik
We do not separate entities that way. If the same name appears to be used for a label and a publisher (or any other company role), use the same name in the database.

I am starting to migrate all Chappell while tentatively updating the profiles.

I will start by invalidating Chappell (UK) and moving the five entries currently under it to Chappell as there is no evidence of the former being a real entity and afaics, in one year of discussing this topic, everyone seems to agree it should be eliminated.

Tarantxon
I am starting to migrate all Chappell (3) and Chappell (UK) into Chappell while tentatively updating the profiles.

Wowowoh, wait a bit:

velove
has this been concluded?

I think before moving almost 6000 (!) Releases, you need a very clear approvement in this thread, despite of what nik said...

re-pinging velove

Loanesloan
Wowowoh, wait a bit:

Of course I am waiting. The only releases that have been changed were the five still listed under Chappell (UK).
As it has been suggested Chappell should be the Publisher too, not just the Label they put together later; if this is not right I'll change back the profile tweaks and move back those five to #3.
Please don't worry, I haven't gone mad; only needed to kick up a bit of dust so we can move on.

Also regarding Chappell S.A..

Added variants on Spanish branch profile Chappell Ibérica to avoid duplications.

Tarantxon
Spain
Chappell Ibérica
and maybe Chappell S.A. (we may need a Chappell, S.A.) to distinguish from

Chappell S.A., Editions Chappell, Chappell S.A. Paris, Chappell & Co. Paris

Loanesloan
Chappell S.A. and Chappell S.A. Paris - should be kept seperate

Agree to not merge. Maybe different owners?
BTW, 24 shellac releases with pics moved to Chappell S.A. Paris, as on release.

Loanesloan
I would disagree to making them all sublabels, because
a) sublabels are different entities/imprints, but some of those are actually just spelling variations that we keep seperate for easier database use
b) sublabel / parent label describes a hierarchical relationship between a Company and it's subsidiaries

Agree, we do not known the ownership of each Chappell.

Tarantxon
Also regarding Chappell S.A. and the eventual addition of a twin profile as Chappell, S.A. so the French and Spanish entities can be recognised, I've noticed that the one image on the profile page does in fact have the comma, so maybe the former profile would be better used for the Spanish releases. I guess releases currently under Chappell Ibérica (which IMHO only means "Spanish Chappell" and isn't a Company name per se, much like the overdiscussed "RCA " credit) will need to go to whatever # Chappell we decide on and where we find the S.A. suffix we may use Chappell S.A..

Chappell Ibérica should stay on database as per "as on release" main rule here.
Could you link "Chappell, S.A." for Spanish company? I could not find it on Chappell S.A.
Yes, on Spanish companies was very common to use comma between "company" and "S.A." until 1990s years but since then is a mix of cases.

tele52
Could you link "Chappell, S.A." for Spanish company?

I'm sorry but we don't have this in the database yet, its introduction has so far only been suggested, sometime earlier in this thread.
Having followed a very similar Forum discussion over the printed "RCA " and "RCA Editeur" on French releases on the RCA label, I was really only suggesting that here too all the releases with these kinds of credits do not intend to refer to the location-specific companies but to their Group Name.
In that thread too there have been extensive arguments that explain that the generic company name is what is credited in print, not a company name that, transcribed literally, only adds a 'made up' company name to the database, created in error with the justification of entering what is 'on release'.

I certainly don't want this to follow a similar fate but hope everyone here understands my frustration at the Chappell topic making only so much progress in a whole year.
But hey, it's to be expected: Discogs requires unlimited patience and we are all doing the best we can with little help from up above.
- be warned it's a black hole of a thread and getting involved in it may affect your health -https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/770417

To recapitulate: I believe both "Chappell S.A. Paris" and "Chappell Iberica" didn't exist as a Company Names until we created them here and never really did. I think instead they derive from Discogs s transcribing what they have copied from their releases verbatim.
Pending research of what exactly were the official company names used on legal documents (and considering the possibility they may have changed slightly over time), I would therefore like to see a 'proper' company name added for Spain, even though it appears that both and Spain used the S.A. suffix after a comma.
It's up to us to either a) add another Chappell, S.A.(2) for the missing entity, or b) add Chappell S.A. for Spain and keep using Chappell, S.A. for or vice-versa.

Sorry for my bad english, I meant this:

Tarantxon
I've noticed that the one image on the profile page does in fact have the comma,

What release have comma? could you provide the link?
Certanly the comma is common used on spanish companies until 90s

Please see Chappell S.A. profile image.

Please note there's https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/778490
Perhaps once this is resolved we ought to discuss Chappell Group Control and similar.

Tarantxon
Please note there's Editions Chappell being questioned at https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/778490

We seem to have made some progress there,

Came across these two this morning, which you have mentioned above.
Chappell S.A. Paris

They should obviously be merged.

I suggest Tarantxon that we start a new thread again, everything you've covered here, but there's more chance of getting with a new tread than bumping here, where conversations are drifting, only because there's so much being considered.
All IMO of course :-)

Since much was discussed on the parallel thread, we need more votes in favour of a mass-merge of Chappell.
It was indeed the same company's label and both shared the same address at 50 New Bond Street, London, W1

velove
I agree with merge and using Chappell without 3

FromLondon
I can't see any reason for 2 labels here. Merge +1.

mtwallet
one profile for the label AND the publisher if they are indeed the same

Opdiner
That would be my vote. It's one less fudged name in the database.

Tarantxon
in favour of a mass-merge of Chappell (3) to Chappell.

Another +1

I'd be interested to hear Opdiner's opinion on this —we shouldn't rush this one because it's a big change.

Which profile is for the label / recorded music library, sold off separately and now owned by Universal? Is it Chappell?
https://www.universalproductionmusic.com/en-row/about

Rossmichael
the label / recorded music library, sold off separately and now owned by Universal? Is it Chappell?

Yes, until the recent attempts at unification with the Publishing entity, the Chappell Recorded Music.

Tarantxon
Yes, until the recent attempts at unification with the Publishing entity, the Chappell entry was for the recorded music department and Label also known as Chappell Recorded Music Library / Chappell Recorded Music.

Seeing as the publishing operations and recorded music were separate divisions, and are now owned by different companies, why not keep them apart in the database?

The recorded side of the business established in 1941, seems to have been acquired by Chappell label (owns the catalogue).
https://www.universalproductionmusic.com/en-gb/discover/labels

Why not keep Chappell (3) remaining just for publishing credits, linked to Warner Music Group?

Edit: removed (...)

Rossmichael
Why not keep Chappell for the label / recorded music, linking it to "Universal", with Chappell (3) remaining just for publishing credits, linked to Warner Music Group?

Yes , and it looks usually quite easy to know which one we have on release but I understand it goes against "diktat" :

nik
We do not separate entities that way. If the same name appears to be used for a label and a publisher (or any other company role), use the same name in the database.

Sorry for the lack of progress here, it looks like most company name variations will remain in the database for the time being. Thankfully we all agree studios should be unified; Chappell had a recording studio on the premises of the New Bond St. store and, since both pointed to the same location of the correct name, I have invalidated Chappell Recording Studios.

avalon67
Came across these two this morning, which you have mentioned above.
Chappell S.A.
Chappell S.A. Paris

Tarantxon
To recapitulate: I believe both "Chappell S.A. Paris" and "Chappell Iberica" didn't exist as a Company Names until we created them here and never really did. I think instead they derive from Discogs s transcribing what they have copied from their releases verbatim.

Did we ever get any further with these?

avalon67
Did we ever get any further with these?

Not really. We're stuck at the stage where it's been repeatedly stressed that we ought to keep entities as on release for now.

We do have some consensus that location suffixes should be removed, Opdiner and others.
The text at Chappell S.A. shows what the company name is, based in Paris.
I know I'm preaching to the converted Tarantxon......

We've agreed to ditch the suffix on a few recently.
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/795239

Maybe _jules can help out?
Correct company name please?

It may be better to have separate threads for each issue and collate them here?

I'd be happy to invalidate Chappell S.A., please vote or express any objections.
Similarly I think Chappell Ibérica should go to "Chappell, S.A." or "Chappell S.A. (2)"

Tarantxon
Similarly I think Chappell Ibérica should go to "Chappell, S.A." or "Chappell S.A. (2)"

This should be Chappell Ibérica, S.A. as credited on many Releases...

avalon67
The text at Chappell S.A. shows what the company name is, based in Paris.
I know I'm preaching to the converted Tarantxon......

As we also have a Chappell S.A. in Spain, i think we should Keep the Suffix with regards to RSG §4.3.2.

Loanesloan
Chappell Ibérica, S.A.

+1 Yes, it seems legit.

avalon67
We do have some consensus that location suffixes should be removed

I agree with this too with the exception of Chappell Music Of Canada (that seems like more of a name to me than a location).

Loanesloan
As we also have a Chappell S.A. in Spain, i think we should Keep the Suffix with regards to RSG §4.3.2.

Seems like the guideline friendly option.

Loanesloan
This should be Chappell Ibérica, S.A. as credited on many Releases...

It's feasible that this is a 'real' company, so agree.

berothbr
Chappell Music Of Canada (that seems like more of a name to me than a location).

Yup, me too.

So +1 to invalidate Chappell SA (even though I'd do differently if it were my site)

Tarantxon
Since much was discussed on the parallel thread, we need more votes in favour of a mass-merge of Chappell (3) to Chappell.
It was indeed the same company's label and both shared the same address at 50 New Bond Street, London, W1
velove
I agree with merge and using Chappell without 3

FromLondon
I can't see any reason for 2 labels here. Merge +1.

mtwallet
one profile for the label AND the publisher if they are indeed the same

Opdiner
That would be my vote. It's one less fudged name in the database.

+1

Great. Thanks to the votes in favour I am glad to announce that we'll be going ahead with the mass-merge of Chappell.
Since the profile pages seem to be OK now we will proceed with the migration in the next day or two.

Tarantxon
mass-merge of Chappell (3) to Chappell.

If I hadn't expressed my agreement so far, then you have it. Good luck!

Tarantxon
I'd be happy to invalidate Chappell S.A. Paris and redirect to Chappell S.A., please vote.

+1

Tarantxon
Great. Thanks to the votes in favour I am glad to announce that we'll be going ahead with the mass-merge of Chappell (3) to Chappell.
Since the profile pages seem to be OK now we will proceed with the migration in the next day or two.

Great job Tarantxon!
This morning I already went through Chappell (3) releases in my collection, and made the appropriate edit as well as others at the same time. These mass-edits are an opportunity to fix obvious mistakes and make some easy updates.

valparaiso
These mass-edits are an opportunity to fix obvious mistakes and make some easy updates.

Yes.

valparaiso
These mass-edits are an opportunity to fix obvious mistakes and make some easy updates.

And keep finding unresolved issues needing another thread ;-(

avalon67
keep finding unresolved issues

I've just cleared the issue with Williamson (2) I stumbled on while checking a few Chappell (3) entries.

IMO the Chappells pages in the database need a close look into as part of this project (maybe it's been mentioned already, apols), I see a bunch of them are DNU with just a couple of entries still attached
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/search/?q=chappells&type=label

+ looking at what's listed @ Chappells Music (see comments in history) those look like "typos" to me...
Would you be OK with merging Chappells Music into Chappell Music?

_jules
OK with merging Chappell Music?

along with

Chappell Music Ltd.

Tarantxon
_julesOK with merging Chappells Music into Chappell Music? along with

TarantxonChappels Music Ltd. has also cropped up; misspelling of Chappell Music Ltd.

Yes to both from me

OK, thanks & done, one less random / dead end publisher page, 13,648 to go.

Tarantxon
Please :
nik
We do not separate entities that way. If the same name appears to be used for a label and a publisher (or any other company role), use the same name in the database.

Could you link me to the source of this quote please, I would like to use it for another merge. Thanks.

maldoror
Could you link me to the source of this quote please,

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/412815#3841602

i was notified about a LCCN change in The Dollars - Pretty Miss / Time
this is an italian record with songs written by italian artists publised by Ed. Chappell
https://www.coobiz.it/azienda/milano-qualsiasi-attivita/co1733175

is it correct to change all these to Chappell
should this company Ed. Chappell have its own entry ?

another one Adriano Celentano - Don't Play That Song

tuca-tuca
should this company Ed. Chappell have its own entry ?

While I agree it's probably not too right to add these to the 'generic' Edizioni Chappell S.r.l. between 1981 to 2012 (assuming the 4 exceptions assigned to 1966-1977 may be errors or reissues - some research needed).

tuca-tuca
should this company Ed. Chappell have its own entry ?

This should go to Editions Et Productions Théâtrales Chappell

EDIT
there came a answer before mine , but foun thread here https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/778490

Klanzky
This should go to Editions Et Productions Théâtrales Chappell

Please do not confuse these: that is the 'other' French company.

I imagine all the Italian releases by Don't Play That Song was released in but also credits other Italian publishers, so I'm not sure.

"Editions Et Productions Théâtrales Chappell" is quite a different entity for the italian release i believe…
but this one Editions Chappell in the meanwhile

Tarantxon
Please do not confuse these: that is the 'other' French company.

wrote this because Editions Et Productions Théâtrales Chappell , but I may misunderstood something then :-)

tuca-tuca
should this company Ed. Chappell have its own entry ?

Please use Edizioni Chappell.

thank you, you just anticipated me
after some research i found as well Chappell S.p.A. in Edizioni Chappell was acting as a label once...imo

we also have Edizioni Chappell. Could it be used for the company combinations without suffix?

Tarantxon
Please use Edizioni Chappell.

ok

I have elaborated this for Edizioni Chappell:

Italian regional branch of the Chappell publishing house, sometimes abbreviated as "Ed." or "Edizioni" Chappell.

Use this entry only for releases that specifically mention Ed. Chappell or Edizioni Chappell without a company suffix.

If suffix is stated on release:
use Ed. Chappell S.p.A. (for the company active presumably between 1973 and 1980)
use Edizioni Chappell S.r.l. (for the company active presumably between 1981 and 2012)

just thinking...

remains the problem when Chappell is credited alone in the form Edizioni: Chappell as i saw on some releases, example: Madrugada (here there is Ed. Chappell without s.r.l as well)

I kinda have the feeling we're back to the good olde Discogs way of "inventing" not credited on releases entities just like we were inventing Elektra Italy because Elektra was supposed to be US not Italian.
Let's look at Adriano Celentano - Woman In Love - Rock Around The Clock / Preghero
French edition of songs recorded by Italian artist
Songs are cover versions
Ed. Chappell
Ed. Intersong

Who's the publisher?
The French branches of international music publishers Chappell / Intersong?
The Italian branches?
Or just the "brand names" Chappell / Intersong?

I do believe that on French releases, and possibly Italian, too, Ed. / Editions / Edizioni are not necessarily part of the publisher's name but a crediting convention where Ed. / Editions is the "role".

It's quite standard to find, on French releases:
Editions Something when there's enough room
Ed. Something when there's not enough real estate on the labels
and just Something when there's really not enough real estate because there are a few publishers credited

It's really not that different from the book publishing world where you can either say
"un livre paru aux éditions Grasset"
or "publié par Grasset"
or "publié par la maison d'édition Grasset"
and the publisher is Grasset but the full legal incorporated name is Société des Éditions Grasset et Fasquelle SA

And those are all variations of the same publishing house brand, and backstage there is legal paperwork with changes of incorporation / ownership / legal name but at the end of the day the brand / the publishing house is still Grasset.
And, yes, we don't have the appropriate tools to manage those variations.
So we keep going round.
Especially when the record company's obligation is just to namecheck the publisher not to credit it consistently or with its official name.

And then, IMO, it becomes very similar to "labels" / "logos" - Chappell is the "brand name" of a publishing company that had many local branches.
And when we're crediting "the French Chappell" for a French release that's only crediting "Chappell" or the Italian Chappell because the songs are performed by an Italian we're actually doing what we used to do with labels, creating Elektra for French editions of Elektra.

IMO, crediting the brand name Chappell when the credit reads "Ed. Chappell" is something that should be considered.

Apologies if this is just rehashing old ideas or completely at odds with the current practise, I do appreciate the efforts to sort this quagmire but the lack of database tools and/or vision is slightly dispiriting...

To get back to Adriano Celentano - Woman In Love - Rock Around The Clock / Preghero, the update from 3 days ago looked correct, the one from yesterday may be another kind of correct, but it can't go on like that with a different kind of correct every other day...

_jules
IMO, crediting the brand name Chappell when the credit reads "Ed. Chappell" is something that should be considered.

This

for similarity then, when we have "Ed. RCA" we'd use only RCA and not Edizioni RCA
it's the same concept, imo

_jules
IMO, crediting the brand name Chappell when the credit reads "Ed. Chappell" is something that should be considered.

Same from me

tuca-tuca
for similarity then, when we have "Ed. RCA" we'd use only RCA and not Edizioni RCA
it's the same concept, imo

I wouldn't generalize this, must be decided case by case - see also related dicussion here: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/793497

Just a suggestion.

I have just moved my four submissions that used Chappell (3) to Chappell as a result of this discussion and I noticed that there are over 4,000 releases that credit Chappell (3) and that is not counting multiple versions of each release!

Because there are no name variations involved, it would be a relatively easy batch edit for the staff to complete. That's why computers were invented after all.

Diognes_The_Fox is this something you could organize?

Asking for permission to make invalid Chappell Ibérica

Note: request also leaved at https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/770745?page=8#7904526

tele52
Asking for permission to make invalid Chapell Iberica and Chapell Ibérica, typos of correct one Spanish branch Chappell Ibérica

fine

tele52
Chapell Iberica and Chapell Ibérica

Yes please. Redirect both to Chappell Ibérica and invalidate.

borderes
fine

Tarantxon
Yes please. Redirect both to Chappell Ibérica and invalidate.

Great, done

thethrowback
Because there are no name variations involved, it would be a relatively easy batch edit

I'm sorry but although many of these are "catch-all" entities (Chappell (3) is also being moved to different Chappell names. Surely no bot is going to do that here.

_jules
IMO, crediting the brand name Chappell when the credit reads "Ed. Chappell" is something that should be considered.

This suggestion was mooted here
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/778490

there's relevant comments through the thread

Tarantxon
there are too many variations

I will pay that. Out of interest I edited 100 of the releases credited to Chappell (3) and found 5 that should have used another form of the Chappell name. Many hands make light work as they say.

After Celentano, here's another one that had 2 layers of contradictory updates within the past few days:
Lio - Amoureux Solitaires

How does it work?

French edition = Lio - Amoureux Solitaires = Ed. Chappell / Celluloid / Alpha
Italian edition = Lio - Amoureux Solitaires = Chappell - Celluloid - Alpha
Spanish edition = Lio - Amoureux Solitaires = Chappell / Celluloid / Alpha
German edition = Lio - Amoureux Solitaires (Dis Moi Que Tu M'aimes) = Chappell / Celluloid / Alpha
So-called NL edition that should actually be Benelux if not simply Belgium = Lio - Amoureux Solitaires = Chappell / Celluloid / Alpha

How does that justify the French edition would get to be attached to Chappell?

_jules
Lio - Amoureux Solitaires

I guess we'll be doing our best to choose the most fitting version of Chappell, but what of Edition Alpha?