Metal Hammer legacy labels.

Metal Hammer has half a dozen legacy labels when they should all be on Metal Hammer (Spain)

If anyone is bored and needs a project...

I am going to cause waves here I think.
The Metal Hammer scenario was/is I believe related to the publishing houses.
Each working autonomously.
I'm not even certain (working from memory at the mo) that the German was the UK.
I think one came first by one guy, followed by another guy...
Give me a while and I'll check it.
"Metal Hammer" MAY now be the parent... but something happened prior...

Not the Holy Grail, but a reasonable overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Hammer

The bit I recalled was when I bought early copies. It was def UK.
Hence; Rimensberger, who started and owned Metalhammer UK Ltd and the ed rights of the name, later sold them to Wigginghaus
and
Wigginghaus used the Dortmunder Rocknacht as a test ground for the publication in
IMO, the list you gave should become the Publisher (in some form)
The dates of UKs, for example, relate to the UK issue... etc.
Before a mass edit, I think the location (publishers) may be critical to info, dates etc. under the Brand Header

Edit; not a great analogy, but rather like the WEA company locations punt out a Brand (Metal Hammer are tailored to suit location market & magazine content)

http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/‎
http://www.metal-hammer.de/

Just a franchised brand. Individual publishing credits are another matter and of course can be entered. But there's only one Metal Hammer brand/label here. Not disimilar to Epic being run by Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd. in the UK, Sony Music Australia PTY in Australia and Sony Music incorporatatatatatedtetdted in the US of A.

Eviltoastman
Just a franchised brand. Individual publishing credits are another matter and of course can be entered.

Don't get me wrong - I'm with you on umbrella Branding for the whole slew of 'em. But the data / relationships in the existing 'already located issues' should really be turned into 'location publishers' (Companies, or whatever) for LCCN as the edits take place IMHO.
i.e. Published By, or Made By, or Manufactured By (or whatever we agree) "Metal Hammer, UK" or "Metal Hammer, UK Ltd." etc
Each of those pages can then have a bit of history on their role in the franchise (and how it all came about in the Umbrella page, with links to aforesaid)

How about:

Label - Metal Hammer
Distributed By - Metal Hammer (UK)

Would this work?

xjoxjox
How about:
Distributed By - Metal Hammer (UK)

Only if the release said "Distributed by Metal Hammer (UK)".

swagski
But the data / relationships in the existing 'already located issues' should really be turned into 'location publishers' (Companies, or whatever) for LCCN as the edits take place IMHO.

If Metal hammer only appears as the label, then this is largely moot. other credits for the publishers etc which may differentiate the holding entities would be fine, but only if present.

Release notes and the country field should be adequate.

Had already once attempted to discuss this,
http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/forums/topic/351451
Had forgotten about it.

Maybe a bit off topic, but I see a few are tagged as promo, when for the ones with images, I do not see promo on the release. These are not automatically promo because they came free with the magazine, right?

Amsreddevil
These are not automatically promo because they came free with the magazine, right?

Right.

Amsreddevil
These are not automatically promo because they came free with the magazine, right?

Not automatically.

RSG §6.12.2. Promo - Any item labeled as being released for promotional purposes, including advance copies sent out to promote a retail release and releases (often compilations) that are made available for free, as found attached to magazines. This tag should only be used where it is clear the item was released as such, for example it is explicitly mentioned on the release, or by the label, artist, or other reliable source...

On Metal Hammer Issue 76 July 2000, for example, this text is pretty clear:

"Not to be sold separately" & "Not for resale"

swagski
Don't get me wrong - I'm with you on umbrella Branding for the whole slew of 'em. But the data / relationships in the existing 'already located issues' should really be turned into 'location publishers' (Companies, or whatever) for LCCN as the edits take place IMHO.
i.e. Published By, or Made By, or Manufactured By (or whatever we agree) "Metal Hammer, UK" or "Metal Hammer, UK Ltd." etc

I am in full of this. Metal Hammer is the main brand/label, but regional pages should not be lost due to small-minded bureaucratic procedures. Just update to "modern" names. There's nothing wrong with the name like Metal Hammer, UK and it is obvious they handled those CDs on their page. Just decide which credit is better. When no exact role is given on releases we use generic "Record Company", however this is "too far" from the magazines so I think we should choose an other credit. I have no problem with Distributed By - it is obvious.

cvalda44
Metal Hammer, UK...
Distributed By

+1

cvalda44
but regional pages should not be lost due to small-minded bureaucratic procedures. Just update to "modern" names.

The entities which define the territories are the publishers. For instance in this example the differentiating entity is Future Publishing[/url] the company allowed to use the trade name in the UK. Making a new legacy label and applying a credit which is neither given or inferred could be seen as more 'small-minded'.

Eviltoastman
Amsreddevil
These are not automatically promo because they came free with the magazine, right?

Right.

They are not promos. They are issued by the magazine, produced by the magazine, not the artists' labels. No different to you releasing your 'favorite playlist' of what's happening.

xjoxjox
Label - Metal Hammer
Distributed By - Metal Hammer (UK)

Would this work?

No. It would be the manufacturer. For example Various - Razor: Music From The Cutting Edge (Vol. 7) would relate to;
Future Publishing Ltd.
(Better known in exact as Future Publishing Disc Department, Bath, BA1 2BW. The dept within Future Publishing Ltd.)
They 'made it'. "Published" could be confused with the music rights. It's also an MS by the way.
I'm not suggesting in any way that we use "Metal Hammer (UK)" or make up any names. Use what is on the releases as the manufacturer!
(I don't have the mag for that issue, but it's possible the music is 'licensed to' Future Publishing Ltd.)

xjoxjox
On Metal Hammer Issue 76 July 2000, for example, this text is pretty clear:

"Not to be sold separately" & "Not for resale"

That is because the magazine & the publication are one. The disc belongs to the magazine and should not be retailed as a separate entity. Absolutely nothing to do with a Promo from a Label. It is a Sampler.

swagski
Absolutely nothing to do with a Promo

??

Then what is "...and releases (often compilations) that are made available for free, as found attached to magazines..." doing in the guidelines?

Eviltoastman
Making a new legacy label

Not a legacy label at all. An actual label brand - Metal Hammer will be separated and regional magazine branches operating it will not be entered as labels.

Eviltoastman
and applying a credit which is neither given or inferred

Do you have any doubts these CD were issued by local MH publications ? We separate plant branches by location: Cinram, Olyphant, PA using just IFPI code info and apply Glass Mastered or Pressed By credits which are not given.... not sure why it should be a problem to separate magazine branches. If an actual publisher can be used - perfect, but what if not ?

xjoxjox
swagski
Absolutely nothing to do with a Promo

??

Then what is "...and releases (often compilations) that are made available for free, as found attached to magazines..." doing in the guidelines?

My quote should actually be "Absolutely nothing to do with a Promo from a label" and was in context to retailing comment :)
(For example; If I provide you with a CD playlist from a variety of Labels/Bands I don't expect you to 'trade it on' for retail sale in my name. And it is not a Promo)
We are talking Samplers anyway, not Promos...

swagski
They are not promos. They are issued by the magazine, produced by the magazine, not the artists' labels. No different to you releasing your 'favorite playlist' of what's happening.

cvalda44
Do you have any doubts these CD were issued by local MH publications ?

No, but are they credited? No. The difference on these is not the label (metal hammer) but the publisher in each country which is credited. This matter is no different to Epic record being run by th regional Sony Music branches in different territories. They all have a degree of autonomy within each given territory, but the brand/label itself remains constant.

Amsreddevil -These are not automatically promo because they came free with the magazine, right?
Eviltoastman - Right

swagski
They are not promos.

This is what we're saying too.

swagski
They are issued by the magazine, produced by the magazine, not the artists' labels.

Released through a Universal the 'Metal Hammer' trade name/label/brand.

=Swagski]No different to you releasing your 'favorite playlist' of what's happening

The main difference being private compilations would not be eligible.

cvalda44
not sure why it should be a problem to separate magazine branches. If an actual publisher can be used - perfect, but what if not ?

It's not quite the same thing and I had considered this and knew you'd bring it up.
The branches of Cinram or Olyphant etc have regional branches and divisions, but their ownedrs in these regions are not credited. If they were or are, then we';d credit the owners which are credited.

in the case of Metal Hammer, the owning publishers are always credited. These supplant the need to credit the magazine branch - which isn;t not the recipient of a credit anywhere. Cinram, SRC are. MEtal hammer is the core label brand and needs one profile. Regional variations are sorted by who is listed as publisher.

I wouldn't consider them promos.

xjoxjox
what is "...and releases (often compilations) that are made available for free, as found attached to magazines..." doing in the guidelines?

Not sure, must have been there for a while. I am not convinced it is a good guideline TBH.

What's your stance on the regionalism (legacy issue) of the label being discussed nik? Should these be differentiated by the publisher as printed on the release, or should we persist with legacy labels as they are currently split or by the methods suggested by others above?

swagski
Don't get me wrong - I'm with you on umbrella Branding for the whole slew of 'em. But the data / relationships in the existing 'already located issues' should really be turned into 'location publishers' (Companies, or whatever) for LCCN as the edits take place IMHO.
i.e. Published By, or Made By, or Manufactured By (or whatever we agree) "Metal Hammer, UK" or "Metal Hammer, UK Ltd." etc
Each of those pages can then have a bit of history on their role in the franchise (and how it all came about in the Umbrella page, with links to aforesaid)

^^^Re bit I've subsequently made bold above;

swagski
For example Various - Various - Razor: Music From The Cutting Edge (Vol. 7) would relate to;
Label; Metal Hammer
Made By: Future Publishing Ltd. (or Manufactured, or whatever we decide)
(Better known in exact as Future Publishing Disc Department, Bath, BA1 2BW. The dept within Future Publishing Ltd.)
They 'made it'. "Published" could be confused with the music rights.

Ditto that ^^ for this Various - Razor: Music From The Cutting Edge (Vol. 4) etcetera

swagski
i.e. Published By, or Made By, or Manufactured By (or whatever we agree) "Metal Hammer, UK" or "Metal Hammer, UK Ltd." etc

The problem it's not true. It's published by Future Publications in the UK and the rights would still belong to Future Publishing. Book and magazine publishing does not differ in meaning that much, except with books and magazine, the publisher often takes on distribution and manufacturing roles too.

nik
I am not convinced it is a good guideline TBH.

Then please change it as so many entries are incorrectly tagged as promos because of this rsg.

Amsreddevil
Then please change it as so many entries are incorrectly tagged as promos because of this rsg.

+1.

the German Metal Hammer CDs are definitly promos. they state promo quite prominently both on the disc and on the back:
http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-4602554-1369649057-3057.jpeg
http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-4484509-1366210827-3986.jpeg
http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-4484509-1366210835-3955.jpeg
http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-3158561-1318441799.jpeg
http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-3067144-1314196441.jpeg
http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-2292978-1275659374.jpeg
http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-1947750-1266712822.jpeg

syke
the German Metal Hammer CDs are definitly promos

(...)

Eviltoastman
It's published by Future Publications in the UK and the rights would still belong to Future Publishing. Book and magazine publishing does not differ in meaning that much, except with books and magazine, the publisher often takes on distribution and manufacturing roles too.

Fine. Agreed. They would adopt the publishing rights - you're absolutely correct.
So that's now;

swagski

For example Various - Metal Hammer
Published By: Future Publishing Ltd.
(Better known in exact as Future Publishing Disc Department, Bath, BA1 2BW. The dept within Future Publishing Ltd.)
Ditto = Various - Razor: Music From The Cutting Edge (Vol. 4) etcetera

Arguably they could also be given a 'Made By' (or less pertinent 'Manufactured By') too?

syke
the German Metal Hammer CDs are definitly promos. they state promo quite prominently both on the disc and on the back:

It's one of those semantic dichotomy scenarios again. Is it promo'ing the magazine itself, or the artists?
Is it simply a stock strapline to stop the issue, which is part of a publication sales strategy, from retailing separately?
Personally, I'm of a mind that Artist Labels actually 'Promo'.
Collective Labels, even as yet unlabelled bands, etc., collected together by a third party for their own ends are - IMHO - Samplers (of the music they like and you may not otherwise have heard of, etc)
Edit; Maybe some labels' execs wouldn't even give some of the out-takes & pre mix-downs house room? ;)
---2nd edit;
Back inlay of my UKs "The producers of this CD have paid the composers & publishers for the use of their music"
Rather an odd thing for a "Promo"??
Again, IMHO, they are really 3rd-party discs - not 'promos'

This would appear to be the copyright protection & publishing entity found on several music mag covermounts Respect Music (2) (Bottom-right on back inlays of Metal Hammer UKs)
It may also help subs.
Also on other covermounts like those of Songlines

so.....

http://discogs.programascracks.com/label/Metal+Hammer+%28UK%29

SR filed for guidance as we need to sort out whether or not the merge is correct action.

I have removed that magazine promo guideline http://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/52151d0b9469733cfcfc8bda?page=1#5284cb81ea62114b23d16f73

These releases should be entered with Metal Hammer as the label, and whoever the publisher was as... Made By? I have doubts about Published By being the applicable term here in of audio content.

Thanks nik.

And the answer is :
-Remove Promo if added
-Change Label to Metal Hammer
Ok ?
But should we leave as is on all licensed/published by/made by ? Or change all these to Made by ?

Gundozer
But should we leave as is on all licensed/published by/made by ? Or change all these to Made by ?

Each sub will need to be checked. for instance some publishers may received licensing credits and therefore would be valid. the published by credit is the one we should switch to made by.

Latest update:
Metal Hammer (UK) =59
Metal Hammer (CS) =0
Metal Hammer () =0
Metal Hammer (Greece) =57
Metal Hammer (Italy)= 0
Metal Hammer (Poland) =0
Metal Hammer (Spain) = 0

Gundozer
Metal Hammer (Greece) =57

was doing some work on that ^^^
still '36' to correct on Metal Hammer (Greece) though…
ah, and on Metal Hammer (UK) are '25' to do.
2 days ago it was '59'
hope this will be done soon…
cheers.

yes thanks..it's not complicated..just take some time (from other things). I have done some of the UK-2 days ago.

So...did some on Greece. 29 left there now.
Please help here.

Gundozer
So...did some on Greece. 29 left there now.
Please help here.

^^^ i just cleaned up Metal Hammer (UK) still needs some work.
some one?

I've chipped them down from a 100+ pretty much single handedly. Just chip away at them. It's been at 24 since I worked on them last three weeks ago.

^^^ alright. i will take care of it.

elchicofritto
Metal Hammer (UK) still needs some work.

done.

Eviltoastman
Metal Hammer (UK)
Metal Hammer (CS)
Metal Hammer ()
Metal Hammer (Greece)
Metal Hammer (Italy)
Metal Hammer (Poland)
Metal Hammer (Spain)

^^^ now all the legacy labels have been cleaned up.
thanks.

Cool. Glad I didn't do them. I was finding the proliferation of crap music to be quite depressing.

:D

can't say that i have a good understanding of the aforementioned discussion - but if it's said and done then so be it. not sure if it makes a difference of any kind but with regard to the greek version of metal hammer: no info is mentioned in the wiki article. it's website is http://www.metalhammer.gr/ and as per that, it's actual title has always been "Metal Hammer & Heavy Metal Magazine" - prior that (in the late 80s - early 90s) they used to be 2 different mags published in greece (metal hammer / heavy metal) which were ed at one point.

Where both logos are present as they are in Various - Metal Hammer Series: The Hunt For Today's Metal Vol.1 Superior Forces, then a label "Metal Hammer & Heavy Metal" is justified. metal Hammer (Greece) was certainly incorrect.

The search below indicates the majority of the affected releases. Each needs to be checked.
http://discogs.programascracks.com/search/?type=all&title=&credit=&artist=&genre=&label=metal+hammer&style=&track=&country=Greece&catno=&year=&barcode=&submitter=&anv=&contributor=&format=&advanced=1

I created the t label here:
Metal Hammer & Heavy Metal

moominmammaa is absolutely right - I've been a (dedicated) reader since 1986.
It's not merely the Greek branch.
The t label is certainly better than the generic (parent label) Metal Hammer...