Record Industry has two entries
Merging is not possible … so should all the entries at the label reentered on the place ? How to proceed in such a case ?
A Place can change owners. So these are different entities.
For example, I have an interest in CD manufacturing. A “Place” can describe where the machines are. But the “Label” actually does the manufacturing. It is their name on the product. And they will often go bankrupt, get taken over, and generally change hands over the years.
Some plants can have a dozen different owners. One place, many labels. Hence “Pressed by” and “Pressed at”.
2 Likes
these two entities can be related with the ‘owner/owns’ relationship, like I just added for another pressing plant
2 Likes
The dates applied to those relationships are handy as then you can show the complex chains of ownerships and renaming, and even factories moving locations.
It can get quite mind mending trying to make sense of it. But the way relationships work within MB can help trace who owns what and when. You can follow the chains of renaming and ownership changes.
Discogs cheats by keeping these as a single entity. The database model of MB allows us to better map how it all joins up.
1 Like
I think another part of it is on MusicBrainz, Labels don’t change names, whereas Places can (if I understand how labels work, which I might not… lol)
But is the “pressing plant” disambiguation than correct on the label?
A label tends to be an actual company, so a new company owner means a new label. Often with a “renamed to” relationship.
A place shows the current (or last) name of the location, but does stay the same place at that same location.
This is why I posted the examples of the German plant above. Multiple labels are different companies, each need a new company entity. “Renamed into” relationships show their changing and link them. This way you also see who actually owned that label at each stage too. (It gets well messy…)
The Place just shows the name of the last owner (EDC Germany) when it finally closed.
2 Likes