Dureco Studio was founded in 1972 and operated under this name until 1999, when it was sold and renamed to E-Sound Studios.
In 2014 it was relocated to a new building, but without changing its name.
Usually a place in MB is the real location, the building, and it stays the same even if it is renamed, isn’t it?
Now we got two places in MB, Dureco and E-Sound Studios. I thought about keeping Dureco Studios (with disambiguation and alias) until relocation and make E-Sounds Studio the new studio with the new address.
But it doesn’t work: Most of the performances at E-Sounds Studios were recorded between 1999 and 2014 and even the related engineer has never seen the new place. And that’s what is to be found on all those releases.
But if I merge Dureco into E-Sounds Studios and create a separate place (recordings from 2014 on), there will be two studios with the same name - and no more Dureco.
Or should all stay the same place and we forget about the relocation? It’s still the same city, even the same street… ???
I’m not sure exactly what the policy (or a “guidelines”) say about this, so I’m giving my opinion here (which I like to think approximates “common sense”):
I think a lot of the people who argue “a name change doesn’t mean it’s a different place” are thinking of stadiums/concert arenas where a name change just means a change in which Fortune-500 corporation has purchased the naming rights, but it doesn’t mean any change in the character of the place.
In the case you’re describing, it sounds like the first change (the name change) corresponded to a change in ownership (of the actual studio, not just ownership of naming rights). If this change in ownership came with a change in management, and especially if it came with a change in most of the staff, and/or a change in focus (e.g. a change in the services provided, or a change in the genres of music they specialize in) , I would say that makes a strong argument that pre-change and post-change should be different places.
As for the change in location, I’m not sure if pre-2014 E-Sounds should be a different place than post-2014 E-Sounds. If these were concert venues (my main area of interest as regards MB “places”) I’d say definitely yes. For other types of place, I don’t have a strong opinion about whether physical location should be a fundamental/distinguishing aspect of the “place”-ness.
If we’re talking about recording studios, I suppose a question to ask is “Is there some fundamental (or just interesting) difference between a recording made at place A and a recording made at place B that is a consequence of the physical location?”
The first part of if it changes ownership and name than it’s a new place is correct according to guidelines, even if it’s the same physical location. However, it’s also required to create a new place if it moves and has the same name. Even if a building with the same name is torn down and rebuilt on the same exact location, it requires a new place. Just use disambiguation to make sure you can tell the place apart. Style / Place - MusicBrainz
In 1999 the owner changed, but the studio and it’s purpose remained the same.
Guidelines say: “If a place changes its name, but otherwise remains the same, the place name should be updated. This applies, for example, when a place is renamed for sponsorship reasons.”
It wasn’t for sponsorship reasons and I’m sure, some employees will also have been changed, but there’s no exclusion from the above rule.
Besides, what would be the relationship between Dureco and (old) E-Sound Studios?
2014 relocation:
That’s what I’m thinking about, too. The more technical, the less interesting is the real physical location. If manufacturers rebuild their buildings at the same address, we will not notice at all.
Although if the relocation is ignored, we miss the end of the tradition-rich original building.
And, as @tigerman325 pointed to the Guidelines: “If a place relocates, a new place should be created”…
EDIT:
They do not mention their relocation (and they moved the furniture from the old building): E-Sound Studio’s
Opnemen met warme vintage feel en de flexibiliteit van moderne technologie – sinds 1999
In the way this is being used, I would have thought three places make more sense. Yes, when a concert venue changes name then it is the same place. Sponsorship deals don’t change the audio and we are used to using Aliases for those. We just care about the location.
" If a place changes its name, but otherwise remains the same, the place name should be updated."
But it didn’t “otherwise stay the same”. In this example the “place” is including the people and equipment. It seems sensible that a recording company change should be documented in a clearer way. Different staff, different team, different history of how they change the audio. Otherwise we are wiping Dureco Studio from history. That does not seem right.
Remember - they are “guidelines” not rules to be blindly followed. Here we are documenting who and where music was made by. If this was a label then we would create a new entity.
Or maybe that’s the point - as a “company” this should be more of a label entity? Are these people not a form of “Production” company? And the studio is just a dumb building? Are we getting “studios” confused between the building and company?
All of the other types of “places” are just locations. A Studio is far more important part of the production of music and the companies, people and equipment involved needs more credit.
Studios are places - but I think they can be given better handling. Looking at the list of Place types the Studio is much more involved in the creation of the music. You are not quoting a place name, you are quoting a company name.
I don’t know what your company produces, but I don’t think that is an argument to credit all of the Dureco productions to E-Sound. Whereas the Wembley SSE Arena is still the Empire Pool in Wembley.
It just feels like a Studio is kinda somewhere between a Place and a Label as an entity. While it lives as a Place I feel it should be given the same respect as a Label when changing names.
Though I don’t know much about E-Sound. Were they just a rebranding of Dureco? Or a totally fresh start? If Dureco had closed for a year, and then E-Sound had opened up in the same building, would we give them a new Place then?
But why? It is the same address? (As guideline pedant would argue)
That is the confusion. A Studio is a hybrid entity. Half “place”, half “label”. So needs to be treated a bit of both. This is why I’d give it three entries and link them all in the annotations.
There is a similar puzzle that happens with Manufacturing, but there we seem to have created a Hybrid by having both places and labels to cover the complexities of ownership and locations.
If they would have closed for a year, there would have been a break and probably a loss of personnel. There would have been a reason to close it down, so there would have been substantial changes. It would give me the chance to relocate it to the studio of the new owner.
But there’s only relocation possible, and that seems wrong in this case.
(But of course, it can be explained in an annotation)
But a “place” never relocates. Only the personnel. And if a new company moves in, then they are the ones relocating to that place. The bricks and mortar are in the same location.
So if we are saying a “Studio” can relocate, then it must be talking of the personnel…
Back to @bsammon’s common sense. Three places. Linked by a relocation and lots of waffle in the Annotation.
