I made this edit, which got challenged with reason, and I’m not sure how I should resolve the issue.
The problem is that the album credits a company (a studio), not an individual technician, for the recording (I’ve had a similar issue with a piano technician). MB expects a physical person in those instances, but I cannot provide one. It has been suggested to me to enter the company as the recording place, but a recording place already exists and it is very different (live event, not in the studio’s city). Label-release and label-recording relationships have already been pointed to me, but (apart from the fact that the studio is probably not a label), none seems to correspond.
What would be the right thing to do?
Enter the studio as an artist and credit them as the recording engineer (current state of affairs);
Use another, (ill-suited?) relationship/status for the company;
Enter the credit as an annotation of the release and leave it at that;
The CA design for this Release is also credited to a company.
My thinking is that a company in the non-legal sense is similar to a duo, group, band or orchestra and that extending the ability to be a creative entity out to a legal company may be the best way forward.
The obvious (to me) alternative is to use [unknown] credited as Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The possible downside of this MAY be that “credited as” doesn’t get much weight in a future wonderful search function and so ends up being pretty much redundant and largely un-related data.
I really don’t see any problem with a company as artist. I’ve added Hypgnosis as a graphic designer on a number of releases because that’s the way it’s credited. I’ve also added a few photography studios and photographic archives for photography credits.