Keeping it simple was the key, but finding a way to make it clear to other people that this stuff is linked. Was kinda confusing when I first saw it at the weekend as I really didn’t know the Plants were there as places. Totally missed that conversation, and nothing in the guidelines. But we are both looking at this from the same meanings - making it easier to link our discs.
We are not the legal team for Sony, we just want to know which plant is owned\operated by whom.
I won’t be touching any of the USA stuff as I know very little over there, and don’t have many US discs. Enough curiousity in Europe first. (Oh, and that link down to South Africa where they were using UDEN Glass Masters… which got my curiosity)
I don’t pretend to be an expert, still learning. But have an eye for details and like the accuracy.
Me too. Be we will be, probably. There isn’t an infinite number of plants and companies which run them, but not all of them are easily researched and it’ll take some time until …
How to credit manufacturers on MB?
This sentence was copied from Discogs and slightly edited:
“When crediting DADC Austria from the matrix mirror band, by the presence of its name/logo, with or without the Axxxxxxxxxx-xxxx matrix number and mastering SID code IFPI L55x, the most accurate role to use is glass mastered by, unless there is a specific role given in the matrix (i.e. ‘MANUFACTURED BY DADC AUSTRIA’).”
But is this our approach?
Even if the “specific role” manufactured by is given (it’s a generic role on Discogs), it’s still “glass mastered by DADC Austria” and probably “pressed by”, if there’s a 94** mould SID and if it was certainly pressed before the renaming of the plant(s).
When do we use “manufactured by”, when “glassmastered by” or “pressed by”? (same questions for “at” of course)
If a disc was obviously glass mastered and pressed by DADC Austria, should both credits be entered?
Should it be manufactured by too, if it’s obvious, that the whole release was manufactured there? (or only in case it is explicitly credited on the release, like on Discogs)
Should pressed by and glass mastered by be omitted, if manufactured by is used?
What about brokers? There are often manufacturing credits (from glass master or printed on the release) - should they be credited with manufactured by? On Discogs they are - if it’s printed, it is! But brokers have nothing to do with the physical release.
These questions have to be decided, before there are further instructions to plant/company annotations added.
That whole block will get a proper re-write. For now it is more of a start point \ place holder for me (or anyone) to create something usable for the MB world.
I think we are in a small minority of people interested in this or even filling the data in
The way I have done this is using “Manufactured by Label” as a coverall when I don’t know the specifics. (Bit like “performer” instead of picking an “instrument”)
“Glass Mastered By” and “Pressed By” are currently out of my knowledge area, unless I am copying them from Discogs. There will often have cases where they are separate. For example a South African Radiohead CD I was editing last week had the Glass Mastered at EMI UDEN and then printed at a South African plant. That one seemed obvious to add both credits. But for a European release where it happens in the same building, I just put “Manufactured by” as that is usually all I can tell.
But I am adding these details and notes because I want to learn more. Learning how to read the IFPI Lxxx codes are very interesting to me and may even look into editing a Wiki page to create a chart for MB use based on some of the resources I am finding online.
It is also because in some cases the only difference between two releases I own are the manufacturing details. And I know that encoded in these numbers and letters are implications of dates of manufacture. We already have 80+ Releases for Dark Side of the Moon and it helps if we have clear ways of spotting which is which as sometimes the musical content can be geekily different.
Manufactured by is a generic credit, like on Discogs. Credited, if “made by” or “manufactured by” is printed on the release (including matrix), but no brokers (often www.xyz.com)
Glass mastered by should be credited, if this is possible, because the glass master is identifiable manufactured by a company/plant (by instructions given in annotations to these companies). In many cases, glass mastered by will be found already credited on Discogs.
Pressed by should be credited, if it’s possible, by characteristic imprints of the pressing plant (e.g. 1-1-1-NL for Uden, “Made in Germany by…” on Langenhagen discs, mould SIDs). There’s nearly no information on Discogs, but on Musik-Sammler, there’s a mould SID list including links to external sources (see Ursprüngliche und aktuelle Quellen:).
Here it is: The Musik-Sammler list is available as a sortable list too. It can be ordered by mastering SID codes too. It’s German language, but it should be easy to use.
There should be information which IFPI codes were used by the company’s plant(s) too, so that editors can find instructions, when to credit “pressed by” this plant/company.
And in the meantime I’ve got 2 versions of the same album too …
I’m not sure it’s a good idea to use these relationships when the name or logo of the manufacturer is not actually present on the disc. Take into account this paragraph from the Discogs guidelines:
The mastering SID code identifies the machinery used to make the glass master. The mould SID code identifies the plant where the CD was pressed. However, SID codes should not be used to identify manufacturing plants or glass mastering facilities as the codes may transfer from owner to owner of the equipment and / or pressplant.
There are proven reasons this wiki is not considered trustworthy by Discogs community, e.g. https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/804700#7992494
Please don’t get me wrong, I welcome the initiative, just that it can be very tricky to identify the CD manufacturers and their exact roles.
That’s true on single submissions, but the List is maintained by admins. (green trustworthy, blue questionable, white in between)
That’s why there are no credits for pressed by. Discogs allow only what’s printed or if there’s prove along the guidelines. Thinking is not allowed, but it’s well possible to use these credits without guessing. On MB we are allowed to make conclusions, it’s necessary to build this whole network of relationships.
EDIT:
One sentence to mould SIDs: They are absolutely characteristic for a plant (at least for a 99% case¹). There’s of course a problem, if there’s a change in ownership and the company name is credited. But the plant doesn’t change for this.
That’s why I was interested in using the Release-Place relationship “pressed at”
¹) The Uden code IFPI 15** was used by Mediamotion on other plants after the acquisition of Uden (in 2003), but luckily these plants never made similar …-NL imprints. DADC Austria used 94** on both plants. There are not many further examples.
Mostly we just stick to information as presented on the release, that’s what I’ve always been told anyway. Certainly with manufacturing details I think it’s better to only record information that is actually on the physical release. Such details can help editors differentiate near-identical editions, but by adding information from elsewhere you will confuse matters. For example, by adding a “pressed by company X” relationship when “company X” is not mentioned anywhere on the release.
This information is on the physical release. That’s why I said it is necessary to accompany plants or manufacturer labels with information how to read it. And as you said, it can help differentiate similar releases. And if it’s not necessary for releases easily to distinguish, it doesn’t hurt. It will be easy with or without pressing information.
I think we shouldn’t go beyond this either, as far as CD manufacturers are concerned.
If we start setting things that don’t appear, as is, on the release, it’s wrong, we don’t recognise our edition any more, and we create a duplicate without the added data.
Translating numbers into names is going too far from what is printed, IMO.
I don’t think, a glass mastered by credit they cannot correlate to their release, will scare people off.
That would be a pity to skip that. Numbers tell interesting stories. I just edited a release where a war of discIDs occurs. They are removed, resubmitted, track length set for one and again for the other and I suppose, it has something to do with 2 available glass master versions, 756792112-2 and 756792112-2.2 - read edit history of Bigger, Better, Faster, More!
Just as a side note - I was looking at a Place and Label earlier for MPO and noticed disambiguation text added to the PLACE saying “do not use, use the label instead”. This is on a number of Places saying the Label should be used. One of the things that has previously steered me to always find the label when possible.
That is similar to how the above is evolving - document what is written down. Add and explain ambiguous information in the annotation. This would include the IFPI codes as they are clear details - just in an encoded format.
If I deduce that a CD is printed at a specific plant due to an IFPI code then I’ll both SCAN it and upload the image, and add clear annotation notes about my reasoning.
(I find it funny when discourse tells me off for talking too much in a thread… )
I agree. And I will stick to that. Nevertheless I will try to improve pressing plants like I did for the US pressing plants mentioned above, although actual pressed at credits are really rare.
EDIT:
But the place MPO should not have such disambiguation text, better “use for pressing plant credits only, e.g. pressed at, manufactured at”
Maybe tweak it to say “Use for pressed at \ manufactured at credits only. Use label for pressed by”. Though there must be a better place for this? Guidelines update would be good.
(Oh, and that link down to South Africa where they were using UDEN Glass Masters… which got my curiosity)
)