I added this label Peter King Lathe Cut Records - MusicBrainz because I couldn’t find it, but later discovered it did exist but as a place Peter King Lathe Cut Records - MusicBrainz
It seems like there are two ways to indicate a manufacturer: a label (of type manufacturer) with “manufactured” relationship, or a place (type studio) with “manufacturing location for” relationship. Which is preferred?
If both are kept then which one does Peter King, the person, work at? I’m feeling confused!
I would say the “label” is an entity, while the place is a physical location, which can be owned / rented /… by an entity.
But sometimes the difference is small / irrelevant in the context of a database.
Peter King is probably the owner/founder of Peter King Lathe Cut Records, which imo can a artist-label relation. Unless… he works as being self-employed, in which case there is no label entity, as a self-employed person is an entity himself, there is no ‘legal entity’ involved.
If no legal entity is involved, Peter King would be the owner of the “studio” (artist-place relation). Although even this can be dubious. As he might own the studio (as in the equipment setup), but not own the place where the studio is housed (he might rent the place). But I think that level of detail is simply irrelevant to MB, so we can ignore that. (MB isn’t a company directory, but a music database.)
The difference between a “place” and a “label” is mostly relevant when:
In such cases the label (entity) is the most correct choice whenever the specific location is not specified, but the location preferred whenever this is specified or can be found out. In case the location (under the name present in the database, not the address or coordinates) automatically implies the label (entity) is involved, I don’t think there is any use for entering them both.
So I would conclude that the ‘place’ entry is more specific than the ‘label’ and should be preferred.
An additional ‘label’ entry might be relevant to exist, if there are cases where it isn’t an exact overlap with the place in some way.
In this specific case, it looks like the label is irrelevant. But I might be wrong (I have no knowledge about the specific case.) Relating to the “place” automatically relates to the “label”. It’s even not sure there is a “label/company” involved, as it might be a place simply ran by a person. So I would just relate to the place and relate Peter King to that place.
Adding a label-place relationship would help with this. As in, Peter King Lathe Cut Records (label) owns Peter King Lathe Cut Records (studio).
Maybe Peter King Lathe Cut Records should simply be in the database primary as a label, rather than as a place?
For what it’s worth: the role is always the same “Manufacturing lathe cut records”, so it wouldn’t make sense to sometimes create a relationship to a place, other times to a label.
What I read on the site is:
My cup of tea:
Some of the places (factories) went through multiple owners (labels). In those cases a person would most work for the Label and probably not every Label who has owned the Place.
Usually the label is what you see written as a description in the matrix or a CD, and the label manufactured at a place.
So a person works for a Label at a Place. So the most correct answer is “both”.
In this case Peter King Lathe Cut Records is not a “label” (afaik he only manufactured records, he didn’t have an imprint or “release” anything himself). But I guess you could consider it a business? So eligible for a “label” entry on MB.
Personally I am used to linking ‘manufactured at’ relationships to places so I would have added it as a place as well.
Lathe cuts are a interesting case, because they are home-made machines (not as big as a pressing plant!) and the machine itself is far more relevant than its physical location.
I can’t confirm, but I would take this with a grain of salt. Antony Milton started handling all correspondence at some point, and that may be his address.
p.s. It’s a shame Peter King stopped making lathes… I believe he’s getting along in age, but I heard he had an accident a while back and his health isn’t great now. But right near where he was, another budding NZ lathe cutter/machine builder has popped up! Check out Johnny Electric.
Thanks for the discussion, everybody. Based on what everyone said I edited this Release “Bad Music and Buttprints” by Blectum From Blechdom with O.S.T. - MusicBrainz (yes it’s a very weird record) to use the “manufactured at” relationship, with the extra benefit of collecting more of the Peter King Lathe Cut Records releases together in one place. Then I realized there may still be an issue with the two addresses - my record came with a small paper tag that shows it was manufactured at Peter King Lathe Cut Records in Geraldine not Ashburton. (I scanned this tag and uploaded it to the release.) Though as @aerozol points out Ashburton may have been a mailing address and not where the records were cut.
And I still have some other thoughts and questions:
If I remove all the relationships from a label will it automatically disappear, like artists do?
Is there a time when “manufactured by label” rather than “manufactured at place” is better?
I marked this release as a “phonograph record” as other editors do, because vinyl is incorrect. I saw there is a request in the bug tracker to add lathe cut as a medium so I put in a vote in favor of it.
In MB, label entity also includes companies.
Manufacturer is one of the selectable MB label types.
Yes. Once all releases and links are gone it will disappear.
There are many cases where the CD factories across Europe in the 1990s\2000s are better represented by “Manufactured by Label” as that is the name you read on the disk.
A manufacturing Label will represent a specific period in time. The Place will change name many times as the different owners come and go. And I am talking about the big name Warners and EMI here.
Look at PDO or EMI Uden and you’ll notice a chain of “previously known as” and “renamed to” as the companies change names over the years.
A plant like the one in Southwater will therefore have had many owners. And something that can be hard to identify. So using the label is easier.
Yes, I am a manufacturing geek. Much of my knowledge coming via Discogs research, reading old Music Week articles, and documenting my own CDs.
Thanks! @IvanDobsky’s examples help me understand what @Aszazin was saying earlier about places and labels and I think it see it clearly now. In the case of Peter King Lathe Cut Records the place and the label are practically synonymous so there is no need to keep both. But where a manufacturing label operates multiple pressing plants, or a pressing plant has had multiple owners the distinction is useful.
So if there is enough information to verify it, a release might include both “Manufactured by Disctronics” and “Manufactured at Southwater”, correct? (If you’re a manufacturing geek, that is.)
I’m going to submit an edit that Peter King Lathe Cut Records is a pressing plant rather than a studio since the description of pressing plant “A place (generally a factory) at which physical media are manufactured” is a better description of what they did.
Yep, that would be correct. You can usually deduce the place from the label, but can’t always work out a label if you only know the place. And as Label is what is usually written on a CD then it is easier to use that. (I am over simplifying as there is always exceptions 
)
When one guy uses one place to make CDs then both is still true. WHO manufactured the disk and WHERE are two slightly different questions.
certainly, and I would keep both, place and label, connected with ownership.
The problem with the label is: the most recent address of the company (now closed) is different from the address given on the sticker. The company moved some kilometres to the north, but the record was still manufactured at this particular plant in Geraldine. 