Sorry for the delay.

This context is ONLY concerned with making broad groups that can be (later) browsed online or searched, but it means keeping useful, broad groups but not covering 100 years of history in one go (Victor from the 1920s being different to Victor from the 60s) for example.

In the internal database (not publically available) things are more fine grained.

So as a collector you may look for information on say HMV and know it covers labels x, y and z as you can then browse individual records/search by date, but it is a bit more manageable than one button saying "all record labels here".

Does that make it hopefully clearer? I suspect I've got too close to the project that can mean it is harder to explain simple concepts in simple language without mixing things up (my fault!).


Rgds, Darren

¦ D P Ingram ¦ Ab Ingram Oy ¦
¦ darren at ingram.fi ¦ www.ingram.fi ¦
¦
¦ MUSIC LIBRARY FINLAND - www.musiclibrary.fi
¦
¦ +358 6 781 0275 (FIN) ¦ extn 8001
¦









On 14 jan 2011, at 17.57, Steven Smolian wrote:

> Are you looking for labels where the corporate name changes but the catalog
> numbers remain the same and where series are continued?
>
> I've been using a generic name which is chosen from such related groups,
> tilted toward current usage; i.e., Victor for everything from ERJ through
> RCA (on 78s.
>
> Similarly, GrCo for Gramophone Company. This includes G&T, HMV and
> Electrola as well as Zonophone, since the matrix series are often related. I
> keep Parlophone separate as it seems to have operated independently,
> catalog-wise, when brought under the GrCo banner.
>
> The same for DGG, which includes Opera Disc as well as Polydor and
> Schallplatte Grammophon.
>
> You will then need a separate field to deal with the individual label names.
> This will have to be a relational field as there are time when more than one
> label name appears in a catalog, especially when labels consolidated and
> when the catalogs are published by distributors rather than the company.
> American labels in their English manifestations were published in the 1940s
> and 1950s by EMI.
>
> One underlying issue is tracking GrCo products through the Opera Disc line.
> Some are pre-DGG separation and carry GrCo numbers as well as new ones that
> integrate with DGG series.
>
> The Russian matter needs very careful structuring as well. Not only were
> changes made post-Revolution but counterfiting was a significant problem as
> well.
>
> This is also record catalog issue. It's essential that the company that
> created the recording be indentified as part of the matrix number.
>
> More on all this if requested.
>
> Steve Smolian