"Island Tapes" mass edit

Tarantxon is changing any Island label cassettes with "Island Tapes" written on them to Island Tapes as the label. One example: https://www.discogs.com/history?release=2489269#latest

I know I brushed on this here: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/703006 since I wasn't sure how it should be dealt with - a distinct label, a series or whatever, but I wasn't aware consensus had been reached about it? I can't find one searching the forums and no thread is quoted in the edits, but perhaps there was a discussion approving this?

If "Island Tapes" is its own label then "Island Records" would presumably also need to be distinct entity from "Island" that only deals with vinyl?

Anyone else have any views on this? I've got another one that I'm working on and don't know where to go with it.

hookedupsolid
Anyone else have any views on this?

I'm ok with it, Island Records or Island was used to sell both cd's & records, so if they used Island Tapes to sell cassettes it kinda suggests a different entity than Island Records.

phallancz
I'm ok with it, Island Records or Island was used to sell both cd's & records, so if they used Island Tapes to sell cassettes it kinda suggests a different entity than Island Records.

Well, the "Island Tapes" branding, as far as I can see, was only used pre-CD. As I see it, it's just Island Records selling tapes, so I think a series would be more appropriate, but mainly I just think it needs a discussion.

To me, it looks like a label. I also found an advert for a Bob Marley album, advertised as "also available on Island Tapes".

jweijde
"also available on Island Tapes".

Isn't that just another way of them saying "also available on cassette"? I see it more like a way of branding the cassette releases, but if people want to call that branding a sub-label then so be it I guess.

There are current threads relating to similar situations where "as on release" appears to be the way to go.
Check out https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/713358 and https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/714725 . I dare say there are others...

Haven't had time to look in details, but did "Island Tapes" release anything that Island Records didn't? I would guess not. If not, I can't see it's a label at all, just marketing.

I see "Island" on this Bob Marley & The Wailers - Exodus

mcr1
I see "Island" on this

Both names are present (see the cassette image). I guess this means that both Labels need to be in the submission.

Clogwhistle
both Labels

As it stands, yes. I'm sure more needs to be known about the entity Island Tapes though.

Pinging Opdiner

Certainly all the releases belong in the main Island Records discography. I could cope with adding both labels, or adding as a series, but I don't see Island Tapes as a separate entity to Island Records.

Not 100% sure how 'Sub Labels' work - does this mean they will still appear in the main Island Records pages?

hookedupsolid
Not 100% sure how 'Sub Labels' work - does this mean they will still appear in the main Island Records pages?

If it's considered a sub label then it Island Records does not need to be credited (only when it appears on releases), only the company names present should be credited, now if it is a series then Island Records will need to be added always as a label.

hookedupsolid
Isn't that just another way of them saying "also available on cassette"?

No. It was specifically called "Island Tapes" and not "Island tapes".
Also, if you look at the logo - an "I" with the text "Island Tapes" underneath - it pretty much looks like a separate brand from "Island"/"Island Records".

jweijde
No. It was specifically called "Island Tapes" and not "Island tapes".
Also, if you look at the logo - an "I" with the text "Island Tapes" underneath - it pretty much looks like a separate brand from "Island"/"Island Records".

But every title on "Island Tapes" was also released on vinyl on "Island Records". By the 80s cassettes on Island just bear an "Island" logo. So it's not like it was a separate subsidiary releasing different music, and do labels usually set up a separate company just to sell things on a different format? Isn't it just the branding for cassettes and 8-tracks which were then quite new fangled and the only alternatives to vinyl. Later on they put it all back under one banner again.

hookedupsolid
So it's not like it was a separate subsidiary releasing different music, and do labels usually set up a separate company just to sell things on a different format?

No, and they don't have to in order to be treated as a label here. A label in Discos-terms is a branding of a release. These tapes are very clearly branded with the name "Island Tapes" and the i-logo. That makes it a label on Discogs. That label (or brand) might be a part of the company Island Records, but that does not make Island Records the label.

hookedupsolid
Isn't it just the branding for cassettes

Yes. And that branding is what we call a label.

I don't see, why there is a discussion here. If the most prominent name and logo on a release is "Island Tapes", then that is the label. If Island or Island Records is also present (and/or the respective logos), then they can be added as labels as well.

There are examples like this where both brandings are used:
https://www.discogs.com/Bad-Company-Burnin-Sky/release/6416482#images/21237803

(see spine and cassette labels)

TheTurtle
A label in Discos-terms is a branding of a release.

4.2.1.b. For larger 'major' labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in terms of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These should be entered as on the release, unless there is proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company.

(emphasis mine)

This is so obviously NOT a different label, even if Tapes does have a capital T.
Let's hope Diognes_The_Fox sees sense here.

Well, no consensus had been reached on Island vs. Island Records, whether to use one, both, as is or what. So Tarantxon is acting on his own volition as far as I can see without having sought advice / agreement at all.

Nearly every thread I've started as of late about representing as per logo has got stuck with no decision because most Discoggers want the labels in question to stay as they are, even if they are wrong.

hookedupsolid
unless there is proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company.

I know the guideline - I just cannot see "Island Tapes" as a variation of "Island Records" or anything similar. If this is the way, we interpret the rules, then label is no longer a branding. If everything, that was released by Island or any of their labels is to be put on the page of Island, then it becomes a record company-credit instead of a label-credit in my opinion.

TheTurtle
I know the guideline - I just cannot see "Island Tapes" as a variation of "Island Records" or anything similar. If this is the way, we interpret the rules, then label is no longer a branding. If everything, that was released by Island or any of their labels is to be put on the page of Island, then it becomes a record company-credit instead of a label-credit in my opinion.

So what would you do with the example I linked to above which has both an "Island" branding and an "Island Tapes" branding?

What about releases that just have "Island" instead of "Island Records", why are they still assigned to "Island Records" instead of just "Island" as printed on the release?

I think it's the same label too but, as with the Casablanca, issue, it's crying out for LNVs. All under Island with variations. This should be the programmers' number one priority (and fixing the buggy submission form of course but I suspect/hope that's underway).

Opdiner
I think it's the same label too but, as with the Casablanca, issue, it's crying out for LNVs. All under Island with variations. This should be the programmers' number one priority (and fixing the buggy submission form of course but I suspect/hope that's underway).

Agreed, I'd like an LNV function too, but do you have any thoughts/advice on how to handle it in the meantime?

My instinct is to put all on the same page. These are just variants on the Island brand and when LNVs arrive it's a simple matter just to add the variation instead of a big move. They will need to be moved then anyway and this way it's already done.

hookedupsolid
So what would you do with the example I linked to above which has both an "Island" branding and an "Island Tapes" branding?

Add both labels, as I already mentioned.

Opdiner
My instinct is to put all on the same page. These are just variants on the Island brand and when LNVs arrive it's a simple matter just to add the variation instead of a big move. They will need to be moved then anyway and this way it's already done.

it's just that niks statements where always in the opposite direction.
credit as on release and once LNVs arrive you only need to link to Island but already know what's on the release itself. Especially when there are no images this is impossible to know if we just use Island as label now.

I know you prefer the "single label" approach but always advising against what nik said seems wrong.

Is there any evidence, apart from personal opinion, that this indeed not a separate label ?
It's quite clear that these cassettes were marketed using the Island Tapes logo. Why would the record company use a specially designed logo if they already had Island Records / Island and considered all three to be exactly the same ?

At least Island Tapes had it's own catalogue: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1970s-ISLAND-TAPES-MUSIC-CATALOG-8-Track-Cartridge-Cassette-/151609485000

The logo is the original Island "i" afaics, just has island tapes written underneath.

one_man
At least Island Tapes had it's own catalogue: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1970s-ISLAND-TAPES-MUSIC-CATALOG-8-Track-Cartridge-Cassette-/151609485000

Interesting. Makes it look more like a series perhaps?

I also think using it as Series might be a good solution for this.
Just invalidating and using Island Records would not make sense. It is clearly a separate "brand", we would not be a proper database imho, if we would not keep all these Island Tapes releases available on 1 page.

If series is not a solution, I would vote keeping it as a separate sub-Label of Island Records, as sometimes these tapes only have the Island Tapes "logo" on release.

avalon67
The logo is the original Island "i" afaics, just has island tapes written underneath.

The few Island cassettes I had in the past would often say Island Tapes on the cover, but just Island on the cassette itself. Or vice versa. It seems that this branding idea was only used for a while. There is the option of using Island Tapes as a "series" maybe. Don't know if that's such a good idea though.

Hi, only just noticed the thread, for some reason I didn't get a notification - maybe I've overlooked it. Sorry for not chiming in earlier.
I don't think it was much of a 'mass edit' as I remember checking on it in the Forum when I first came across it, long before this year.

ultimathulerecords
no consensus had been reached on Island vs. Island Records

Yes, I think it was news of Island being added that prompted me to look at more releases and continue adding what's on each release [changing from Label 'Island Records' to 'Island Tapes' and adding company credits to match what was given in the images - when in addition to 'Island Tapes' only 'Island' was found I've left 'Island Records'].
Anyway, during the heyday of cassettes through the 1970s and '80s, Island releases, like many other companies, advertised their product 'Available on Island Records and Tapes', not a legal entity maybe but something which explains the reasoning behind the company's use of 'Island Tapes' on some cassette releases while the same records used 'Island Records'; IMHO not a different Label but two distinct 'imprints' used also outside of the UK.
The Guidelines and the forum suggestions have been clear about entering labels and entities 'as on release' for some time in anticipation of a Name Variation feature, as a consequence we have more entities that were previously grouped under the parent name.
Cf: E.M.I. Tape Limited.
Meanwhile, the discussion on Casablanca seems to have reached an agreement https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/695221?page=3#7095854
please let me know if this is also unacceptable and I'll be happy to edit back my contributions.

Tarantxon
please let me know if this is also unacceptable and I'll be happy to edit back my contributions.

Personally I would like the "Island Tapes" branding to be documented in releases, but I feel that first and foremost they are all part of the main "Island Records" discography and should be found there. In lieu of a LNV function I'd be happy with "Island Tapes" either as an additional label or as a series, but I would not like for the releases not to carry "Island Records" as the primary label.

I think a forum post might have been a good idea before you commenced the edits as it seems the matter is not completely clear and requires discussion, but no matter, since that is what we are doing now.

hookedupsolid
Personally I would like the "Island Tapes" branding to be documented in releases, but I feel that first and foremost they are all part of the main "Island Records" discography and should be found there.

Why? i am honestly asking, what is the purpose of having a label page with 25,473 releases?

phallancz
Why? i am honestly asking, what is the purpose of having a label page with 25,473 releases?

Because they are part of that company's output and I would expect to find them there.

I agree ^^ with both points. I personally think it's a little absurd to think there was a label called Island Tapes which coincidentally released the same albums as Island but on cassette and 8 track.
Should we now start a label called A&M Stereo Tape??

Before you shout 'GUIDELINES' nik has repeatedly said that's what they are, not 'rules'.

He's also said Also, please do not make mass edits without a full and thorough understanding of how the site works, and a good forum discussion with a clear consensus..

phallancz
what is the purpose of having a label page with 25,473 releases?

Same reason we have CBS

phallancz
what is the purpose of having a label page with 25,473 releases?

...to accurately portray what's on the releases? What other reason does there need to be?

hookedupsolid
Because they are part of that company's output and I would expect to find them there.

So you navigate through those pages and search information from there?
Are those pages useful to you in any way? because i just don't find those pages useful, i navigate through small label pages and check out their catalog, but never crosses my mind when i think of bigger brands, those pages look unsearchable to me, i'm just wondering if other users do find those consolidated label pages pages useful and what they actually are used for.

StaticGuru
...to accurately portray what's on the releases? What other reason does there need to be?

So what's the use of having Island Records releases having the Island Tapes brand there if it's not present on releases ?

phallancz
So what's the use of having Island Records releases having the Island Tapes brand there if it's not present on releases ?

Use the branding if it's there, don't use if it's not. I don't see why it should be any more complicated than that.

phallancz
So you navigate through those pages and search information from there?
Are those pages useful to you in any way? because i just don't find those pages useful, i navigate through small label pages and check out their catalog, but never crosses my mind when i think of bigger brands, those pages look unsearchable to me, i'm just wondering if other users do find those consolidated label pages pages useful and what they actually are used for.

You're right they are a pain to navigate, but I don't feel that makes it less correct for them to be on that page. I would hope one day they might enable searching and filters within label pages - then I would use the even the big label pages to find releases.

StaticGuru
Use the branding if it's there, don't use if it's not. I don't see why it should be any more complicated than that.

I was being inquisitive on the matter not trying to be condescending, because i keep seeing users saying that major labels need to be consolidated into one entry and that we don't need to denote if it says Records or Tapes or whatever, i am just trying to figure out if those consolidated pages serve for something, that's it, not in favour or against the practise.

velove
it's just that niks statements where always in the opposite direction.
credit as on release and once LNVs arrive you only need to link to Island but already know what's on the release itself. Especially when there are no images this is impossible to know if we just use Island as label now.

I know you prefer the "single label" approach but always advising against what nik said seems wrong.

He goes both ways - see Sire, Columbia, Virgin, EMI, Mute etc - all are on one page with management direction. And at least in two places the guidelines seem to advise putting things onto one label page.

hookedupsolid did you file an SR about this? Any answer?

It's another issue that's going to fade away and be left as is it seems.

I suggest that these should also have Island Records used as a label: the same label released the album and tape.
Or a series for the tapes? Maybe best just to have two labels listed.

avalon67
I suggest

Yeah, I agree with you, add both labels... Haven't filed an SR. Am away right now but will do ...

I too agree on adding two labels: even if the Island logo is altered we ought to have Island Records too.
Eg: present on Grace Jones - A One Man Show but not on Grace Jones - The Video Singles nor Zoo TV - Live From Sydney.
But it's not clear whether we should with Island Jamaica, Island Jamaica Jazz or even Island Remasters.

It's been agreed to enter both with London American Recordings, regarded a sub label of London Records here https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/534015aa5e75a77e6503fd3e
and we do the same for others like RCA and Decca when it's unclear if the entity was a label division or it was intended to be what we consider a Series.

hookedupsolid
What about releases that just have "Island" instead of "Island Records", why are they still assigned to "Island Records" instead of just "Island" as printed on the release?

It's been 'set in stone' long ago that label "Island" = Island Records but I'm wondering whether we could add Island as an additional Label at least onto the early Jamaican singles that only have "Island" on the label, while keeping them under Island Records too.
Would that be objectionable or would this open the floodgates to a huge amount of duplicated information?

Tarantxon
I too agree on adding two labels: even if the Island logo is altered we ought to have Island Records too.

Do we have general agreement on this?

avalon67
did you file an SR about this?

Request started.

The answer will probably be let the community decide again......so I'll keep bumping this.

avalon67
the same label released the album and tape.

avalon67
so I'll keep bumping this.

Anyone?

So the proposal is to enter Island Tapes and Island Records as labels for releases with the Island Tapes logo ?

It is. After all

avalon67
the same label released the album and tape.

jweijde
Island Tapes logo

Which is the Island logo

avalon67
Which is the Island logo

That is pretty short-sighted imho.
It clearly is an logo with that Island Tapes text underneath, otherwise someone wouldn't have created a separate entry for it, and just added all those releases with Island Records.
In the meantime about 70 submitters have found the entity, and added it instead of Island Records.
Which makes sense, as it isn't a record is it?

For me personally it happened exactly like that, I updated this King Crimson 8-track, only to later discover the logo difference and the existence of Island Tapes entry. Every sane person would then add it to the LCCN?
King Crimson - U.S.A.

jweijde
So the proposal is to enter Island Tapes and Island Records as labels for releases with the Island Tapes logo ?

That is how I handled it in the end, yes. Was in serious doubt to remove Island Records as it doesn't even appear on release, on the company Island Records Ltd.

I want Island Tapes to be as it's presented on the submission. I agree though, that it's the same label and not likely a different entity.

If LNV's do get implemented eventually (not happening this year), that would really be the best time to look at making any of these types of edits.

I think this is pretty much the same argument that was presented in the casablanca thread. If at least to hold to my other views in that thread, I'd keep Island Records and note Island Tapes in the notes.

Or we can just move over everything to Island, but I think that's kind of rough.

As it seems unclear what exactly DtF meant, my interpretation of what DtF is saying:

in an ideal world I would want Island Tapes to be represented somehow as it's on the release.
but as long as LNV is not here I suggest adding it to the notes and not as label. Island Records should be used as label.
This is in line with the decision in the Casablance case where I stated that everything should be moved to Casablanca as label.

In short:
If a label has different graphic representations and sometimes even different names, company names [Casablanca case], then in some cases after forum discussion it is decided that they are all unified under one label and the variation noted in the notes.

Disclaimer:
This is what I think DtF tried to say. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't matter.

velove
Island Records should be used as label.

I think that's my understanding too, but agree not crystal clear. I don't see the problem with entering both labels, at least until LNVs arrive. It seems as though Diognes_The_Fox is suggesting to use ONLY "Island Records" and just have "Island Tapes" in the notes.

Either way I'm happier with this workaround in the meantime rather than not having Island Records on the sub at all.

velove
in an ideal world I would want Island Tapes to be represented somehow as it's on the release.
but as long as LNV is not here I suggest adding it to the notes and not as label. Island Records should be used as label.
This is in line with the decision in the Casablance case where I stated that everything should be moved to Casablanca as label.

In short:
If a label has different graphic representations and sometimes even different names, company names [Casablanca case], then in some cases after forum discussion it is decided that they are all unified under one label and the variation noted in the notes.

Yes. That's pretty on point. Sorry about not being as clear as I could have been.

hookedupsolid
I don't see the problem with entering both labels, at least until LNVs arrive.

Honestly, I don't either.

Does anyone feel that there are any downsides to adding both for now?

Diognes_The_Fox
Does anyone feel that there are any downsides to adding both for now?

That would definetely have my vote yes.
I don't understand how the "future LNV function" we keep bringing up, is an argument against creating separate profiles like this. It saves a lot if time checking and fixing everything on that glorious day the LNV function is a reality.

In the meantine it prevents users (that only want to document exactly what is on release) from creating new entries. (Which other users then again have to merge again because "we do not have the LNV function yet")

On what basis has it been decided that Island Tapes and Island Records are the same brand ? I'm looking for concrete evidence, but I don't see it.

It has been repeatedly posted that "it is the Island logo" but I do see an Island " I " with the text "Island Tapes" underneath it - which in my eyes makes it the Island Tapes logo.

jweijde
concrete evidence

Could maybe contact David Sinclair (7)*, who wrote an authorised history of Island Records (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Story-Island-Records-Keep-Running/dp/0789320967), if we're not able to contact Chris Blackwell himself on this lofty matter. Although if the question were to be something like "was Island Tapes run as wholly separate subsidiary to Island Records in the 1970s" I dare say they might not be any the wiser than us. Of course, evidence helps, but when you have releases bearing the words "Island Tapes", with pink labels carrying the Island Logo, and all the releases are those of the catalogue of "Island Records" on cassette and 8-track concurrently with the vinyl editions, in which all the phonographic copyright belongs to "Island Records Ltd" that pretty much seals the deal for me that these are simply the cassette/8-track releases by Island Records.

Even so, as discussed above, it makes total sense to document "Island Tapes" being on the release, but for them not to be included within Island Records main discography seems wrong to me. Unwieldy as some the pages for bigger labels might be with tens of thousands of releases; to my mind consolidating all the releases that legitimately belong to a particular label, artist, etc is really the raison d'être of Discogs.

*He's on facebook

A label is just a brand, logo, so whether or not it "acted as a subsidiary" is not really relevant in my opinion.

hookedupsolid
Of course, evidence helps

4.2.1.b. For larger 'major' labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in terms of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These should be entered as on the release, unless there is proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company.

hookedupsolid
but when you have releases bearing the words "Island Tapes", with pink labels carrying the Island Logo, and all the releases are those of the catalogue of "Island Records" on cassette and 8-track concurrently with the vinyl editions, in which all the phonographic copyright belongs to "Island Records Ltd" that pretty much seals the deal for me that these are simply the cassette/8-track releases by Island Records.

It only tells me that it's a record with dual branding (Island Tapes and Island Records) with a sound recording on it that is copyrighted by Island Records Ltd. Since both brands were owned by Island Records Ltd. I'd also say the record was issued by that company. Because of the dual branding, they aren't simply "Island Records" releases to me
It's obvious that the "Island Tapes" brand was used for releases on tape but that doesn't rule it out as label. It seems to have been a thing to market tapes separately from vinyl releases back in the days. Note for example that a number of labels and record companies have "Records & Tapes" in their name.

Does anyone else have any objections to adding both labels as interim until LNVs? That seems to be the only question that needs discussing before making the edits.

jweijde
It's obvious that the "Island Tapes" brand was used for releases on tape but that doesn't rule it out as label. It seems to have been a thing to market tapes separately from vinyl releases back in the days. Note for example that a number of labels and record companies have "Records & Tapes" in their name.

Personally I think it's because a lot of companies were set up in the 50s and 60s when vinyl record was (pretty much) the only format they were dealing in and the term "records" (as in vinyl records, not "recordings") has not yet become a generic term for a label regardless of format. When cassette and 8 tracks became commonplace by the 70s it probably seemed erroneous to call them "Island Records" because they weren't records. However by the 80s, CDs and multiple formats you can Island went back to releasing everything under one banner.

jweijde
It only tells me that it's a record with dual branding (Island Tapes and Island Records) with a sound recording on it that is copyrighted by Island Records Ltd. Since both brands were owned by Island Records Ltd. I'd also say the record was issued by that company. Because of the dual branding, they aren't simply "Island Records" releases to me

This is sort of an issue, and has been part of a separate discussion, and ties in with my above comment (and was alluded to in my opening post). But because it has been agreed to use "Island Records" as a catch all for all Island releases and to use "Island" only for company roles, then your logic would suggest we need an additional separate "Island Records" page exclusively for earlier vinyl only releases that exists independently of Island Records.

Diognes_The_Fox
blumley
I don't see the problem with entering both labels, at least until LNVs arrive.

Honestly, I don't either.
Does anyone feel that there are any downsides to adding both for now?

Inconsystency? Why rule that only Casablanca should be used and not the label as on release and then allow both Island Tapes and Island Records here?

Personally I might prefer one way or the other but I think that the inconsistency in the decisions makes it very hard to know as there seem to be no easy rules/guidelines to follow anymore.
I favor consistency of the guidelines and an easy to follow approach over personal preference.

And again as I've stated previously. It's sometimes confusing to know when you Diognes_The_Fox are making a decision that we, the community need to accept and follow your ruling and when it's just your thoughts, ideas but not a ruling.
As the staff badge is always shown. Would it be possible to make it clear when a comment is a ruling/decision by marking it as such. Because fact is that edits and mass edits are done based on your comments.

Decision:
keep Island Records and note Island Tapes in the notes.

hookedupsolid
it has been agreed to use "Island Records" as a catch all for all Island releases and to use "Island" only for company roles, then your logic would suggest we need an additional separate "Island Records" page exclusively for earlier vinyl only releases that exists independently of Island Records.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. We're still using Island Records because it was deemed "too much work" to rename it to "Island". It doesn't mean though that all releases with a brand that resembles the Island brand, like Island Tapes, should be on the Island Records page too.
The branding is leading in determining what the label of a releases is. If a "vinyl only" release has the Island branding (either the " I ", the " I " with "Island" underneath, the "Island" wording or the "Island Records" wording) it is released on the Island Records label (as we use on Discogs)
If it has additional branding, for example the "Island Tapes" logo, it was released on Island Records and Island Tapes.
If it only has the Island Tapes branding, Island Tapes is the label.

Atleast that's how I see it and I believe this ties in with how we generally handle labels on this site.

I think your logic doesn't make sense. You have branding A: Island Records. Later, with the advent of tapes/8-track you have branding B: Island Tapes. For a while these co-exist - operated by the same company to release the same content at the same time. At some point circa 1980 all releases are consolidated into branding C: "Island" or "Island Records" regardless of format. So you think that releases from brand A should be filed with releases from brand C, while brand B should be filed separately?

First of all I'd like to say that IMO the Casablanca case constitutes an equivocal precedent and should be disregarded for the time being.

The issue seems really to do with branding.

jweijde
a number of labels and record companies have "Records & Tapes" in their name

Yes, as we can see by how difficult it can be to record the changing policies of long-lasting labels, they did for a time, this indicates that a Label may have wanted to keep to the current trends and adapt their imprint to suit an audience.
We can see that after the era of the 'gramophone' most companies chose 'records' in their name, the race required a continuous and contemporary re-branding. Without necessarily changing the company structure, who knows if major firms set up a division when they branched out. Probably a question for accountants and lawyers.
Of course we capture what is on a release so we are instructed to enter a label as 'Taxi' and another as 'Ixat' although there may be a relationship, some companies were more clever than others in exploiting the trend for logos and acronyms to substitute for their old names. Consequentially, when Island Records release a disc with a label only stating 'i' or 'Island', we have agreed it's going to be filed under 'Island Records'.

As we are instructed, when a clear 'Label' imprint is recognisable enough for us to record it as a separate entity in the database, we add it as such, either as primary Label or alongside the other imprints whose logos appear on cover, disc label, etc. To aid this, it is of the essence having the correct information in the profile page of these entities so the correct primary label can be added if it's implied in the logo.

This brings me to the conclusion that this entity fulfils the criteria by which here in Discogs we would enter it as a Series.

To oversee the problem from a wider perspective I've noticed that BBC/British Broadcasting Corporation (or would it be BBC Records? this is too in desperate need of a profile hierarchy to explain to users how to enter correctly), used a varied number of imprints for their releases over time.
Labels include:
BBC Records
BBC Cassettes
BBC Records And Tapes
The above are currently sub-labels of BBC Enterprises
But we have also:
BBC TV
BBC Radio
BBC English By Radio
BBC Transcription Services
BBC Transcription Service
BBC Radio Enterprises
BBC Transcription
BBC Sound Effects
BBC Wildlife Sound Effects
BBC Sound Effects Centre
BBC Coded Music Scheme
BeeB
Super Beeb Records
Other imprints appeared later:
BBC Artium
BBC Video
BBC Rock Hour
BBC Music
Vintage Beeb
BBC Incidental Music
BBC World Service
BBC Audiobooks (this entity was sold by the BBC)
BBC Radioplay Music
BBC Active
BBC Audio
BBC Canned Laughter
BBC Gold
BBC Legends
BBC Radio Classics
BBC Radio Collection
BBC Radio International
BBC Music Entertainment

In the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation there are many other imprints are usually classified as Series although still not clear even to an experienced user which, in the case of such a large organisation, would be the primary Label.

hookedupsolid
You have branding A: Island Records. Later, with the advent of tapes/8-track you have branding B: Island Tapes. For a while these co-exist - operated by the same company to release the same content at the same time. At some point circa 1980 all releases are consolidated into branding C: "Island" or "Island Records" regardless of format. So you think that releases from brand A should be filed with releases from brand C, while brand B should be filed separately?

Yes, because brand A and C are identical while brand B - Island Tapes - is different. I'd argue therefore that there isn't a brand "C".
They had Island Records as their label brand. With the advent of tapes, they introduced a separate brand specially for tape releases: Island Tapes. After the marketing hype died down, that brand lost it's value so they dropped it and from then on used their main Island Records brand on all their releases.

jweijde
I'd argue therefore that there isn't a brand "C".

Well yes, you could argue it that way. To me it makes little difference anyway as I see brands A, B (&C?) as all under the same umbrella anyway. So it's just a case of documenting that brand, without partitioning it from the main label.

Tarantxon
This brings me to the conclusion that this entity fulfils the criteria by which here in Discogs we would enter it as a Series.

I'd be happy with that approach, or add both labels, or just in the notes as have all been suggested. But most in this thread, as far as I can tell, seem to support the idea of adding "Island Records" to the releases in addition to any of the above.

I'm glad this nonsense has been sorted out finally.

hookedupsolid
Of course, evidence helps, but when you have releases bearing the words "Island Tapes", with pink labels carrying the Island Logo, and all the releases are those of the catalogue of "Island Records" on cassette and 8-track concurrently with the vinyl editions, in which all the phonographic copyright belongs to "Island Records Ltd" that pretty much seals the deal for me that these are simply the cassette/8-track releases by Island Records.

Is my thinking and I posted similar somewhere in the thread.

Thanks hookedupsolid, Diognes_The_Fox and velove for helping common sense win out!

It doesn't really matter what you think the label is. The logos on the release determine what the label is. Releases with an "Island Tapes" logo are on the Island Tapes label because that's the brand that's present on the release.
They're not on the Island Records label if there is no Island Records logo on the release.

As pointed out that "I" is the Island Records logo, despite what you think.

hookedupsolid
4.2.1.b. For larger 'major' labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in terms of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These should be entered as on the release, unless there is proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company.

But where is that proof ?
The only "proof" I've seen sofar:

"It's the Island logo"
Isn't true. The text "Island Tapes" clearly is part of the logo, so it's the Island Tapes logo, not the Island logo
"It's the same as Island Records because there are releases with dual branding where the Island branding is more prominent than Island Tapes "
While these releases definitely exist, this doesn't rule out the possibility that Island Tapes is an actual brand, separate from Island Records. The two can co-exist.
This is comparable to RCA / RCA Victor releases. Often these also have both brands. We don't pick and choose the label for those based on prominence. Since both brands are present, both get entered.
"I believe it's the same label"
Well, that's just personal opinion and not the kind of proof the guidelines aim at.

avalon67
As pointed out that "I" is the Island Records logo, despite what you think.

Where do you base that on ? The " I " is there, but so is the text Island Tapes and that text is part of the logo. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that that text is present.
Saying it's not there, is like saying the label Island Video doesn't exist and is just the Island Records logo with a text underneath it that can be ignored.

Just as you're entitled to your opinion.

avalon67
The logo is the original Island "i" afaics, just has island tapes written underneath.

jweijde
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that that text is present.

Do you feel that because you've been here longer than me entitles you to be so rude?

jweijde
Saying it's not there, is like saying the label Island Video doesn't exist and is just the Island Records logo with a text underneath it that can be ignored.

Good example - I'm rather sure noone would enter Island Records instead of Island Video despite that apparently being a very unusual label, but somehow Island Tapes may be ignored. I agree that any release with the Island Tapes logo should have that as label.

Mr-Love
Good example - I'm rather sure noone would enter Island Records instead of Island Video despite that apparently being a very unusual label, but somehow Island Tapes may be ignored. I agree that any release with the Island Tapes logo should have that as label.

Well, 1. No one is saying that it should be ignored, simply that these releases should form part of the overall discography of Island/Island Records also. 2. Island Video: notwithstanding the fact that we're talking about an AV format which, therefore, would not follow the standard audio catalogue, I would still say these ought to form part of the main Island output.

I'm wondering whether this is where is all went wrong:
https://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/338404
https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/350938#3325878

If we used "Island" instead of "Island Records" for all the label's output, then we could keep everything together and have "Island Records", "Island Tapes" and "Island Video" etc as secondary labels where required to document and group those branded as such. The problem now is that "Island Records" is standing in for both types of usage, i.e. when referring to "Island" as the overarching label and also "Island Records", in reference to the fact they actually are records. As such, "Island Tapes" and "Island Video" are now marooned on their own "Islands" (s'cuse the pun).

avalon67
Do you feel that because you've been here longer than me entitles you to be so rude?

No, absolutely not. Just got a little bit carried away there since you keep saying that it's only the Island logo and that the "Island Tapes" text just happens to be printed underneath it as if it is some sort of coincidence. I simply don't believe that. The text is part of the logo. The lsland "I" is a component of the logo, just as the "Island Tapes" text. This design really isn't something out of the ordinary: many, many other brands in the music industry are testament to that.

hookedupsolid
As such, "Island Tapes" and "Island Video" are now marooned on their own "Islands" (s'cuse the pun).

They're not marooned at all. I understand that they all share the I or the palm tree component in the logo, but the text underneath the logos indicates that these are unique brands, separate from Island Records.
Releases with the Island Video or the Island Tapes logo are not releases on the Island Records label, unless the Island Records logo is present. For the Island Records logo to be present, there should be either an I or a palm tree present without any text underneath or with the text "Island" or "Island Records" underneath.

But if vinyl, tapes and CD that are just "Island" are automatically "Island Records", including Island Records that are specifically vinyl records, then I maintain that "Island Records" should contain only releases labeled as such and NOT simply "Island". However, if we're going to use "Island Records" as a catch all for Island then it should indeed also be catching the tapes, 8-tracks and videos.

This post by MJB sums up for me the semantic problems and the "island tapes" question I see as very much a legacy of the decision to use "Island Records" as the big Island pot. It's not that I'm opposed to using "Island Records", but if this is to be the main Island profile then it will have to also contain also these other. If the main profile were simply "Island" would we be having this discussion? We could then use a two tier filing system for Island releases, eg 'Island: Island Records' or 'Island: Island Tapes', etc, either as a series, secondary label or (one day) LNV.

hookedupsolid
However, if we're going to use "Island Records" as a catch all for Island then it should indeed also be catching the tapes, 8-tracks and videos.

No, releases should only have labels listed that actually appear on the release. If there's no Island Records logo present, then the release isn't on the Island Records label. This is a very basic concept of Discogs - list the labels that actually appear - and I don't see why Island Records should be treated differently.
The fact that we have an Island Records entry is not because we want all Island variants, including Island Tapes or Island Video under one entry.
It's simply because historically we've always used "Island Records" for releases with either the "Island" or the "Island Records" logo. There's been a huge discussion a long while ago - one of those you linked earlier in this thread - about renaming Island Records to Island because the Island logo is more commonly used on these releases. This was deemed too much work though - also because some releases actually do mention "Island Records" as the label.
That's all. It doesn't have anything to do with Island Records being some kind of umbrella for every single logo with the word "Island" in it.

Island Tapes and Island Video are separate, unique entries.

hookedupsolid
This post by MJB sums up for me the semantic problems and the "island tapes" question

Note that that thread is mainly and only about the Island Records entry which was proposed to be renamed to Island. It wasn't about Island Tapes or Island Video. I'm sure that also was never the intention of that thread.

hookedupsolid
If the main profile were simply "Island" would we be having this discussion? We could then use a two tier filing system for Island releases, eg 'Island: Island Records' or 'Island: Island Tapes', etc, either as a series, secondary label or (one day) LNV.

We would still be having this discussion because there shouldn't be a two tier system for releases that only actually mention ONE label: Island Tapes. I also disagree with it being an ANV. Series could be a compromise but I doubt it was intended as a series so that's most likely incorrect.

jweijde
If there's no Island Records logo present,

As I've mentioned, you're entitled to your opinion.
There is this logo on the releases, the same as is on many of my Island albums.

The Island "I" is definitely present, but so is the text "Island Tapes" underneath that "I". This is so consistent, that it's almost certainly part of the logo. So it's not only an "I" but an "I" with Island Tapes. It's the Island Tapes logo.
Just like an Island with "Island Video" underneath it is Island Video and an "I" with "Island Records Group" next to it is Island Records Group
All are unique labels, not variants or label name variations of Island Records.

As for why Island and Island Records have always been combined into one, this is no different than any other label (especially indies) which inconsistently used "Records" or "Recordings" in their logos over the years. We don't normally consider the variations to be separate labels. Exceptions are sometimes made, of course, for unusual situations where the differences are arguably more than cosmetic, but that's not the case here.

The reason "Island Records" ended up being canonical rather than the more common "Island" is indeed just a matter of manual labor. Nevertheless, even without LNVs, there is still a strong argument for splitting it into separate "Island" and "Island Records" entities anyway just because (unlike for the smaller and defunct examples of this kind of thing) we don't have the resources to enforce keeping them together.

I understand the argument about making Island Tapes be a special case, but IMHO it is the path of least resistance to just make it be a separate label, a sub-label of Island Records.

mjb
make it be a separate label, a sub-label of Island Records

This is my thinking too - there's already a few other "Island..." sub-labels.

mjb
there is still a strong argument for splitting it into separate "Island" and "Island Records"

I think this is the crux. If we're going to have a "Island" and "Island Records" as separate entities, then logically I'm all for having "Island Tapes" separately too. If we're going to use "Island Records" as a 'catch all' (as seems to be the case currently) then the Island Tapes entries should also be included under "Island Records", otherwise one is applying different kinds of logic. However I still think "Island Tapes" should be documented on the release as well, possibly as a secondary label, a concept that Diognes_The_Fox did not seem to object to.

So, I now want to add this cassette: https://www.discogs.com/release/9191082

According to this thread, am I correct to create and credit "United Artists Stereo-Tape" as the label here and not have this a series of United Artists?

I would not create United Artists Stereo-Tape, no.

Island Tapes is like Island Records, but with the word Tapes instead of Records. It's like saying "this thing is part of the Island Tapes line of products". And I stated my opinion above regarding how to handle it.

United Artists Stereo-Tape is more like "this thing is what we like to call a Stereo-Tape, and it is part of the United Artists line of products". I would only mention United Artists Stereo-Tape in the notes.

This is just my opinion. Other experts will surely disagree. :)

mjb
I would not create United Artists Stereo-Tape, no.

Island Tapes is like Island Records, but with the word Tapes instead of Records. It's like saying "this thing is part of the Island Tapes line of products". And I stated my opinion above regarding how to handle it.

United Artists Stereo-Tape is more like "this thing is what we like to call a Stereo-Tape, and it is part of the United Artists line of products". I would only mention United Artists Stereo-Tape in the notes.

This is just my opinion. Other experts will surely disagree. :)

Hi thanks for your response. Personally I cannot see any difference. The UA one his its own self contained logo, it even says: "United Artists Stereo-Tape. A Division of United Artists Records Ltd" and has a catalogue on the reverse of Stereo-Tape releases.

I honestly cannot see how this is any different to Island example, as long as we keep Island Tapes as a label I would think this needs to be created as a label too.

Following your line of argument, surely Island are saying "these are what we call tapes, and it is still part of the Island line of products"?

My personal preference, outside of LNVs being added, would be to consider this as a series. The qualifications for series are pretty loose. I can't see how treating this as a series would change anything. Although, I could see the argument for just adding both as labels with the same cat#, too.

Tarantxon
this entity fulfils the criteria by which here in Discogs we would enter it as a Series.

+ 1 for Series

Tarantxon
+ 1 for Series

I would like to use a series for the UA and A&M examples, but I think if this is the case we should use a series for Island Tapes also, otherwise I think it's totally inconsistent. If we need Island Tapes as a label then I think these other examples should be labels too. I can't see how the Island Tapes examples is different in any way.

hookedupsolid
I think if this is the case we should use a series for Island Tapes

+1

That's what I was referencing, myself. I think all of these would best be handled as series'.

I'd be happy with series too

I'd be happy with Series.

This is Rough Trade's cassette label
Rough Tapes
They're clearly marked 'Rough Tapes', not Rough Trade Tapes.
They have their own unique catalogue numbers. ie Rough 1 does not = Copy 001.
There are no contemporary vinyl equivalents to any of the tapes.

Island tapes are purely tape versions of the label's vinyl releases.

'As on release' is all good in it's place but it needs to be realistic. Neither
Free - Free Live - A&M Stereo Tape
Groundhogs* - Split - United Artists Stereo Tape
or
Eno* - Another Green World - Island Tapes

are anything except cassette versions of releases on those labels with matching catalogue numbers, just the prefix differs or an added number.

Series +1

I like series, too. That's a pretty good idea.