"A Palmer Bros Production" - Note or Credit?

Have a look at this sub: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/history?release=1547393#latest

Seems reasonable to me that an active Producer credit is warranted, and not just a note.

The guideline I cited was maybe a stretch. I felt like it addressed an ambiguity in wording that applies here

Thanks for looking/commenting.

bump. Need some help from the Forum community, please.

avalon67
A Palmer Bros. Production does not mean 'Produced By. Should be in notes verbatim.

This

please elaborate. why does the former not mean the latter?

Someone's say-so without any explanation or reasoning isn't really an answer.

It's also pretty clear from the other releases listed in both Palmer Brothers discographies that they were Producers.

"A XYZ production" is not the same as "Produced by XYZ". Often, the former is used to indicate that company XYZ released the sound carrier. This is quite different from the producer role IMHO.

el_duro
"A XYZ production" is not the same as "Produced by XYZ".

+1
Nor is it necessarily the same as "Produced For XYZ" which I've seen people use in these instances (incorrectly IMO).

"A XYZ production" is too ambiguous for any current credit role IMO since "production" can mean many different things.

el_duro
Should be in notes verbatim

this

So the entire body of releases already attributed to the artist, 99% of which are Produced By credits, isn't reasonable evidence that "A Palmer Bros. Production" can in fact be entered in Discogs as an active "Produced By" credit link?

""A XYZ production" is too ambiguous for any current credit role IMO since "production" can mean many different things. "

I appreciate other examples, but in this particular case it seems that there is plenty of evidence, as stated above, that clears up any possible ambiguity about what "A Palmer Bros. Production" means on this release. Giving a random XYZ example that ignores the particular facts of this release and the artists' body of work as entered on Discogs isn't convincing to me. I'll try to get a definitive answer from Staff.

Thanks for the comments, all.

There has been discussion about this before

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/5416e68e43224671dfcec2dc#3720779

and it was decided that 'A XXXXXX Production' is added to notes and that no assumptions are made

avalon67
There has been discussion about this before

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/5416e68e43224671dfcec2dc#3720779

and it was decided that 'A XXXXXX Production' is added to notes and that no assumptions are made

The discussion in that thread revolves around an example involving a record label and a US issue of a UK release, so it's not exactly apples to apples.

I'd say the evidence available in the Discogs database for the Artist involved moves this specific case beyond the realm of assumptions.

serpico009
I'd say the evidence available in the Discogs database for the Artist involved moves this specific case beyond the realm of assumptions.

RSG §10.7.1 and RSG §10.7.2 are applicable here.

Find an external verification, add uncredited and no problem.

All IMO of course

avalon67
Find an external verification, add uncredited and no problem.

All IMO of course

Solid advice - unless you can be assured from external sources it should never be assumed as it's more often as not used for a production house or when a release is licensed under a production deal to a major.

Thanks again, all. I've filed an SR to hopefully get a definitive answer.

Hi - I don't feel I can give any definitive answer here. I'd go with what avalon67, Opdiner, el_duro, and aasaxell are advising. Thanks!

serpico009
Seems reasonable to me that an active Producer credit is warranted, and not just a note.

100% agree. What is production if it's not producer?

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/House-Of-Nimrod-Slightly-delic/release/1098291#images/1478539

James did not produce this (James Productions was a production house owned by Jimmy Sloggett. Jimmy Sloggett was the actual producer.

Similar here: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/Sandy-Edmonds-When-You-Walk-In-The-Room/release/1855582 (session notes here: http://www.audioculture.co.nz/content/images/6230/modal_s4.jpg You'll note that James Productions on the label stands for a company.

I still feel that in this specific instance, a Production credit is warranted as the Palmer Brothers have an Artist entry on discogs with 15 releases credited, and all of them for production. "A Palmer Bros. Production" or slight variations seems to be how they chose to be credited.

I understand the need for guidelines, but not the practice of just citing them blindly as gospel without looking at the details in each instance that comes up. In the end one of the most important goals is to connect the dots in the database with as much valid linked info as possible, and the validity here is pretty clear (imo.)

If folks took the time to look into this specific case a bit more, they would see that there is enough information available to vindicate the inclusion of a Production credit.

serpico009
I still feel that in this specific instance, a Production credit is warranted

It often is - Mickie Most and Joe Meek both used to use that terminology from time to time, but all I'm saying is that we should not assume that the wording means Produced By automatically.

The actual music producer of http://discogs.cinepelis.org/Versatiles-Children-Get-Ready/release/1547393 is Eric Barnet (according to some sources: Enid Barnett). Not credited on the UK release.

Palmer Brothers didn't actually produce just about anything, as far as production means "musical production". They merely licensed already finished productions from Jamaica and put them out on their various UK based labels such as Pama (=Jamaican pronounciation of Palmer). The same brothers went on to form Jet Star in the late 70's, as well.

I don't actually see anything wrong crediting them as "producers" for discogs purposes. You have to bear in mind that they were not actively involved in the artistic process.

jvaahtera
I don't actually see anything wrong crediting them as "producers" for discogs purposes.

IMO this was covered here http://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/401520

jvaahtera
You have to bear in mind that they were not actively involved in the artistic process.

So we shouldn't really credit them as producers.
Something like 'Licensed From' would be more accurate, but would need some source.

RoysRareRecords
What is production if it's not producer?

Can mean a multitude of roles. Not exclusively the artistic role which we use 'Producer' for.

jvaahtera
The actual music producer of http://discogs.cinepelis.org/Versatiles-Children-Get-Ready/release/1547393 is Eric Barnet (according to some sources: Enid Barnett). Not credited on the UK release.

Palmer Brothers didn't actually produce just about anything, as far as production means "musical production". They merely licensed already finished productions from Jamaica and put them out on their various UK based labels such as Pama (=Jamaican pronounciation of Palmer). The same brothers went on to form Jet Star in the late 70's, as well.

I don't actually see anything wrong crediting them as "producers" for discogs purposes. You have to bear in mind that they were not actively involved in the artistic process.

good info, thanks jvaahtera

Palmer Brothers, they were the managers of Pama and later on Jet Star. All their "productions" were not leased from Jamaica, they also had some in-house productions. But I'd guess they were not actively involved with these either. But who am I to say, and I don't really know what they meant with their "Palmer Bros. Production" tag on their releases. Maybe nowadays that would be called executive producers.

Btw, let me tell you a story: Roughly 30 years ago I took a visit in their Harlesden premises, Craven Park Rd. if I recall correctly. I knocked the locked door and to my surprise one of the Palmers (not sure if he was Harry, but surely Palmer) opened the door and let me in. After explaining that I would be very pleased to take a look at his infamous store he took me for a guided tour in then world's biggest reggae cash & carry wholesale store. Very nice chap and finally I ended up buying more than I had initially thought. The place was officially open for retailers only, and I was very glad that I was so invited inside. I was even asked if I wanted a bill for later payment (or if I wanted to pay in cash)!! Unbelievable. Things like that wouldn't happen these days anymore. Really nice experience for a foreign tourist.