I wanted to open a discussion on this manufacturers name. We are probably going to come across this for other manufacturers as well, so it will be good to have a discussion on it.

My feeling is we should use the same methodology as on Discogs, that is, accurate representation of the actual item.

On the earlier machines I looked at, it says "E-mu Systems, Inc" or "E-mu Systems":

On some mid 90's 'machines, they have both "E-mu" and "E-mu Systems" on the front:

And "E-mu Systems, Inc" on the back:

http://andrewmartens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/esi-back-open.jpg

On later machines they just put "E-mu" on the front:

But still "E-mu Systems" on the back:

Since we don't have "Manufacturer Name Variation" here (and I'm not sure we want to get into that), we should pick one manufactures name for the entire output. We do get into branding versus full company name as well. I don't think we should go for the full company name all the time, but I do think we should catalog what appears on the equipment as best we can. I feel in this case, there are enough machines with "E-mu Systems, Inc" as the only name on the front panel, to warrant the use of that full name as the manufacturers name for these items.

What do you think?

I think this one is fairly simple: It should be "E-mu." That's the standard, accepted convention. Wikipedia and many other established sites agree. The 'E-mu Systems' was only placed on earlier models, but few people would write that in an eBay description, for instance.

You wouldn't see a 'Moog Voyager' listed as a 'Moog Music Voyager'

Thanks for the feedback!

It should be "E-mu." That's the standard, accepted convention. Wikipedia and many other established sites agree. The 'E-mu Systems' was only placed on earlier models, but few people would write that in an eBay description, for instance.

I believe what we should be doing is looking for the correct data, the same as we do on Discogs. That means we don't go by conventional shorthand or modes of speech as the primary source of information, but we go by primarily what the unit says on it. As noted above, early models say "E-mu Systems, Inc", later on it is shortened to "E-mu Systems" and then "E-mu", but still with a reference to "E-mu Systems".

I don't think that referencing other sites as the primary source is needed if we have the info on the item itself. However, I'd like to point out that the article on Wikipedia is named "E-mu Systems" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mu_Systems ;-)

You wouldn't see a 'Moog Voyager' listed as a 'Moog Music Voyager'

Moog is in fact a good example of information we will likely need to think about and figure out how to capture accurately.

For example, we have the early Moogs with "R.A. Moog" on them:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/R.A.Moog_minimoog_2.jpg

The company changed it's name a few times, was bought out, went bankrupt, and was resurrected.

Then we have the 'Welsh' Moog

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct98/articles/minimoog204e.html
http://forum.moogmusic.com/viewtopic.php?t=2733

where "Moog Music Limited" i nthe UK apparently has "forced Moog Music to rebrand the Voyagers (pc boards, badge, labels, even the manual) for the UK market".

This is all important information, and something that I think we should be capturing somehow.

Original (gray) SP-1200 had various forms of 'E-mu' or 'E-mu Systems' on their back, which added to the confusion.

They apparently had unlisted revisions, even before the reissued, black models.

(My point was they had three or more brand variations written on their backs--not what they specifically had on their backs.)

Thanks Clark!

We made some changes based on this discussion - you can see them at http://www.gearogs.com/forum/300-August-14th-2014-Manufacturer-doing-some-changes-today-if-submitting-please-read

You can see how I added them to http://www.gearogs.com/gear/20-E-mu-Emax-SE as an example.

Ithink you will need ANV (or MNV in this case) sooner or later. Being an addicted EDP-collector (I think I have the most complete collection at least) I can mention that as an example:

Electronic Dream Plant made the first Wasp. That company went bankrupt.
Electronic Dream Plant,Oxford made the Wasp. That company went bankrupt.
Wasp Synthesisers Limited made the Wasp. That company went bankrupt.

These are versions of the same company, with the same models and the same people behind it. I think this calls for an MNV.

This is where it gets tricky. It sounds like the factual data is there were three different companies. Certainly, "Wasp Synthesisers Limited" is totally different from "Electronic Dream Plant", those names cannot be variations of one another. They are related, but they are not the same. This calls for a different function, linking the companies via the profile as 'Alias' or some such.

ooh sorry i just bulldozed all that

Hey - no problem, it helped me find a bug to fix :-)

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.