Talk:Music publisher (popular music)

message: Move to music publishing? I think so - compare Publishing, Editing, etc. Hugh2414 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Alcuin 15:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Music publishing 

message: I have read Alcuin's comments that his additions "should be tweaked for quality, not removed". The process of cleaning up said additions IMO would be a wasted effort, considering the lack of style matching, spelling and grammar mistakes ("companys", "lessend"), irrelevant data ("Hal Leonard (probably the biggest) or Alfred"), POV and whimsy "care and feeding of songs", "finds homes for songs", "come to life on record", etc.), overlong phrasing ("before the singer/songwriter or band who writes their own songs came to be in the 1960s"), and so on. The additions take away from what is a brief but succinct article, which is better off without them. And replacing the specific word "agent" with... "someone"?! Unprofessional.  Zephyrad 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, those additions were a mess.  I just don't like to see lengthy edits being reverted completely.  The idealist in me likes to think that there may be something salvageable in any good-faith edit, no matter how atrocious.  Too bad I'm too lazy to try to find it.  :) --Alcuin 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Care and feeding", etc.

message: This article is about the job of a music publisher – which would be considered a kind of agent, in the general sense of the term (regardless of how a given publisher may see himself). The material inserted (then removed, then reinserted) tends to be superfluous (as explained above here, and admitted to by their editor) or irrelevant to the article's context. (What does Warner Brothers's purchase of Alfred have to do with the day-to-day work of a music publisher?)
The "wrong info" mentioned was not detailed. There also appears to have been a personal attack made ("obviously not familiar with the field", "horrible changes", etc.), and both previous editors demonstrate a lack of writing skill, discretion, and knowledge of Wikipedia norms and expectations (such as the recent comments inserted at the top of this page, instead of chronologically, toward the bottom). Meanwhile an entire paragraph dealing with unscrupulous publishers ("songsharks") was deleted with no explanation, which makes me question this particular editor's motives and scruples in doing so. "It will flow"? It flowed already; the recent inserts and reinserts amounted to a logjam, IMO. Zephyrad 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Revert

message: This article was moved with no discussion, and for no good reason, while the listed reason completely ignores the term "music print publisher", which was edited out of the text. I propose the new disambiguation article be deleted, to allow this entry to be moved back, while something should be done about establishing the term being reached for and missed. Zephyrad 12:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As regards the term 'music print publisher'; this term does not appear to exist in common use. A search for this term in Google reveals that it is only used in Wikipedia articles. It is clearly a neologism, (See Wikipedia:avoid neologisms), and was edited out accordingly. The presence, or absence, of this phrase has however nothing to do with renaming of the article. --Smerus 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree with Smerus' move here- "music print publisher" is indeed a neologism - therefore :Category:Music print publishers should be merged to :Category:Publishers of sheet music with the former being deleted entirely. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is not a "neologism"; it is the standard term taught in college classes about the music business, and also in Writers Digest and other publications. One quick glance at Google is hardly "research". Zephyrad 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you are right it isn't a neologism but most of the matches on google seem to refer to "Hal Leonard" music whereas "publisher of sheet music" has 8380 hits. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hoorah! ...although, there would be no need of a merger had the original article been left alone, or subjected to discussion before a wholly reactionary move was made without one. Zephyrad 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move BACK to original entry!

message: I suggest the link to Music Business Solutions is removed from the bottom. It does not really add to the article and can appear more like an advert for the company than as an example of a publisher.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.17 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion for edit 

message: This is an idea for the future.  You know how everytime a song is played anywhere the writer of the song is supposed to get money.  Well there are certain agents or whatever that go out into the world and find out exactly how many times songs have been played in a radio station or big chain restaurant etc.  Well, this idea I recieved, has to do with tracking the songs, individually.  For example, every single song has it's own combination of frequencies.  No to songs have the same combination otherwise it would be the exact same song.  So every song has it's own frequency combination, mostly it differentiates within the first 10 second of the song, even if two songs (and there are billions of songs out there) start the same, there's always slight nuances in the recording or in the post production and then not to mention in the humanization.  So each song can be track individually according to its frequency combination.  And these sound frequencies would be tracked via satelite or radio or digital cellular or psychic or whatever.  Then it could be uploaded into a database and tracked each hour all around the world etc.  Hopefully this helped elicit the imagination of someone outthere.  --DreHectik 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for Tracking Publishing 

message: It seems to me that a "song shark" is not a topic that this article needs to cover, since a song shark isn't a really music publisher. They don't collect and distribute royalties, they don't promote songs, etc. (If they did these things, they wouldn't be sharks, would they?) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. New songwriters should be made aware of the difference between the two; lay people won't be hurt by knowing the difference. Songsharks pose as publishers. ("Isn't a really"?) Zephyrad (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  songshark