Why does this release
have Decca Classics as the release label when there is no ‘Decca Classics’ logo on the release? The front cover has a ‘Decca Records’ logo, on the back there is this ‘Decca’ logo:
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/L-5320-1496156344-5548.png.jpg)
2 Likes
The logo you link to is the Decca Classics logo. It just doesn’t mention the word Classics.
1 Like
Usually release label naming follows what is shown on the logo. I would’ve expected these releases to be filed under Decca, but I see that that label’s disambig. comment reads
WARNING: NOT FOR RELEASE LABEL USE!!! UK company, division of Universal Music Operations Limited
This doesn’t make any sense to me, and I’m curious as to how this system of treating Decca releases came about because it seems inconsistent with the rest of the database.
1 Like
I’m not sure what the label you link to’s place in the Decca constellation is exactly, but Decca Records and Decca Classics are imprints of the Decca Records Company Ltd.
You can see the Decca Classics logo on their website. The Decca Records website is here.
Usually a label’s logo mentions the label’s full name, but not in the case of Decca Records. There isn’t much more to it.
1 Like
Should the label name perhaps be changed to “Decca” following style guide “you should favor using names as they are represented on the imprint, rather than using a company name”? Probably change the disambiguation as follows:
Decca Classics: “DECCA” in white uppercase on a blue-over-red rectangular block; until 1999, for use outside of North America only
2 Likes
As you can see on their website, the label is called Decca Classics and they use the red and blue logo with the text Decca. Why go against that?
There is no guideline for labels. There is a docs page though. What it means there is that the label Generic Record Company Ltd. should be called Generic Record Company if that’s how it is written on the logo. I think the docs page is a little bit out of date now that we also regularly do add the company Generic Record Company Ltd. if it is credited with copyright and manufacturing relationships and the like.
2 Likes
Yes, you’re correct. In this case Decca Classics is the company name. I think a separate label entity should be created for Decca Classics the company, and the current imprint Decca Classics renamed to Decca as @Hawke suggests to match the logo.
It’s worth mentioning that the red and blue Decca logo has also been used on non-Decca Classics releases such as
1 Like
Sorry but I disagree, if a label’s logo is just a picture we don’t change the name to [picture of X], we use the label name.
I think it should be called the actual name of the label (as they self identify) even if the logo differs. My two cents 
3 Likes
Yes it would be better if the MB imprint name matches the logo we can see.
I would have easily filed my releases under an MB label called DECCA, not DECCA Classics.
Actually, it happened:
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/33227401 (my initial DECCA edit)
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/42469223 (a later change to DECCA Classics despite the logo)
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/42474892 (I then tried to rename the label to match the logo)
No, it wouldn’t. At least not because of what the logo looks like.
The label calls itself “Decca Classics”, as far as I can tell.
1 Like
When I’m looking at my CD, I’m not connected to their OHP so I don’t know it’s called otherwise than what I see.
It’s why the imprint MB label could (should, IMO) be called the same.
And linked to a DECCA Classics MB label with a « is an imprint of » relationship.
1 Like
Fair enough, though this contradicts the documentation on how imprints should be named:
the name of the imprint should be as it appears in the imprint (logo), and the disambiguation comment should mention how the company name appears when not printed as a logo. example: JADE (the logo is printed as JADE, and the company is printed as “JADE music” or “Editions JADE”
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be a Decca Classics entity in MBz, but that it should be a separate entity from the ‘Decca’ imprint that appears on releases.
The (apparently out of reach) solution would be to display every logo/imprint on the Label’s MB entry.
Failing that there seems no easy solution for the tensions between “official name” vs “as displayed on imprint”.
Except for those imprints which are pictures I favour “as displayed on imprint” - but then those picture/non-text-based imprints come along wreck my dreams of simplicity
2 Likes
As far as I can remember I’ve seen for both labels artwork with switched colors. So you cant trust on this. What about adding an more detailed annotation to “Decca Classics”:
label picture: only shows Decca; be careful not to confuse with the other Decca label
and on “Decca” vice versa:
don’t confuse with Decca Classics which looks similar
Hopefully, both Decca logos do not look alike, so their description in disambiguation comment and/or annotation may already be good enough to understand which is which when you read them.