Am I the only one that finds it odd that we use Elektra Entertainment as a release label, even though the imprint only says Elektra? Discogs doesn’t. It’s just Elektra, IMO. I know the company name changed during that time, but just because they changed the logo, they didn’t incorporate the company name into it. I thought the whole idea of imprints was to use what the imprint (logo) actually says. Many, if not most, editors already always put Elektra, because they use the Discogs script which automatically will always add Elektra. I don’t see why we shouldn’t say Elektra for the imprint, and just show the company name on appropriate company relationships (copyrights, manufacturing, etc.)
3 Likes
Replying just to link the Elektra Entertainment and to tag @fmera who wrote the annotation on its usage.
1 Like
Are you saying that eE does not stand for elektra Entertainment as pictured in this Discogs image?
I mean, it could be possible that it doesn’t. In this video from Elektra Records – Official Site you can find the eE logo subtitled with “Elektra” rather than “Elektra Entertainment”.
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/L-35282-1590230093-6598.jpeg.jpg){kind=link}
However, then you’d need to make a strong case that the subtitle isn’t important or consistent enough to separate the label. For example, we separate the walking[1] eye[2] based[3] on[4] its[5] surroundings[6], though the differences are much more dramatic and obviously intentional than for Elektra.
I does stand for that. But MB is the only place I’ve ever seen that says it’s a release label.
Elektra Entertainment Label | Releases | Discogs
Elektra Records - Music label - Rate Your Music
1 Like