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.)
4 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
I was about to start a new thread, but this is actually what was discussed here.
Wouldn’t it be better to merge Elektra Entertainment into Elektra?
Elektra as one imprint from 1950 to the present.
The chronology of logos linked in the annotation will show you which logos were used in which time period.
It would avoid difficulties. There is no proper relationship for a revived situation:
- Elektra was renamed to Elektra Entertainment - but it wasn’t renamed back
- Elektra Entertainment was renamed to Atlantic, and that’s wrong: it was merged into Atlantic, but Atlantic was NOT Previously known as Elektra Entertainment, as it currently is→ https://musicbrainz.org/label/50c384a2-0b44-401b…
The different companies could be shown with parent labels.
I think, there’s no need for both.
Asking @tigerman325 @fmera (recent editors of the labels)
1 Like
Well, I thank I made my thoughts on this above. Not much to add. I still think they should be the same. I also thank that both BMG’s should be the same. You could just add label name as aliases to show the 2 durations when they were active. So many just don’t pay attention to the annotations and Discogs threats them as only one label. Isn’t an imprint just about the logo represents the label? If so, I don’t see why we need 2 when there is lineage of it being the same label.
1 Like
while i’m not opposed to having just one “Elektra” label/imprint to represent both (including the 1989–2009 era), i’m not as sure a simple merge is the right way about it. but if you really had to do it, the less problematic way would be:
-
merge both into the presently-named Elektra Entertainment. why? because there are considerably fewer relationships in the Elektra one to potentially have to untangle later. but you’d first need to explicitly add label aliases to all of them that don’t refer to “Elektra Entertainment” before the merge. you should do this because i suspect (unless i’m wrong) that after labels are merged, all label relationships in the source for which no aliases have been added will automatically take on the name of the target (meaning “Elektra Entertainment”)
-
post label merge, rename the target as Elektra; since i’m now inclined to agree that even during the Elektra Entertainment era, when the “e over E” logo was adopted, the accompanying wordmark was often (if not always the case, can’t recall for sure) just “Elektra”
2 Likes
I feel this is a good reason why it has not been done before… Really need an option in a Label merge that works like an Artist merge where the alias is created automatically.
One of the problems though is you can’t actually set an alias for the main Label for a Release. You can do it for relationships like Copyright, but not the main label for the imprint.
Though in this example many are selected wrong anyway… I just looked at one album from The Cure and found half a dozen Releases in the Release Group using the copyright as the release label (even though there was a loud “ELEKTRA” on the spine…)
Some of them even said “a release by Elektra” in text on the rear. The label was clearly a one word thing, but the company had a longer waffly legal title.
The only thing that makes me question a merge is that difference between Imprint and Holding. The label on the spine is often ELEKTRA but the copyright is the whole company name of Elektra Entertainment. This is a distinction that would be lost here after a merge.
1 Like
i was referring specifically to aliases in label relationships. as for the release label issue (which cannot be assigned an alias), those two steps (necessary due to the relationships issue) would deal with it; they would all be Elektra in the end.
1 Like
That is still 1000 or so edits. Need a script wizard to write something clever.
2 Likes
It took me some time to understand. The problem is mainly that most relationships should not be tied to Elektra at all. They are most often “Elektra Records” and even “Elektra Entertainment”. recording or release relationships like distribution, copyright, etc. should always be linked to companies, not to an imprint. Therefore they are all wrong.
I haven’t thought much about the relationships before. In fact, only the release labels should be changed to Elektra and the relationships stay with the company¹ “Elektra Entertainment” (currently “Original production”).
But changing all release labels for all releases manually is a challenging task
¹) division of a company
1 Like
This is the core problem. We often add imprint credited as company. This is not a problem for small labels, but for labels owned by larger record companies, there should be a separation between imprint and company (record company, distributor, manufacturer,…). This is often required in disambiguations, but is often overlooked.
i was thinking i’d have to clarify my earlier post to say explicitly that all the relationships of both the target and source would need to have aliases explicitly added, whether in reference to Elektra Entertainment or Elektra, or variants thereof. so when the merged label is renamed Elektra at the end, the relationships retain the aliases they were assigned.
but it sounds like you got the idea. probably not nearly a thousand though, several hundreds maybe.
@IvanDobsky’s a valid point, good reason against a simple merge, but instead to (painstakingly) switch release labels from Elektra Entertainment to Elektra in affected releases (up to 14 pages)
a long-established and sizable record label/company with a history like Elektra isn’t a good candidate for consolidating into a single entity even if you have label aliases to rely on for relationship credits. it could be messy.
and then there are these others; how to deal with them, where do they fit in?
Elektra Entertainment Group
Elektra Entertainment LLC
Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc.
Elektra Entertainment Company (lol? bet if you go back to the original printed source and not what streaming sites might tell you, it would actually read “blahblahblah, an Elektra Entertainment Company” or similar.
These are going to be slightly different legal entities. “Group” and “Group, Inc” will be the same, but I assume they would be the legal parent to the LLC.
It is a common legal trick that you register the important assets to a “Group” which then allows you to sell of some of the internal sub-companies if they get into trouble.
But that is the Legal department, the Lawyers and Accountants. Not the music makers
A confusion in MB is how to deal with these connections. Does MB see one company called “Elektra” that deals with all sides of the music business? Or does MB attempt to mirror the complex legal setup of the companies over the decades?
When I look at the way “Label” are used for Imprints, I see a title that is a brand. Not always the actual company. I understand the “imprint” of “Elektra” is a brand owned by “Elektra Entertainment” which is why we see the copyrights attached to that legal entity of “Elektra Entertainment”.
This is why I have always understood there is a split for larger companies like this between having an “imprint” as a separate label to the “Holding company”. They are separate entities doing separate tasks.
The label/imprint here is “Elektra”, but the company that owns it is “Elektra Entertainment”. I see the logic of having that imprint as a separate thing, but even a small dive into this I see a mass of confusion where the legal entity seems to be getting used instead of the actual imprint.
1 Like
I have an idea for a different strategy:
- Create a new “Elektra Entertainment” label (company, DO NOT USE as release label)
- Move all label relationships¹ from the current label to the new label (still many, but much less than release labels and even if many of them are wrong, it is no worse than it is now)
- direct relationships like “subsidiaries” must be added to the new label and then removed from the current “Elektra Entertainment”
- Merge “Elektra Entertainment” (the current, now without relationships) into “Elektra”
¹) there is only one relationship “credited as Elektra Entertainment LLC” which should go to the credited Label instead
Of course, with direct database access, a simple update statement could replace all “Elektra Entertainment” labels (MBID) with “Elektra” 
That’s why I believe that this solution requires too much effort. In comparison, merging the emptied “Elektra Entertainment” into “Elektra” requires no aliases.
How true, but that is not specific to this label.
2 Likes
Elektra Entertainment Group and Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. appear to be sibling companies. i’ve now disambiguated them and added annotations. “Elektra Entertainment LLC” may or may not be a different label. it has only 7 entries at discogs, all 2023 or newer.
1 Like
This company was actually incorporated in 1998. However, they didn’t print this anywhere. Now it looks like the company has been revived too, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the list of releases would get even longer.
We cannot (and shouldn’t) depict the complete, complex company structure, but companies that have been printed frequently should exist and, as far as possible, be linked with relationships. We should probably keep it.
@fmera @tigerman325 @IvanDobsky @yindesu @highstrung
Do you think this is a practicable option?
I would volunteer to move the relationships.
(P) 415 recordings
(P) 170 releases
(C) 127
distributed 27
licensed 7
manufactured 17
published 1
This does not look good b̶u̶t̶ ̶m̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶o̶r̶d̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶"̶E̶l̶e̶k̶t̶r̶a̶ ̶E̶n̶t̶e̶r̶t̶a̶i̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶"̶ ̶c̶r̶e̶d̶i̶t̶s̶.̶
(doesn’t help much, I have to edit each recording 
though I can do it from the relationships tab )
5 Likes
Sounds good to me. I’ve done it that way before, but nothing quite this big.
1 Like