HE.SHE.THEY. vs. HE.SHE.THEY. Records labels

MusicBrainz Style
1

While adding some missing releases from Bandcamp, I noticed two similar label entities in MusicBrainz:

Right now, the “non-Records” label has no type and seven releases, while “Records” is a holding label with no relationships and a dozen or so copyright/phonographic copyright credits.

I’m having trouble sorting out the relationship between the two:

  • On the HE.SHE.THEY. Bandcamp page, the label refers to itself as “HE.SHE.THEY.”, and all of the album covers there include a “HE.SHE.THEY. RECORDS.” logo.
  • The official website doesn’t seem to have any mention of the “Records” name.
  • Resident Advisor uses “HE.SHE.THEY. RECORDS” (no trailing period) and the “HE.SHE.THEY. RECORDS.” logo.

What’s the proper relationship between these two entities? Should “Records” be a subsidiary of “non-Records”? An imprint? (I’m guessing not, due to its “holding” type.)

Should they be merged, in the absence of evidence that they operate separately? I’m not willing to do that without asking here first since I don’t know much about the intricacies of labels. Are the copyright notices that resulted in the creation of the “Records” entity enough to justify it as being distinct?

4 Likes
2

Tricky!
The label is certainly “HE.SHE.THEY.” but it’s more than a release label. It is also a fashion label and it seems that when they refer to their music business, they add “Records”.
Well, the owning company is “He.She.They. Ltd.”, not “He.She.They. Records” as found with copyrights (…of one release)
I would recommend merging rather than looking for a relationship :wink:

1 Like
3

@tigerman325, do you have any objection to me merging these two label entities? Just want to make sure there isn’t something that I’m missing.

2 Likes
4

I have no issue with it.

2 Likes