How should label renames be handled when old releases used the previous label name?

MusicBrainz
1

A Bandcamp label previously called LOUDsilence [Digital] now appears to have been renamed to LOUDsilence.

This raises a modelling question for MusicBrainz:

Should the existing MusicBrainz label entity LOUDsilence [Digital] simply be renamed to LOUDsilence, even though some releases were originally released when the label was still using the old name?

Or should a new label entity LOUDsilence be created, with the old LOUDsilence [Digital] label connected to it using a “renamed into” relationship?

The problem with the second option is practical: if we create a new label entity, what should happen to all the existing releases that were imported under LOUDsilence [Digital]? Would they need to be reimported or manually moved to the new label, depending on the release date / original Bandcamp metadata?

The underlying issue seems to be that MusicBrainz does not have a “credited as” field for release labels, similar to artist credits. So if a label changes its public name, it is not obvious how to preserve the historical label name as it appeared at the time of release while also reflecting the current name of the label.

What is the recommended guideline here?

In short:

  • If a label changes name on Bandcamp, should the existing MB label be renamed?
  • Should old releases keep the old label name somehow?
  • Is a separate label entity + “renamed into” relationship preferred?
  • If so, how should existing releases be handled?
  • Is there any current workaround for the lack of label “credited as” support on releases?
3 Likes
2
3 Likes
3

I would rename the label and create an alias with the old name (and dates, if that’s known) - provided that only the brand has changed slightly.

I suspect it’s a brand name, not the company name, but even with the company name, I would only create a new MB label if something significant has changed.

3 Likes