Lifescapes Releases

[lazybookwyrm]

Lifescapes Music - MB was started by Compass Productions in 1996. Their slogan is “Relax, Renew, Escape” and for many years they sold new age, Celtic, light classical and smooth jazz releases and other things considered relaxing online and through store kiosks across the United States and Canada, first at Best Buy stores and more recently exclusively at Target stores. The label was purchased as part of Mood Entertainment - Discogs by Allegro Corporation - MB in 2013. In December 2015, Lifescapes was sold to Digital Funding LLC.

Many of the early Lifescapes releases were all but anonymous, with the artists either profiled inside the booklet or barely mentioned at all. Their website generally credited the producers of the albums as the main artist. In later years their reissues credited their artists more normally. In addition, they signed very well known artists, including Grammy Award winners and nominees, and releasing their albums as part of the Lifescapes Artists Of Note series.

That’s the description on Discogs for Lifescapes - Discogs. The majority of Lifescapes releases share a theme (Release group “Lifescapes: Caribbean” by Joel Sayles - MusicBrainz) or a genre (Release group “Lifescapes: Classical Piano” by Various Artists - MusicBrainz). Their album art and style is also consistent between releases, with changes occurring over time. With that background, here are my thoughts and questions:

Currently there’s no standardized way to deal with these releases. Some start the release title with "Lifescapes: " (Release group “Lifescapes: Celtic Guitar” by Dirk Freymuth - MusicBrainz) while others don’t (Release group “Harp” by Lifescapes - MusicBrainz). Some use Compass Productions as their label, some use Lifescapes Music, some use both. Some, without an artist on their cover art, use the artist Lifescapes.

1. Should we be including the "Lifescapes: " in all titles or remove it? I lean yes on including, but could also see arguments for no, so wanted additional feedback.

2. What should releases have their label set as? I don’t understand labels that well, so not sure if Lifescapes is a label that would be used for releases.

3. Should the Lifescapes artist by merged into [unknown]?

Any additional thoughts on the subject are welcome, I’d like to standardize these releases and add an annotation somewhere as a guideline for the future.

[derat]

Nice job doing that research and trying to clean this up! This seems like a tough one, and I don’t see much relevant guidance in the documentation.

The Release doc defines the artist field like this:

The artist(s) that the release is primarily credited to, as credited on the release.

The Release style guideline says:

In general, you should just enter the artist(s) as shown on the release (see the guidelines for artist credits).

The (unofficial?) Artist Credits documentation seems to focus on artist credits as they appear on the cover art, e.g.

Is the compilation credited to one artist on the cover art- if yes then credit that artist at the release level…

I’m not sure if there’s any official documentation that goes into exactly how “on the release” should be interpreted.

From the cover art for the releases that you linked to, it feels to me like the intent was to credit Lifescapes. The front and side art seems to usually just say “Lifescapes” along with a descriptive term (“The Wellness Seeker: Relaxation for Women”, “Caribbean”, “Classical Piano”, etc.). The writing/performance/production credits tend to appear in small text near the bottom of the back cover, so it doesn’t feel to me like the intent was to primarily credit those people.

Even though I don’t love having an amorphous entity like this, I’d probably credit these to the Lifescapes artist and use the other part of the prominent text on the cover art as the title. I’m not sure that the “group” type makes sense for the artist entity, since it doesn’t seem like it’s a distinct group of people but rather more of a branding thing. I’d probably change the type to “other” and add a disambiguation comment like “use for Lifescapes albums not prominently credited to a specific artist”. The credits for the people who actually created or assembled the music can be added through relationships, of course.

I’d credit the later “Artists of Notes” releases to the artists who are prominently featured on the front cover since that seems like it was the intent – releases like this one don’t even say Lifescapes on the front or side art as far as I can see.

I’m not a label expert either, but Compass Productions looks to me like it’s pretty clearly the right choice when I see back covers like this or this.

Definitely curious about what others think.

[IvanDobsky]

I spend a few too many hours with bad synth music. Do you own these? Are you going to be able to add AcoustIDs? The reason I ask is this can often hook into earlier sources sharing the same recordings and give you clues on artists. It is a fascinating minefield as labels come and go, and just make up new artist names.

1\ It looks like a part of the title. Looking at the example series it seems consistent to use it. I would not change that. This is used both with named and unnamed artists.

2\ The Label is the company who sells it. The one whose name appears on the cover. “Lifescapes” is more of a series. I assume Compass sell other music not in the Lifescapes series

3\ I would keep it as this is a name being used for a repeated set of session musicians. We see this in other places like The Countdown Singers where a generic term is slapped on top of some session musicians. The are not totally “unknown”, but this lineup will change in unknown ways.

Having a term to say “the artists used by Lifescapes” seems logical and follows that older pattern. (A quick glance seems to show majority of the releases have named artists?)

They are not totally “unknown”, but all we really know are who pays the bills and not who sings.

CDs like this are often created in bulk with little or no mention of artists on any of the paperwork. Makes is cheaper on licencing and reissuing of the product.

This was written last night, before @derat’s post, but I mostly agree with them. Apart from the release title. Notice how the release title is consistent in the series whether there is a named artist or not.

[IvanDobsky]

@derat

I’d credit the later “Artists of Notes” releases to the artists who are prominently featured on the front cover since that seems like it was the intent – releases like this one don’t even say Lifescapes on the front or side art as far as I can see.

That is an interesting one. I agree it is more of just a series. But the whole of “Lifescapes Artist of Note” title is visible on the front of the case. Look at the TRAY image. Now remember this is in a clear jewel case. That means the “Lifescapes Artist of Note” series title will be visible from the front of the whole package. It will be left of the booklet.

I not sure if that is enough to make it into the “title” though. Depends what is written in the sales catalogue.

MB guidelines are not really designed to handle these kinds of unbranded releases. So we have to try and think of artist intent \ label intent here.

[lazybookwyrm]

@IvanDobsky

Do you own these? Are you going to be able to add AcoustIDs?

Some lol, they’re rather common to find in thrift stores or random CD lots, I’ve started specifically looking for them if they’re cheap.

---

So I think we mostly agree on this, the one thing I'm not sure on is how broadly to use the Lifescapes artist.

@IvanDobsky

A quick glance seems to show majority of the releases have named artists?

From what I’ve seen, the artists in MB are artists that are from the smaller print on the back, often the person credited as the producer. From my experience, a lot of themed albums, including Lifescapes releases and releases from other sources (iirc there’s some releases credited to Craig Duncan - MusicBrainz under the Green Hill label that do this too), don’t prominently feature an artist except in smaller print in a credit section. The theme is the important part about the release for these types of releases, not so much the artist like normal.

I just assumed we would try to credit that artist if possible, even if they’re relegated to the back or booklet of the CD, but the below seems to indicate that not everyone agrees with that.

@derat

The writing/performance/production credits tend to appear in small text near the bottom of the back cover, so it doesn’t feel to me like the intent was to primarily credit those people.

The problem is nobody is being primarily credited. The artist guidelines seem to be referring to when you have multiple artists listed on a release and you have to select which ones should be credited. In this case all artists are downplayed, so the most primarily credited artist is credited in small print on the back of the case.

I guess the question is how prominent an artist has to be on a release to be used as the release artist instead of using the generic Lifescapes artist.

[IvanDobsky]

@lazybookwyrm

I just assumed we would try to credit that artist if possible, even if they’re relegated to the back or booklet of the CD

Generally that is what I understand. The cover is intentionally vague for sales reasons, but if you can find a real artist instead of an Unknown, then they can be used.

This is a relational database, so the more linkable the data the better.

If you see artists listed on the rear, or booklet, then they can certainly appear on the track list. And if one main artist is all over the track list, then it is their release. So they can be credited. (I’ll have to see if I can find that in the guidelines, but it is also from the learned way of using this database)

I only clicked on a couple of releases - but Craig Duncan looks a good example. That is his music, so he is credited even when the artwork is vague. (I expect if you found him on Spotify you would also see his name used fully)

The main use of “Lifescapes” as a place holder then drops in when you would have written [ unknown ]. The idea is you are making the most of the data that you have researched, and say that in the edit notes.

Discogs has a different tilt as they are based around their shop. So it is about only writing what you see so the shop search works. MusicBrainz is more about the real music and the real data so you credit what is real and researched.

-=-=
Notice how Dark Side of the Moon does not have the artist on the cover or track list. Only on a sticker does a name appear…

[aerozol]

If we consider ‘lifescapes’ as a session group (be it for commercial reasons or not), with usually similar but sometimes changing members, I’m fine with it as the artist. We do that for orchestras etc anyway. Then a ‘in-hand’ CD is really identifiable, and we can store individual artist credits in the works/recordings.

If there’s no link at all between the general ‘lifescapes’ crew, then I would attempt to credit individuals instead, and have a catch all lifescapes artist when it’s unknown. With a disambiguation like (for lifescapes releases where the artist is [unknown]).

Repeating what people have said, but throwing my hat into the ring