Need help with this label Star Song please :)

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f73aaa0a698>

looking at this Billboard article it seams to me like all the albums in Star Song Records should be in star song as it looks like Star Song Records only did disruption, advertising and in store promotion, and from what I can see the label is Star Song (up to 1998 then it becomes a imprint) and not Star Song Records.

the parent company Star Song Communications got sold to EMI in 1994 and EMI then make EMI Christian Music Group that same year and add Star Song Communications to it, I can not see mention of Star Song Communications after about 1997in Billboard . so do i add Star Song as an imprint to Star Song Communications or EMI Christian Music Group.

im open to hear anyones thoughts on this

some links that may help

The name of a label is often not obvious from the logo/imprint.
Eg The name of this Label is Revelation - though many other names have been used in various dbs and in MB as well.

If you’ve got a good understanding of the situation around these Labels etc then I suggest you make any new Labels etc needed and move a few of the Releases where you understand them needing to go. Then wait a week and see what happens. If no-one objects and shows you a flaw in your understanding then consider yourself the current best-expert-we’ve-got in this area and move everything that you think needs moving.


@mmirG what label would you say these are by looking at the back cover / spine and medium
and this one
here is one that mentions star song, star songCommunications and star song records

I’m no Label expert. I’m looking at logos/imprints/trademarks.
Here is the thorough documentation I’m trying to Work from.

  1. Star Song Music & EMI
  2. Star Song
  3. Star Song
1 Like

thanks i dont know were star song music fits into all this as there is almost nothing on it the only thing i can think of is they may have renamed star song after it became an imprint
the only thing i can find is this but it means nothing to me"star+song+music"&pg=PA556&printsec=frontcover
1 will not be just EMI it wold be EMI Christian Music Group as that is what they release this kind of music

On EMI: I’m not clear - the imprint/logo that I can see is just “EMI”.
But if that EMI imprint/logo being split into different labels “is required when labels went through complex merge/split operations and you need relationships to structure the imprints list and represent their history in a meaningful way. It can also make sense to add such a company in order to use the manufacturing and distribution relationships.” then keep up your good work.

With Star Song Music it looks like it was a new label that began in 2008.


ok thanks for all the help so far @mmirG maybe EMI moved some or all of there artists to it from Star Song i’ll put it as a direct relationship to EMI Christian Music Group like it looks to be in that link and move that one album to it. and have Star Song as a imprint of Star Song Communications from 1998 on unless someone thinks Star Song should be an imprint of EMI Christian Music Group from that time on. as for star song records i may get rid of it after, if i find none of the albums in it atm are on star song records as a label wich it looks like none are. And i’ll have to clean up Song Communications as no albums should be on it, as it is not a label but the company that use to look after the label that was purchased by EMI and added to EMI Christian Music Group along with its label Star Song.

i’ll leave doing this a a day or to till i have time to start on it that way others can have a say if they wish before i start moving things and stuff.


You are more of an expert on this area that you give yourself credit for. You are doing a lot of research and checking your sources, and now getting to see the bigger picture.

Trust yourself with your edits. With something like this as you are adding the source material, it is not a major issue if you then tweak it by moving a few releases around, or merging the Star Song labels as you better understand the relationships.

Not sure if my head is up for reading lots of legal company connections today. Though I do tend to get quiet detailed in all the relationships I add to a release when I can see them on the covers. Especially relationships like ©( p ), manufacturers and distributors if they have been named separately.

I’m more interested in the Artist relationships than the business stuff. Some day soon we should pick a few of your releases and work on adding relationships like the Writers, Performers, etc.

(I just picked a couple of releases at random that you added in the last month and increased the relationships \ created works based on the covers and links you had put into place)


I have not read everything above, mainly looked at Wikipedia and the Rear Covers.

I assume “Star Song Communications” their real, full company name but they just shorten it to “Star Song” to fit on the 1980s\1990s CDs.

Looking at the Wikipedia page seeing that full title. And also I was working on one of the releases you added and noticed the AllMusic page saying “Star Song Communications” when it says “Star Song” on the CD. It looks like “Star Song” is just an alias of “Star Song Communications” really.

The three covers you link above - the Years are very important. You have different eras of ownership of the Imprint.

The two from the 1980s\1990s are easiest as Star Song was still its own company in their own right as “Star Song Communications”.

I notice the EMI one from 2009 is calling it “Star Song Music”. I would assume they have tweaked the name slightly under their ownership. Reading that Wikipedia page I see EMI owned Star Song since the late 1990s, so they may just be using the “Star Song Music” name to connect this history. I would need to see more examples before saying if this should be the same Star Song as Star Song Communications.

Looking closer at the 2009 rear cover, I notice the copyright is Ronnie Milsap (the producer of the CD), under licence to Star Song Music. This is very different to the 1980s releases under Star Song as they seemed to always be the full copyright holders. Here they are giving permission to Ronnie to be the licence holder.

I am getting used to reading the difference between an “Imprint” (the Label who handle the release). And the Copyright (where the money goes). On that 2009 example it is complex as there are also the Manufactured and Marketed by EMI CMG relationships in there as well in the small print. This is the complexity that big companies like EMI brings to the table :smiley:

1 Like

so you think star song and Star Song Communications are the same thing? the only thing that made me think that they were different was this.

“Star Song Communications, and its Star Song label, was founded in 1974 in the Houston area by Darrell A. Harris. From the start, it was a Christian music label specializing in Christian folk, pop, and rock, much like the Waco-based Myrrh, but unlike the older Word label, which was heavily into traditional hymns and such. Harris’ philosophy was to merge “artistry with ministry.” Unlike a lot of labels that have artists who come and go like through a revolving door, most of the Star Song artists tended to stick with the label for many years. Harris was frequently listed as a producer/executive producer until the label was sold to EMI in 1994.”
from here

1 Like

As has been mentioned, it sounds like you’re the expert, I would trust your research and your decisions. And see if anyone pipes up on your edits.

One thing I’d like to add - could you please add disambiguations and annotations that contain your research, or at least a summary, to the labels. Otherwise all your hard work will disappear over time as people use the wrong label, or, uh-oh, merge them. Your research is super valuable to the DB - especially in 200 years time when other sources are thin.


That says to me he created a company with a legal name of “Star Song Communications” and then run a label from it called “Star Songs”. Maybe if I look at more covers I’ll see a little bit more distinction, but I think it is the same thing really. And makes sense to keep it together. Sometimes this is used for the Copyright, other times as the Imprint, but it is always seems to be about the same entity. The same company.

I would set it as the same label and then attach both the copyrights and the release label to that company. It seems to make sense to me. Or maybe Star Song Communications is the parent company for the copyrights, and Star Song is the Imprint? I’ll look at more examples another time.

I also agree with @aerozol - add some of your notes and findings into the annotations. Don’t trust this forum to be here forever as they have swapped forums before and lost loads of old links. Leave the details in the edit notes, and neater summaries in the annotations.

Even when there is a Wikidata\Wikipedia page, sometimes I will add more details that I have researched from elsewhere if I am working on something obscure. That is the funny thing about working on MB, there is suddenly a point when you realise that you really are an expert in the subject you are spending so many hours on. :slight_smile:


you may be right @IvanDobsky That he created a company with a legal name of “Star Song Communications” and then run a label from it called “Star Songs as it is not an imprint till EMI make it one so how can it up correctly in MB? as im not to shure

@aerozol im not an expert im just your average joe blow giving it a crack :slight_smile:

1 Like

?Please explain? :smile:
An imprint is the same as a logo and is the defining element* of a Release’s Label, AIUI. Which would have Star Song as Label from its first use.
(But you’ve been studying up on this area and probably know much more than me now.)

*Re-designs of logos usually get treated as the same logo from what I’ve seen.

1 Like

ok well i was getting confused about something i read. StarSong. Shifts. To. Imprint. Status was the title
they are talking about star song records becoming an imprint in 1998 by the sounds of it star song records may have been crated 2 years before 1998. i was reading it as star song instead of star song records :stuck_out_tongue: thanks @mmirG you made me look again that brings up a question would they have made it an imprint under Star Song Communications or EMI Christian Music Group

tho thay seam to be saying Star Song Communications and star song records are the same thing

1 Like

We’re all just average nerdy joe filling out data in a little community :+1:

It really is likely that this forum post now contains the most information/discussion on these two entities - at least on the internet. Just a little nudge to pat yourself on the back, and then move some of that info into the MB label pages when you get a good idea of what you’re up to. They will get mixed up again otherwise, ahhh


It is only these conversations that are teaching me what an “imprint” is. Before I would have just called it “Label” or “the company who are selling the product”.

This is you helping clarify to me exactly what an imprint is. Now I get it totally. Thanks. The following is my understanding of this whole thing.

EMI ownership will confuse anything due to their many profit layers, departments and many tax avoiding lawyers. The original 1970s-1990s Star Song are a simpler outfit.

This is why I usually focus on “copyright holder” and “label selling product”. When it comes to that 2009 EMI CD there are multiple names now involved on that rear cover as each chunk of the business is split up.

I think the “Star Song become Imprint” in 1998 is when EMI have taken a famous old company, and then just gobbled them up into their huge business, and turned them into just an imprint. Just a name and logo. Just a small little sub-section of their massive machine. No one works for them anymore as the company has ceased to be.

In that news article it seems to describe EMI taking famous names of classic labels and just making them “Imprints” of yet another EMI department.

EMI CMG is the Christian Music arm of EMI. It encompasses : “Sparrow, Forefront, Star Song, EMI Gospel, Worship Together and re:think records as well as EMI Christian Music Publishing and Cordant Distribution Group”

So before 1994 Star Song was it’s own company, trading under the name of Star Song Communications. Then 1994 EMI bought it, closed the company, and instead made an Imprint of it and just sucked it into the Beast that is EMI profit machine.

I would have a Label called Star Song Communications with an Alias of Star Song. They would be trading from 1974 to 1994. And then I would make a second Star Song from 1998 which is just an Imprint. It’s parent is EMI CMG. And the parent of EMI CMG is EMI.

I’d have to look at more examples to work out if the title of the 1974 Label should be “Star Song” or “Star Song Communications”. Whichever is the more common, and just set the other as the alias. I don’t think they are big enough to split.

I think that is the best I understand of it. And I’ll be honest, this is the side of music I don’t really like. Seeing a big Beast like EMI making profits out of someone else’s work. But I don’t want this to turn into a rant against record labels before I have had my morning coffee :smiley:

Edited to add: I have now read beyond the first two paragraphs. This article is basically EMI’s obituary for Star Song. They bought it in 1994, moved it into an office with other religious labels they have bought (Sparrow) and by 1998 gave up pretending to run the label and just merged everything into a single entity.

The only puzzle to me is the end date of Star Song. Is that 1994 when bought by EMI, or 1998 when EMI killed it as a separate entity.


the only problem i see with this is people will add any thing with Star Song logo to the second star song if it is the only one with that name or they will make a new one. i think it would be better to have it probably have one caled Star Song and have Star Song Communications as the alias as i don’t think there are many that have Star Song Communications as a label than make it as an Imprint of EMI CMG from 1994 and have EMI CMG as the parent label from 1994

acording to this the end date is 1998

1 Like

I agree to with you it is best to call it Star Song. And then use disambiguration to separate the Star Song (1974-1998) from Star Song (EMI CMG). One a label, and the other an imprint. I’d then add some notes in the disambiguration explaining the histories.


what is the point in making 2 when it is just the same label but the relationship changes? star song was around as a label till 1998 then becomes in imprint of EMI CMG. so you put Jubilee Communications Corp as the parent company from 1986 till 1994 EMI CMG as the parent company from 1994 till 1998 then you have it as an imprint of EMI CMG from 1998 it will save a lot of confusion

and i decided to look for star song records and found this. looks like star song records and star song are the same thing just a different name is all