Need help with this label Star Song please :)

This is where my knowledge of companies and MB runs out. I thought part of this question was making sense of when it was a real label, and when it just became an imprint? If the answer is now “throw it all into one heap”, please do write a short annotation with a clearer history to go on top of the Wikipedia link.

I don’t fully understand the companies side of MB. I am here for the creation of music and not the profits. I’m more interested in the artists and their work, and don’t spend much time following the ownership and money.

I’ll look again at this later in the day after more coffee. :slight_smile: :coffee:

1 Like

yer i care more about the music as well but i also hate seeing stuff that’s wrong and i don’t like making extra work for myself :stuck_out_tongue: i don’t fully understand the companies side either it does my head in but it is still interesting to see how it is all connected i do wish people that add the relationships to labels took more care like look at https://musicbrainz.org/label/c1602e22-0b54-4d50-9cda-da8b66fc5902/edit it has that Star Song Communications was renamed from Star Song Records that is compltly wrong it seams like thay are the same thing from what i can tell

1 Like

What has confused me is I thought I had seen cases of two labels in the database with the same name when ownership and role changes this dramatically. I can totally get why theses should all be merged into one entity. And you are correct that it should be so as all the owners can be dated in the relationships.

I have done links like this with the CD Manufacturing plants, so totally recognise what you are up to and why. :smiley:

Your link to an edit note hasn’t worked, so I can’t read it. But I can understand why details like that get incorrect as not everyone is as dedicated with their company background research as you have been. Trawling through Billboard magazine take some work. :slight_smile:

I totally understand the “it has to be correct” chase. Some of the Internet back alleys I have gone down in chases reading up the history of when a German CD manufacturing plant changed hands or to find out who that Sax player was on an obscure punk record are funny. Also expands my love of the music.

1 Like

sorry about that link that was my bad was meant to be this link https://musicbrainz.org/label/c1602e22-0b54-4d50-9cda-da8b66fc5902/relationships

The big clue I take with Star Song Records = Star Song Communications is that the catalogue numbers are all the same pattern up to the 1990s.

This is another reason why I think the EMI Imprint should be a separate entity due to being a different Beast. 2009 cat numbers follow a very different pattern and the label run in a very different way.

1 Like

yer i don’t know about the imprint i know that when they changed it to an imprint they only put concept albums and church music on it and the artists were moved to sparrow.

we have the Billboard mag catalogue numbers saying the same thing

1 Like

It is the billboard article you linked yesterday that both helped my own full understanding of what an Imprint is, and added clarity to the cut off date of 1998. I would mark that as the End of one Star Song “Original Producer” label, and the beginning of the EMI “Imprint”.

As you note yourself, the artists are all moved over to Sparrow. We can see the Cat Numbers have changed. And you’ve noticed they changed the type of music now on there.

One entity is Star Song the company with employees and artists. And the second entity is the Imprint which is just a name and a logo. I thought this is also why we have things like the “Renamed to” relationships.

The majority of the output of Star Song was as an “Original Producer”. An actual creator of music. I would seem to be wrong to me to now change that to be Imprint as it is then not true for the majority of its history.

1 Like

yer most of its history as a label was under Jubilee Communications. i get why you are saying to split it when it became an imprint. if we split it then would you not need to split it when it went from an independent label to under Jubilee Communications and then maybe even when it came under EMI before it became an imprint? where do we stop then?

i’m off for the night i’ll start working on this tomorrow as i have the day off work

1 Like

I think that is the only split I’d make. The difference between being a real working company with employees and artists. And then just a logo for EMI.

Both “Jubilee Communications” and “Star Song Communications” are full companies operating a full Original Production label. And that is the same label they operate, doing the same job, with the same catalogue numbers. It is just the legal owner changing. So I’d have a single Label that either are owners of.

In 1998, EMI then totally scrapped that company and removed the employees. It stopped creating anything at that stage and became a very different thing. It changes MB category from “Original Production” to “Imprint”. That is what would make me think this should be two separate things.

2 Likes

what do you think star song music should be another thing where they are just using a different name or a publisher?


https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enAU821AU821&biw=2560&bih=1200&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk00k7U3u7hdaVX7SmMMSaHLzYDDkKg%3A1613013325295&ei=TaEkYMTcEcL1rQGj942oAQ&q="StarSong+music"+david+west&oq="StarSong+music"+david+west&gs_l=psy-ab.3...117525.117525.0.118058.1.1.0.0.0.0.366.366.3-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.75n9NFcr-NE

in one of the billboards they are mentioned as a publisher can not read the hole thing tho

there is this for star song records

https://www.petraspective.nl/petra1981neversaydie.html

Manufactured By – Star Song Records
Star Song Records is a Manufacturer by the looks

can someone have a look at the Disambiguation’s here


and here

if you can do a better job please do i’m not good at it

and add any missing info

With the Disambiguration I would change the second one. Most people don’t know what an imprint is. I would have put (1998 onwards, part of EMI CMG). By adding the EMI bit in there it helps people spot it quicker as EMI is also on those covers.

I’ll read the other bit after dinner… long day here.

I am probably too tired to make sense of the other post, but I’ll try.

All I generally see is “Star Song Communications” are the company who own the copyright. They then seem to use other names like “Star Song” and “Star Song Records” to handle manufacturing, publishing, etc. But unlike EMI they are just a small outfit. All run from the same office. So I think it is reasonable to keep these all in the same entity. Just making use of Aliases.

It would help me if you would point to a few more example of actual releases to look at. Reading legal stuff from Google searches \ Billboard is a bit too out of context for me. The printed word in Billboard, etc can make errors. So maybe they means “Star Song” but said “Star Song Records”. This is why I like looking at CD cases.

Star Song Music (Capitol CMG Label Group) - I think that is another version of the Star Song EMI Imprint. (Capitol is EMI) I would merge your newly created imprint into that. That is the EMI version for all the post 1998 stuff. Click on the Discogs link and you will see how they describe it, and also keep it separate to the original Star Song.

Note the Star Song Music had a 1993 release, which is clearly the earlier Star Song. I’ve updated details with Discogs and moved it to the older label.

There are other items in this thread that need merging I think…

I would merge:

Star Song Communications, Star Song Records into Star Song.
I would call it “Star Song (Star Song Communications 1974-1998)”

I would merge Star Song into Star Song Music.

Why these merges? Just look at them, they are clearly the same as the Cat Numbers all fit together. Just different variations of how the name is quoted.

When looking at all of these labels, look at the catalogue numbers. It is clear that anything post-1998 should be move to the EMI Imprint version of the label.

From your understanding of the music, does this make sense? I see this as numbers and names, but have zero knowledge of the music. I see the patterns of the details that tell me they want to be together.

(I’ll update this edit after eating dinner. Need food to think better)

1 Like

im making the merges as suggested now the waiting game begins ill move albums to there respective label/imprint after the merger that way i can see what we have in one place. some votes on the merger would be nice
https://musicbrainz.org/label/4075a871-8374-45eb-ab4b-f97b0c63cfc4/open_edits
https://musicbrainz.org/label/c98b07db-36df-4374-87de-0ae5d690cc61/open_edits

1 Like

@IvanDobsky the merges when through no im looking at the albums found a few strange things there was one album that star song had nothing to do with in any shape or form under star song so fixed it up. then there are others i can not figure out i used one artist that represents my confusion.
can you have a look at the links and tell me what you think the label should be based on available album art


1 Like

Detective hat going on. Inspector Clouseau now on the case.

It is quite common for someone to select the first “close enough” match they find as a label. I know I moved a few Maranatha releases around. I look as a wider whole and not just what is in front of me. When a label is properly sorted out the catalogue numbers can be seen more clearly and how the pattern they have. This also helps separate them.

Also do remember that you are now becoming quite the expert in all the subtleties here. Something that may other editors will not have had time to do and selected something that “looked” right. Many people will have just one of two of these and not the size of collection you seem to have.

Now to the releases in question. I see they are both already in MB.

Looking on the CD of the first one I see EMI CMG, so this one I’d attach to the EMI Imprint of Star Song Records based by what the CD itself is showing and the date. The photo of the rear is rubbish and I can’t read anything on it.

I see we do have this one in MB, so yeah I’d swap it to the later EMI version of Star Song as a label.

I notice the second one is manufactured by EMI UDEN as I see their logo on the matrix, but otherwise their name is not on the covers. So this is still the classic Star Song before it became an imprint.

Interestingly I see a UK price code under the barcode, and Printed in Holland. UK release?

One way to spot EMI Imprint releases is that “don’t share this or we will set the FBI logo” on the rear covers. The original Star Song were never that aggressive. Kinda funny to me seeing this on music that is supposed to be “Sharing the Word” :smiley:

I have added a few extra relationships to both these releases, but not changed the main label.

1 Like

thanks for having a look ill work on it a little more after work

I have put in a few edits capturing a little bit more of the info from this thread:
https://musicbrainz.org/label/4075a871-8374-45eb-ab4b-f97b0c63cfc4/open_edits
https://musicbrainz.org/label/c98b07db-36df-4374-87de-0ae5d690cc61/open_edits

Feedback welcome

3 Likes

thanks for doing that :slight_smile: it is better then if i did it

2 Likes

@st3v3p - making lots of mistakes is the way I learnt how to do things correctly. Don’t be worried about getting it wrong as it is just as easy to correct it after. It is one of the reasons why I don’t do all the changes discussed in that post above.

Descriptions look good @aerozol. Shorter than the waffle I would have ended up with. :smile:

2 Likes