Self released label question


#1

For the following release I have just added:

This is a self released release, meaning that it is released under the artists name, Megan Thee Stallion. But there is also another entity involved, Chop Not Slop with RonC. I have added both to the release, but I fear this will lead to confusion as label one is named “no label” and there is a second label with a name. That is sort of a conflict at first sight.

Is this how it is intended, or should I not use [no label] and use the artists name? I chose no label as it defines itself as for self released entities.


#2

I would think [no label] implies “the editor didn’t just forget to add a label, there really isn’t one” (similar to [no barcode]). With that interpretation it doesn’t make sense to have [no label] alongside a label. But I am by no means an MB label expert.


#3

I would like to agree. IF you look at the [no label] entity however:


this is the “definition”, “(Special purpose label – white labels, self-published releases and other “no label” releases)”. So this brings the issue here… it is self-published, but there is also a label involved. The label is a small label though, Chop Not Slop, which is run by RonC, who is also partially credited for the release, both as artist and label.

This is a more rare item as there are no major labels or companies involved, and Megan is not a well known artist either. She was not even in MB prior to my add and does not appear in Discogs either. Nor did the label Chop Not Slop, but MB does have a listing for RonC.


#4

I would interpret that guidance not as “any self-published release must use [no label]” but as “here are some examples of when it might be appropriate to use [no label]”.


#5

I agree. But that goes back to my question… should I be using [no label] for this, or create a new label as her name. This release needs to say self released, so if I had to make one and only one selection, I would use [no label] and remove the other. But to be more complete, Chop Not Slop is also there. She releases her music through CDBaby, and if you look there, it is released under her name, thus self released / self published. I agree is looks weird, thus this post… maybe it is best to remove Chop Not Slop as a label, but removing data also seems weird.


#6

Where is Chop Not Slop referenced?


#7

It seems to me that either it’s self released, or it’s on a label…if it’s on a label, it’s not self-released.


#8

I can just remove the label if it causes this much confusion, but that is not the question which still remains… if there is a release that is both self released and there is a label, what is the process for that. With small labels, like we have here where the label is just one person, this is something that happens. Especially in the mixtape world.

You can look at it like this. The release is released in combination of two people. One person has a company name they work under and the other does not. So you either have self released + label, or you have label + label with the name of a person. Thus my original question here, how does that work? Do I use [no label} + a label, or create a new label for the artists name and list that label + label.


#9

This is a bit more tricky. You need to look into it a bit, or know a bit about it. If you look closely at the logos that appear and the verbiage at the top of the cover, you will see reference to The Official Southern Heat https://southernheatent.com/. If you go to that site, you will there see RonC and his Chopstars and their involvement, etc. He also has a remixed version of that release.

All my intention with this is to add information on the release. If the information is not wanted by others, or the information is confusing to where others don’t want it, I can do that. I did remove the label, although I disagree that MB has guidelines/opinions that do not follow what is real. These types of relationships are useful information, especially if you are trying to get the release or information on it.


#10

I would add Pretty Time Entertainment and Southern Heat Entertainment as labels since their logos appear on the cover.


#11

I would say if it doesn’t say Chop Not Slop anywhere on the release itself, that’s not its label. Southern Heat seems to be promoting and booking her, but even on their website I can’t find anything tying the release to Chop Not Slop.


#12

As I stated, I already removed the label since it is just causing confusion. The question still remains, not related to this release. I know where this release came from, where and how to get it, etc, so I am not in need of help to determine that. It is now just listed as [no label] for self-released in MB

The remaining question:
You can look at it like this. A release is released in combination of two people. One person has a company name they work under and the other does not. So you either have self released + label, or you have label + label with the name of a person. Thus my original question here, how does that work? Do I use [no label} + a label, or create a new label for the artists name and list that label + label.


#13

Well, again, [no label] + a label makes no sense to me.
For my part, in your hypothetical case, I would probably just list it with the label and not create a label for the artist. But I might answer differently given the specifics of an actual release.


#14

It is not at all hypothetical. This is one of those cases, as well as some of the other releases for Megan I just added.

That is a prefect example. If I add those, it will be in addition to either [no label] or a new label of Megan’s name.

I agree, I would prefer it to say [self-released]+label, or Megan+label. That goes back to my question. But MB does not have a [self-released], MB has [no label] which does that role. I also proposed adding a label under her name to obtain a Megan+label option.

I added all as [no label] for self released. I would like to add the other involvement, but as we both agree, using [no label] with other labels makes no sense. But first and foremost, these releases are released under Megan’s name, the others come second.


#15

I don’t really get self-released + label either. To me that seems like an either/or.


#16

It is like I explained. Megan released this, but there are others that were also a part. I noted one (that I since removed) and Kid_Devine pointed out two more. Look at it no different than two labels on a release. If that can be understood, so can this. It would seem that if Megan created a company, lets say ABC Records, it would make sense. But there is no company name, just her. So that leaves the options I asked about. I could just leave as-is now, just self released. Or, I could add a new label under the name “Megan thee Stallion” and add the other(s), or leave as [no label] and add the others.

As I said, if I need to pick one and only one, these are self released. Ideally, all involve would be listed. If that is to be acceptable, I am asking how, since [no label] listed along with labels has a bad appearance.

Does that make sense? Think of a person and a company as an entity. Person = company = entity. So we have 2+ entities involved. Only weird thing is that individual people (as self released) are placed under [no label] normally.


#17

@fmera - could you provide your view on this topic?


#18

a release either has [no label] or it has one or more co-labels; you can’t have it both ways. or you don’t know, so you leave the field blank.

my first impression is that [no label] is more appropriate; this is a self-published release by MTS. i don’t see any connection between this release and “Chop Not Slop” (i suppose you really mean “Chopped-Up Not Slopped-Up”), but even if OG Ron C may have been involved in the production of it, that would amount at most to an AR for him)

as for Pretty Time Entertainment and Southern Heat Entertainment (who co-‘present’ this release), there is not much on the latter’s site to determine if they’re record labels. they may be more like artist management companies, and those aren’t considered record labels. just because their logos appear on the front cover, it doesn’t automatically make them so, imo.

but you may want to add the co-presenters as a release annotation for now, until their status is more certain.


#19

So [no label] is not appropriate here if there are other names involved. I already had removed all other names as all it did was cause confusion. So it is not possible to have more than one label if one of them is the artist themselves? That is why I wondered about creating a label under the artists name and using that. None of that matters for this specific release anymore as I left it as only [no label], but it does leave that question here, what to do in a case like that.

I would agree here, they are not labels, but more of artist groups.

I agree, thus how it is currently. It is first and foremost self-released by her.

I think the release itself is fine how it is currently, and fmera seems to agree via statements here, but lets say that one or more of the names listed above were to be considered a label of interest for this release. How would you handle that?


#20

@fmera - could I ask you this, maybe I am thinking too much on it… Are you saying that if an artist self-releases an album that no other people or companies can be involved, but if that person creates a company or uses a company, then more than one is fine?

I guess I fail to understand why a person is different from a company. If a release can have more than one label, meaning that multiple companies share in the work and process, that the artist themselves cannot also do the same, share duty with a company, but release it under their name.

What I might be over thinking is that MB has no interest in the other information. In cases like this, I view this other information as more important than calling it self released, since I already know who the artist is. So if I want more information or details, this leaves out where you want to go for such things.

I hope what I am asking/saying makes sense. I am sure you can explain it though.