Self released label question

Correct. This field in MB is for imprints, maybe, or at least usually. I am not defining a field, I am defining a label.

This is no longer part of the conversation as it has been removed. The only portion still remaining is if Chop Not Slop is a valid record label. To that, it is clearly YES. Now is it a valid imprint? Well, maybe. Is it a brand, yes. Is it a trademark, yes. But is it a qualifying imprint for MB? I dont know, still waiting.

This is not a requirement for anything, is it? If so, this is easy… only entities that appear in that database are valid for input to the MB release label field, as it appears on a release.

Person=label as an absolute is all you. I said that a person can be a label and a label can be a person. And I will still say both of those are true.

This is also false. Again I refer to reality. In the US, as I said, if you sell a certain number of cars in a year, you are considered a car dealer, whether you want to be or not. If you self release, you are acting and filling the role of record company and label, again assuming you have done those roles. If you do not want that role, then you would hire third party to do so. Correct? Just because you do it for yourself does not mean you are for hire though.

Also, I am talking about the rest of the world, the way that the majority does things. MB, as has been made clear, uses the term “label” to mean a slightly reduced subset of a label. That is all fine, but you cannot use your modified term as anything but an internal term and usage. So what is the criteria, for MB, to be listed as release label? Is it being an imprint? Well, no as fmera pointed out. It is not an absolute requirement as a company can be a label. So, what allows a company to be a label? It was said that if the imprint is not separate from the company. Ok, so what is an imprint? A brand or trademark used? Yes or no? If so, what is a brand or trademark?

You have definitely lost me.
If you’re not saying every person who puts out a release is a label, then what are you saying here:

I have never met anyone “in reality” who has asserted that every release has to be on a label (because someone had to perform functions that a label might perform), or that anyone putting out any release becomes a label.

Ahh, ok. What I am saying is not that, but I see where we are crossing now. I am saying that every release has someone, something, or etc that does the functions of a record label. For MB, that means imprint in most cases, but regardless… So what I mean is that a person is not “a label”, but “the label”. The difference being filling the role as label vs registering yourself and actively participating as a record label.

So when you self-release, or sell your CDRs on the street, you are yourself (most likely) serving all of the functions of the record label. So you are not calling yourself a record label, but you are serving as the record label. Thus when asked, who is the record label, you say yourself because you are doing those duties yourself. I think we are on same page, just crossing words.

I still fail to see how and why “Chop Not Slop” cannot be used as a valid record label though. But that is a different part of this whole conversation.

EDIT: Wanted to add since it was mentioned on edit notes, there is no ill will intended by me to anyone. Disagreements are just fine by me, and I know we all have the same intentions of keeping good, correct and accurate data. If no one ever disagreed with anyone causing debate, nothing would ever improve.

1 Like

Maybe the issue is the definition of brand and trademark? “Chop Not Slop” is a series of words. A brand can be a series of words used to define or distinguish. “Chop Not Slop” is used to define remixes, a radio program, etc. A trademark (not the same as registered trademark as one is registered and one is only established by use) is used to represent a product or brand. “Chop Not Slop” is used to define remixes, a radio program, etc. So, if “Chop Not Slop” is used to distinguish remixes, radio, etc and is unique to the product and brand, then that is a perfect fit to what a brand and trademark is and means.

Regarding references to logo’s no where does anything indicate that an image, logo or anything like that is a requirement for a brand or a trademark.

I use the label field to record the brands that appear on a release (on the cover art I mean). I don’t take the field to always represent “The label that issued the release” (which is how the field is defined in the guidelines).

1 Like

So the list of criteria include one to many of:

  1. it is an imprint type record label
  2. it has visual representation on the artwork

Maybe we can build a definition that is more clear than “The label which issued the release. There may be more than one.” Since it is established that I Am not the only one with issue here, and at least to me, there is a evident fuzzy logic on this topic, maybe if a more specific and precise definition can be put together, that would help others and reduce misuse, as fmera pointed out is not a rare occurrence.

I know it seems like I am pick, but a large portion of what I do involves analytics. People would likely be surprised at how many problems are caused simply by not being clear.

The ‘imprint’ label type just confuses things IMO, anyway check out this other thread and this summation from @Zas:

1 Like

Yes, got it. That is also what fmera had indicated, that a production company for example can be valid if its associated imprint has not been separated from it, or something worded like that… not an exact quote.

The addition of imprint cleared all up for me, at least until it got muddied up again. This is a bad way to make example of it, but I am reminded of dba. You have a company, which has a company name, but they market themselves as the dba name. But if there is no dba, then the company name is the name.

EDIT: I wonder if it would make sense to create some sort of flag that would need to be checked on the label entity to allow it to be selected for such a field, meaning release label? That would also remove the need for the disambig that is often added to say no label use.

For me the confusing aspects of labels are primarily:

  1. Identifying the correct label among similarly named labels, for instance picking the correct Enemy Records. This could be helped by adding logo images to the label entity (see ticket MBS-4683).
  2. Distinguishing valid release labels from non-release labels when adding a label to a new release. For instance Columbia is valid but Columbia Records is not. In this case there is an annotation to help, but it would be better if you simply couldn’t choose a label of distributor or holding type as a release label.
1 Like

#2 on your list is similar to my edit above. I agree with both your points.

In another industry, we see similar things. For example, The Bartolotta Restaurants. If you go to Harbor House, that is the “brand”. But the company itself is Bartolotta. But if you go to something like Sea Side Diner (which is one and only one restaurant), then Sea Side Diner is the brand and the company.

I believe this is what fmera and others are trying to say for how it applies to MB, but if so, then Chop Not Slop is certainly a valid release label, so it does leave me confused.

Can you give an example of a release for which you think Chop Not Slop should be a release label?

Added: For my part, I’m not trying to say that Chop Not Slop couldn’t be a label, only that I don’t see any indication that it is one.

To clarify and avoid any confusion…

What are you looking for exactly? A record label is, as taken from Wikipedia for its definition:

  • a brand or trademark associated with the marketing of…
  • company that manages such brands and trademarks, coordinates the production, manufacture, distribution, marketing, promotion, and enforcement of copyright for sound recordings and music videos; also conducting talent scouting and development of new artists (“artists and repertoire” or “A&R”); and maintains contracts with recording artists and their managers

The above should be obvious. Chop Not Slop even has signed artists. Now it is NOT an imprint. This is because they are not ONLY a brand. The Chop Not Slop web site has all of the albums, mixtapes and singles, it has released. So we have a brand, we have releases, we have a company involved in production, marketing, etc… and even A&R. By the very definition, and the portfolio of Chop Not Slop, I do not see how anyone can say they are not a record label, as it is and does the exact definition of a label.

Something fmera said comes to mind… something like … you need to separate the record company from the imprint. Applying that here, Chop Not Slop is not an imprint, but this is already said above, they are not just a brand.

Maybe the proof wanted is proof it is a brand and/or trademark. That is also clear enough, again per the very definitions of them. I cannot say if there is a registered trademark involved, but being registered is not a requirement anywhere for this, so that is irrelevant. Trademarks do not need to be registered in order to be valid. I cannot think of any other possible objection to them being a record label.

EDIT: Here is another example of such a company/business/person: Payso Best Ever
Ricardo is the person, there is the artist name of Payso Best Ever, and brands such as Grind Gang Entertainment all under him in some way. And to use a prior statement because it actually does apply to this one, he sells a lot of his music on the street, and has photos of him doing so. I would have no idea anymore on the proper name to title it all under, there has been a lot of re-branding since we last communicated. He also does all the same, has artists, makes and releases music, does a lot of marketing, I mean a lot, hits the ground running daily.

Here’s what I see. Again I’m mostly just going from the chopnotslop.com website.

  1. The website doesn’t identify itself as “Chop Not Slop” anywhere. You could infer that name from the URL, but it’s not stated
  2. The logo on the site, which also appears on some of the releases listed on the site, says “Chopped-up Not Slopped-Up, Official 100% Authentic OGRonC and the Chopstars”.
  3. “(CHOPNOTSLOP REMIX)” is in the title of a number of tracks. This seems to be used as a style/subgenre identifier.
  4. As best I can tell, all the releases on the site involve OG Ron C as a primary artist or a collaborator.
  5. The site has a copyright notice to “OG Ron C and the Chopstars”.

Looking at this I would take it to be an artist site for OG Ron C and the Chopstars. Nevertheless, if you added More Chops as an MB release and said the label was “Chopped-Up Not Slopped-Up”, I would think that could be justified based on the logo. On the other hand I think you could make a case for self-released / “no label” also.

  1. This determines a label or not exactly how?
  2. Nowhere is a logo a requirement of a brand or a trademark. A logo can be a brand or trademark, but a brand and trademark can exist with no logo or image.
  3. This would be a wrong assumption, as that is not the name of the genre. The genre is explicitly referenced by him along with its origins. And again, this determines a label or not a label how?
  4. Most of it, yes, RonC is involved in. Again, this determines a label or not a label how exactly?
  5. Copyright and label name are not the same thing. So this determines a label or not a label how exactly?

I agree you could make a case for self-released, although since there is a real company name behind it, using that makes even more sense. Again, please refer to the definition of what a record label is. Then, please point out where it states that there is a logo requirement, where it says that the owner cannot be the primary artist, etc. All of the points you make are valid points, but none determine whether something is or is not a label. Ron C is the primary, and owner of the company(s). The Chopstars is a name used for a collaboration of a group of DJs under it. Chop Not Slop Ent is the name.

The main issue I have with this is simple…A logo is NOT A FACTOR in the determination of what is a brand and/or trademark. Period. This is stated absolutely nowhere that such a thing is a requirement. I have outlined quite specifically what a label is, by its very own English language definition. It is clear it is not an imprint, but there is absolutely nothing you have provided that says it is not a label.

A record label does not need a logo. A record label does not need a web site. A record label can have 1 to many artists under it, a copyright can, but is not always the same or related to, a label name. Please provide something that says that a requirement in order to be considered a valid record label that you need a logo. Please provide something, anything, that says that in order to have a brand and/or a trademark, you need to have a logo. If this cannot be done, then there is no reason to mention a logo anymore as it relates to this.

All I have stated here is not in reference to what MB wants to see in the label section of a release, as that is already determined and has its own question on it. This is in reference as to if “Chop Not Slop” et.al. is a “record label” or not. I use et.al. because if adding Ent or a period or what ever to it makes a difference, then ok. I have already stated that name as that is the name used as the brand and is also the actual name of the company.

As pointed out above, there is no need for complications here. What is a label? What is a brand? What is a trademark? Now with those answers, tell me where there is a mismatch here?

EDIT: AllData, Spotify, iTunes, etc all list Ron C as a “label operator” among other things. I assume that in order to be a label operator, well, there needs to be a label to operate. Given that he is CEO of Chop Not Slop Ent LLC, well…

A logo is one way of documenting that something is being used as a brand or trademark. No, it’s not a requirement, it is one form of proof. Same with all of the points I cited - none of them prove “Chopped Not Slopped” is NOT a label, but none of them indicate it IS.

Chop Not Slop Ent is the name

Where is this documented? Not on chopsnotslops.com.

AllData, Spotify, iTunes, etc all list Ron C as a “label operator” among other things. I assume that in order to be a label operator, well, there needs to be a label to operate.

He was (I learned yesterday) co-founder of Swishahouse Records so it’s quite possible that is the label they’re referring to.

Now with those answers, tell me where there is a mismatch here?

As I asked before, can you give one specific example of a release on the Chops Not Slops label and where it says Chops Not Slops?

.

1 Like

Really? Is there any proof that there is an artist here? Is there an album? Is there marketing of an album? Was this album produced? Is this artist represented? Are you seriously telling me that none of these items can be “proven”?

Well, you can start by seeing the name registered with the state of Texas. Are you in need of more documentation of a name?

Sure, it is quite possible that his achievements are best represented by something that is almost 20 years old. Hard to argue with a hypothesis such as this.

And as I said before, pick one, any one. Here is a worksheet:

  1. Define record label
  2. What does a record label do?
  3. What does Chop Not Slop do?
  4. How much of the definition of a record label does the activities of Chop Not Slop fit?

It is hard to show “where it says Chops Not Slops”. I do not mean the typo, because I know what you mean to say here. But this is a digital release. If you can show me the back cover with the credits, or the sticker on the center of the record, I will show you the “where”. Statements like that just do not apply anymore. Show me on almost every digital release where it says the name of the record label? You are asking an unanswerable question, which seems to be the intent. Digital releases do not have artwork, they do not have stickers, they do not have a spine, or a box it comes in or anything like it. If you want the metadata, you will be disappointed again, because the name used as label, for example in the XID atom, is in reference to the record label using the same “wrong” definition as I am. I again encourage you to obtain the definition of a record label and not just the imprint subset.

Let’s take a physical release. I guess the logo for Expansion Records is a major problem because it is the letter E and not the name used. Expansion cannot be the record label then, because the logo states “e”, not “Expansion Records”. This is after all what you are telling me, right? If the logo does not match the claimed name, then the name is wrong? I will again refer all to the definition of a brand and trademark. In said definition, a logo REPRESENTS a brand. In order to represent something, you do not need to do anything aside from create awareness, an association to or in some way cause a relation to be made from the logo to the brand, and I guess I need to add that there needs to be permission of sorts to use said logo to represent said brand. Right? So an easy one that relates to CDs, is Target not represented by a bulls eye type red circle? Is Target a brand even though their logo does not say Target? Again, this is after all what you are telling me.

Again, this is after all what you are telling me.

No, none of that is what I’m telling you. I’m not going to respond further on this topic as I feel I’ve said all I can say.

What you have said is that Chop Not Slop (Chop Not Slop Ent LLC), although meeting the definition of a record label, is in fact NOT a record label. You have not provided any reasonable explanation for such a statement. I agreed it is not an imprint, that is clearly explained and the reasoning is quite clear, including the reasoning provided in the definition so there is full agreement. You have also not explained why you saying they are not a label overrides the fact that they consider themselves, act as, present themselves as, etc a record label.

I am hoping to get an answer soon, but I gave asked this exact question, in the case I am explaining something wrong, of are you or are you not a record label and why? If I get a response that they are a record label, I will inform them that some editors at MB regret to inform him that he and his company(s) in fact are NOT a record label. Go ahead and think I wont or did not already do this, people owning labels like this are more than happy to promote their brand and make statements, and I have no fear or reservation asking a blunt question since I believe in what I am saying.

What you have said is that Chop Not Slop (Chop Not Slop Ent LLC), although meeting the definition of a record label, is in fact NOT a record label.

I have never said that. You may read what I actually wrote, or you are free to ignore it entirely, but please do not misrepresent me.