Universal Records

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f75703b20f8> #<Tag:0x00007f75703b2030>

I am confused by the logo “Universal Records” present on the “Back to Black” Blu-ray (see here). Is this a real imprint? I did not find a label having this logo.

There is also the Universal Music Group logo present, but the annotation advises to use particular imprint instead. I am wondering how to handle Universal for this release.

Apparently it’s an actual imprint.

1 Like

How did you connect it this particular logo?

The logo in the scan you linked matches one of the logos at https://www.discogs.com/label/796.

Right, already found it. Somehow I missed those multiple logos during my search. Thanks.

Does the disambiguation “1996-2005 American pop label” for another Universal Records (1) make any sense? To me, it clearly says not to use it for releases outside 1996–2005. While this is obviously not the case judging by how this label is used.

And that Universal Records (2) with a few releases looks weird. It might actually require merging.

Those numbers are not always absolute, especially in the case of reissued releases (such as the release you described in the OP).

That first Universal Records is still intensively used for fresh releases. That’s why my complain about the current disambiguation: it should guide people, not confuse. If the imprint is not operational anymore, the disambiguation should explicitly ask not to add new original releases to it. If it is, then ‘1996–2005’ is obviously invalid.

don’t be. yes, it is a valid imprint, and it’s this one: https://musicbrainz.org/label/590538e9-b183-4163-ab5a-171fb021ed12 => https://www.discogs.com/label/796 (the one you rightly mention has a disambiguation comment that needs work)

@HibiscusKazeneko referred below to one other Universal Records which i believe is a duplicate of Universal Records Inc. (a company, and “a division of UMG Recordings, Inc.”)

i’m not so sure Island Records Group counts as a co-label (i suspect it’s a UK label group, as its name suggests, that manages UMG’s sub-labels such as Island and Universal Records in the UK. to me, including a parent label group as a co-label when one of the labels it manages is already named as a release label is meaningless. so Universal Records is the only valid release label imo.

Island Records Group is several levels of hierarchy below Universal Music Group (UMG):
Island Records Group => Virgin EMI Records => Universal Music Operations Ltd. (UMG’s UK&IE subsidiary) => Universal Music Group (aka UMG Recordings, Inc.), so for the same reason, UMG is clearly not a release (co-)label of this release either. the logos of IRG and UMG appear just for the reasons i’ve explained: to indicate their relationship with Universal Records if not for branding purposes, and not that they’re co-labels. some editors might not like or agree with my opinion of this co-label issue, but that’s too bad :wink:

1 Like

Thanks for the detailed info. This definitely requires a picture :smiley:

The most useful thing to do IMO is to include all visible labels whatever the comment is.
This way we can understand what edition it is and not confuse an MB release with incomplete labels with another with incomplete label list.

If we could mark label(s) as primary(ies), it would be the one(s) on the spine.

1 Like

AFAIUI, there are no definite criteria of what release label is. Adding every logo present on the artwork will only add up to the mess. This does not mean there should not be a way to capture all logos. The attached artwork does just that, although not in a structured manner.

What meaning does a logo convey anyways? I bet it depends.

For me it is not a mess, it is like a bunch of series.
It, most importantly, identifies the edition I have in hands.
I can also enjoy browsing the other releases with same logo.

1 Like

That was said strictly in the context of release labels. When there is no reliable way to determine release label(s), mapping each logo to a distinct label is definitely a mess.

I understand the need and desire to pinpoint all logos present. Just don’t turn them into labels automatically. Find an adequate concept to represent this.

According to Discogs, Universal Records has/had six different logos. Are you suggesting to model this by creating six Universal Records label entries?

Yes, and if the text on the logo is the same, explain how the logo looks like in the disambiguation comment.

As I already noted, these are logos but not labels. The abuse of conceptual model is the road to hell. It should be clear to anyone working with metadata.

1 Like

For me a logo is a label.
A label is like a sticker.