Why can’t we set this or that label?

I think we need such a topic.
I have too many releases that I added with lots of time and love and which information is getting removed or diluted to end up not the same releases than what I had in hands, any more.

When collecting a release I need to set all disambiguations that I can to be able to distinguish my release from that other random edition.

Sometimes one of the main differences between two editions is just a logo.
Always, I need to see the same list of logos on MB to be sure this release is correct or, in the contrary, needs to be fixed.

So I understood, logos are imprints are labels (note that I don’t know English enough to understand the last two words: imprint and label) as said in Label.

1. Some logos or imprints are said to not be labels. Why not?
The role of the label should not change the fact that it’s a logo and that we should then set it in MB.

2. Some claim that we should only keep the child labels when there is also a parent.
I say why? This must come from the times we had only one label per release.

In both cases 1. and 2., removing from MB release a logo that is seen on the package will make me think that I don’t have the right release in hands and I will duplicate the release with that missing label.

☞ I think we should explicitly add in the guideline, as they are important distinctive disambiguation information, to include all logos/imprints/labels (1.) and to not remove parents (2.).

I mean what’s the harm otherwise?
Having lots of pages in parents is neither incorrect nor problematic.

☞ A second related thing: No one (except super experts or except with catalogue numbers that starts with a company code) can tell which catalogue number is from which label.
So we should just set catalogue numbers and labels apart.

As said in the old forum (currently down, cf. archived page):

IMO catalogue numbers should be attached to release (or better to medium MBS-1735 OR release MBS-5602), not to release‐label.
This way when we attach several labels to a release (allowed by design), the catalogue number (only set once) will be shown in all labels.

I usually give up quickly with labels, ignoring what is then done in my back.
But as I opened this topic, I don’t really want to give up until I have some good reasons against keeping printed labels.



Not all of them are “brand (and trademark) associated with the marketing of sound recordings”. E.g., some of them are recording studios, audio engineers, etc.

Or, an extreme case, a lot of releases have this logo:

… but it’d be silly to put them on all those releases as a label.

Usually there is only one on label the spine, along with one catalog number, and I think that’s the label people expect you to put there.

But yeah, it may just be a holdover from when only one label was possible. I’m not sure the rational behind it (and personally mostly deal with classical, which seems to care a lot less about this—and probably has less weirdness to deal with).

[edit: It’s probably reasonable to have some way to document all the logos on a release—but I don’t think we currently have a relationship for that.]


Good idea although it’s not really what I see in MB, spine label (if any, because not all my released have one) should be considered as release main label and holder of the catalogue number.

And we can keep all other (secondary) labels, as long as they are related to marketing. And related to production is ok as well, isn’t it?

Can someone influential tell automods to stop removing “brand (and trademark) associated with the marketing of sound recordings” (labels) that are printed on the release?
I already loose enough time in MB for having to constantly check things back, over and over.

Set of back and forth edits being discussed here.

[quote]WARNER MUSIC JAPAN isn’t on the front of your release

It’s October 2015. Please compare:

On that https://discogs.com/release/7633588/images (the edition of my edit), we do see the W logo, above the catalogue numbers, on the spine of the (unfortunately) obi covering the actual spine where I don’t know what’s printed.

This edition is indeed PARLOPHONE’s but not only. It is PARLOPHONE AND W something. Even the catalogue numbers are not PARLOPHONE’s, it shows by how they start by WP, which incidentally means WARNER MUSIC JAPAN, BTW, I’ve just learned that by reading wikipedia through my earlier topic.

I didn’t know for sure what W logo means but Warner starts with a W, online stores said WARNER MUSIC JAPAN and their OHP is actually showing that same W (\\`) icon (and now that WP catalogue company code I’ve just learned above).
Is the problem that the logo is shared by many stuff, like WARNER MUSIC AGENCY ?
Then in this case, maybe we need a W imprint label, instead?
But in doubt we should try to replace with appropriate stuff instead of removing it — it’s not coming from nowhere, it’s hinted by several online stores for this edition — see links below from Edit #41130151 - Add release — and the logo is printed on this edition (see same discogs /images link).

But this is not important, this is just a hint.
What has meaning for me is the actual photos from discogs, so if you know where in MB is that W, please help and I’ll use it for all my further edits.

Another missing labels release where a « brand (and trademark) associated with the marketing of sound recordings » (label) was removed.

I checked this issue, and i tend to agree with @jesus2099 on this one.

http://musicbrainz.org/label/9e6b4d7f-4958-4db7-8504-d89e315836af has a label code and a logo, why wouldn’t be a valid label for all releases using this logo as imprint ?

I understand Sony has a lot of sublabels, and that catalog numbers are often associated with the sub label, but still it doesn’t make sense to remove a useful information.

The Warner (W logo) is also something interesting, and i guess it goes more or less the same for many big companies.

That said i don’t know much about the background of MB & labels, but for sure, as editor, it is always an headache.

@reosarevok @Freso what do you think about the problem @jesus2099 is explaining here ?


[quote=“jesus2099, post:1, topic:115273”]

  1. Some logos or imprints are said to not be labels. Why not?The role of the label should not change the fact that it’s a logo and that we should then set it in MB.[/quote]

  2. As @derobert pointed out, not every logo on a release is a label/imprint. The “compact dics” logo is an extreme example, but not the only one. For example, many series have associated logos. Bands have logos.

  3. For those logos that are associated with an mb-label, I don’t think anybody is saying “these aren’t labels”. What some editors are saying is “these aren’t the release label”.
    That is, some people understand the term release label as having a more narrow meaning than “all the logos that appear on the cover”.

So, consider this cover. If you asked “what label is that on?”, it doesn’t make sense (to some of us) to answer with a list of ~13 names.

That’s what we think release label means: the answer to the question “what label is that on?”

I completely agree that this information should be retained. I disagree that it should all be stored in the release label field.

The simple solution (to me) seems to be to create a generic release-label relationship, “logo appears on”, and to use other specific relationships when that information is available.

edit: see also


The what logo is a label question has been well defined by @derobert already — brand (and trademark) associated with the marketing of sound recordings, no need to keep saying that we should not include non label logos. ;p
This is quite simple to understand.

No problem for me to include them all (those that are not series logo, artist logo, hairdresser logo, etc.), as it’s the right way to disambiguate this edition from another one.

I’ve came across, several times, editions that would almost only change in one label displayed or not.

Instead suggesting a relationship (they are not easily spotable, they make editions hard to select from release group page as they are invisible), let’s stay on the previous suggestion of having a checkbox primary label (main label) and primary catalogue number (main catalogue number) that would be for label experts (not me) to use without removing our work, us, non experts.

Well, except if label field is completely dropped in favour of relationships and that those are displayed on release group page and all the pages that show list of releases (searches, artist releases, label pages, etc.). :slight_smile:


I agree that we should clearly show all of these kinds of logos, I disagree that it makes sense to put every company and logo into a field called ‘label’, when they’re not the label.

Is it as simple as something like:

Until then I’m undecided.
I’m leaning towards @jesus2099’s method though - of just putting everything into the label field - because even if it’s not perfect, I can’t see the harm?


If we can settle on a long-term solution, then I agree that leaving everything in the release label field is the correct short-term solution.

1 Like

To me, it’s like putting all track artists in the release artist field. “They’re all artists. What’s the difference?”

Oh. That’s clever (and would indeed save work) :slight_smile: . I haven’t read that topic. Is there a ticket?


Well, track artists are for tracks, not for release. Labels are for release, not for tracks.
I don’t understand that analogy.

I have found primary catalogue number but not primary label.

1 Like

Not all artists on the packaging are a release artist.
Not all logos on the packaging are a release label (IMO).


Do you have an example of a printed artist who is not set in MB? Had it to be with classical guide lines?

[quote=“jesus2099, post:16, topic:115273”][quote=“CallerNo6, post:15, topic:115273”]
Not all artists on the packaging are a release artist.Not all logos on the packaging are a release label (IMO).

Do you have an example of a printed artist who is not set in MB? Had it to be with classical guide lines?

Most Various Artists release have artists listed on the packaging who are not the release artist.

If the analogy is not “clicking” for you, I’m sorry to have derailed the discussion. Let’s please focus on finding an acceptable solution intead :slight_smile:


I see. Like I said: Well, track artists are for tracks, not for release. Labels are for release, not for tracks. :sweat_smile:

I would like some guidance about using the Release Label field.
The guideline I’ve been following is from How to Add a Release:

For labels, we follow imprints, not companies. This means you should look at the label logos, not the copyright statements.

Although it doesn’t state explicity that all imprints on a release should be added as Release Labels—without any other contradictory guidance—this is the way I’ve been interpreting it.

FWIW I think adding all the imprints has some advantages, to paraphrase @jesus2099’s points from the original post:

  1. It helps to disambiguate releases more than just using the one “main” imprint.
  2. It makes things simpler for editors. They don’t need to have any background knowledge about the labels (imprints and record companies) involved.

OK we are several editors who think including all printed release labels is is what, together with all the rest (catalogue number slight variations included) disambiguates/identifies/defines a precise edition.

BUT several editors still (apparently rightfully) think, despite NGS, that there should be only one label, or that this label is better than that one, etc.

This makes our careful work on our releases completely useless, as our labels are likely later deleted and renamed (“ariola” to “Ariola Japan”, or “Sony Music Labels” to “Sony Music Labels Inc.”).

So I think at the moment I want to stop editing for nothing, so I made a nice script user stylesheet to HIDE RELEASE LABELS in order to free my mind.

You need to have Stylus browser extension, and then you can install.