How to Identify Labels

Have you ever looked at a release and wondered 'which of these companies/logos is the label?' This how-to guide explains the difference between record companies and labels (imprints), how to identify them, and walks through some examples. It mainly focuses on physical releases.

For other label-related pages please see additional information.

What is a label?

A label is a record company's 'imprint' (its trademark or logo), that it uses to release music. 'Label' and 'imprint' means the same thing, in general usage - but in MusicBrainz we sometimes also create a 'Label' entity for a company (see below). In this guide we will sometimes use the term 'imprint' instead of 'label', when we are trying to distinguish between the company and the label.

For more information on these entities see the Label page.

Should I use the company name or the imprint for the label?

In most cases you should only use imprints, particularly in the label field. Most editors will only need to use/create imprint label entities in MusicBrainz.

When needed, companies that aren't also imprints (for instance, a holding company that owns various imprints) can be added as labels. The reason for doing this is usually to represent the history and relationships between imprints in a meaningful way, or to use the manufacturing and distribution relationships. Note that there is no need to "de-duplicate" companies from imprints when their name are very similar.

Identifying labels

In the following examples we are aiming to identify the label. We are also aiming to identify the company/s, if different, which we will not use for label fields.

Simple cases

Sometimes (particularly for releases from before the age of label mergers) the situation is simple: a single company would issue releases through a single imprint (its trademark or logo). The name of the record company and the imprint it uses may be identical, but not always.

1959 vinyl example

Cecil Taylor, Looking Ahead!

On the front cover, top right, the imprint name is printed ("Contemporary Records") alongside the catalog number ("S7562"):

• 

On the back sleeve, bottom, the company name is printed ("Contemporary Records, Inc."):

• 

On the medium the imprint name is also printed prominently:

• 

We have identified the imprint name (Contemporary Records), which we will use. The full company name is slightly different (Contemporary Records, Inc), and we can ignore it for label-related fields and purposes.

1995 CD example

John Zorn, First Recordings 1973

Here also it's pretty straight forward. The label name appears both on the obi strip (along with the barcode)

• 

And also on the bottom of the back sleeve

• 

The catalog number appears on the side of the box (TZ 7304).

Note that in a lot of cases, you'll find the imprint on the cd itself as well, or on the side of the box.

Don't get fooled by the company name holding the imprint

At some point, though, the de-correlation between companies and imprints went on, quickly moving toward a situation where in a lot of cases:

• a company has an entirely different name than the imprint it controls (possibly, it bought the remains of the bankrupted previous owner of the trademark)
• a given company controls (several) different imprints (that it either created or bought) with different names, as to issue different kind of stuff / geared toward different public)

The relevant part, which you should use in release events, is still the imprint!

Here, a relatively straight-forward case: the Emarcy company was long deceased in 1991 - though its imprint was owned by Polygram (eg: Polygram bought the rights to use the "Emarcy" trademark as a label, and to issue under that name).

Eric Dolphy Last Date (from 1991)

• 

Note that this one is relatively easy (the "Polygram" name is quite discreet - though obviously the copyright owner and producer of the release), while the Emarcy logo is the one featured, and is indicated on the side of the box. Some cases are a bit more complicated. Nevertheless, again here the correct label to use is the imprint, Emarcy.

On the other hand, be careful that in some cases a company owning a specific imprint, along with the right to issue the catalog of the former owner, may do so using a new (different) imprint while still reproducing the original imprint logo as well as to indicate the origin of the stuff! Such cases might prove a little more complicated and should be handled on a case by case basis (see the OJC example below).

Don't get fooled by the manufacturer or the distributor

The music business getting more complex and globalized, the making of releases also became more complicated and began involving more than the company producing the release (usually at least an additional manufacturer and a distributor), and a (somewhat) recent trend pushed to a state where these companies would also print their own logos on the sleeves, alongside the producing label logo.

Right now, we don't care at all about manufacturers - and almost neither about distributors (at least, newcomers editors are heavily discouraged to dabble with distributors editing), so, the right choice is the label producing the release.

Usually, you can identify the record company by taking a look at the producing ((p)) or copyright ((c)) mention. Then you can probably identify the imprint name from that.

The LabelCode may also be a very helpful piece of information in identifying the correct label.

Here, Tom Waits Mule Variations, a release by the Anti label (distributed and manufactured in Europe by Epitaph) (Anti has LabelCode 02576).

• 

Obviously, CD can very well feature a number of random logos (distributor, manufacturer, holding company, artist manager company), and sorting these may turn out more complicated than above.

Still, using the LabelCode, the copyright/produced mentions, eliminating these mentioned in the "distributed/manufactured" and the holding company usually proves efficient to sort the ins and out.

Absolutely confusing cases

In some cases, you really call for troubles. If you experience difficulties, your best shot is probably to ping one of the subscribers for the artist/label concerned, upload a sleeve scan and ask him/her for help.

Here is such an interesting case, in its full insane glory...

• 

How to proceed?

The easy part:

• ignore ZYX as the manufacturer
• ignore the distributors

That leaves us with Fantasy (credited as producing the release), Prestige, Original Jazz Classics, LC 0313 and catalog number OJCCD-819-2.

Now you need to dig the history books. Though Fantasy (which is also an imprint!) is credited as (c), a little research will reveal that the Fantasy company were actually using Original Jazz Classics as an imprint to reissue stuff they owned from defunct labels, including Prestige. Though the label code used here is the one of Prestige, they insisted on using the OJC imprint with its own catalog scheme (typical OJCXX-XXXX) (while still featuring the imprint (and here label code!) of the original label), while later on during their history they reversed that trend and discarded the OJC line to come back to reusing the original imprint names...

A quick look in the database at the Original Jazz Classics entry will show you (a lot) more of these.

Either Prestige or OJC would fit here, and the choice is somewhat an arbitrary one, though, and based on Fantasy history, and following a number of other (serious) discographic resources, it was decided to use OJC for these.

Note that, on the other hand, the Japanese reprint of that stuff that Fantasy allowed Victor to put out was using solely the Prestige logo (making it technically a Prestige release)!

Other databases

The only serious source for label information is the release sleeve.

Online stores/databases inconsistently use the distributor/manufacturer/label/imprint name, abbreviates names, duplicates entries, and so on. Proceed with caution and use your best judgement when using other sources as references.

A short list of common sources:

• All Music Guide: Bad
• Amazon: Very bad
• Barnes and Noble: Mixed
• CD Universe: Mixed
• ciao: Mixed
• Discogs: Okay, but be aware that they have some differing label/imprint guidelines to MusicBrainz
• ebay: Bad, unless you are looking at sleeve scans/photos
• HB Direct: Good
• Rakuten: Bad, unless you are looking at sleeve scans/photos
• Wikipedia: Mixed, often grouping different releases/editions

Additional information

• Label
• Special purpose labels
• Label FAQ
• Label subscriptions
• Extra resources