Record label
From Offset
 |
[edit] "Record label" in the real world
The following is what I authored for the Wikipedia article on record labels. However, here I have supplemented it with a couple of great diagrams that I found. Also, be careful; the links within this section all take you to Wikipedia! - mjb
Image:Diagram2.gif In the music industry, a record label is a brand and a trademark associated with the marketing of sound recordings and music videos. A record label is also a company that manages such brands and trademarks; coordinates the production, manufacture, distribution, promotion, and enforcement of copyright protection of sound recordings and music videos; conducts A&R; and maintains contracts with recording artists and their managers. The term derives from and describes the round paper labels affixed to the center of gramophone records; such labels typically contain a trademarked logo and information about the sound recording and the companies involved in creating the product.
When a label is strictly a trademark or brand, not a company, then it is sometimes called an imprint. An imprint is sometimes marketed as being a project or division of a label company, even though there is no legal business structure associated with the imprint. Sometimes an imprint is marketed as being a division of a label company's principal brand, rather than of the label company itself.
Record labels are often under the control of a corporate umbrella organization called a music group. A music group is typically owned by international conglomerate holding company, which often has non-music divisions as well. A music group controls and consists of music publishing companies, record (sound recording) manufacturers, record distributors, and record labels. As of 2005, the "big four" music groups control about 70% of the world music market, and about 80% of the United States music market. Record companies (manufacturers, distributors, and labels) may also comprise a record group which is, in turn, controlled by a music group. The constituent companies in a music group or record group are sometimes marketed as being divisions of the group.
Record companies and music publishers that are not under the control of the big four are generally considered to be independent (indie), even if they are large corporations with complex structures. Some prefer to use the term indie label to refer to only those independent labels that adhere to an arbitrary, ill-defined criteria of corporate structure and size, and some consider an indie label to be almost any label that releases non-mainstream music, regardless of its corporate structure.
Music collectors often use the term sublabel to refer to either an imprint or a subordinate label company (such as those within a group). For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, "4th & B'way" was a trademarked brand owned by Island Records Ltd. in the UK and by a subordinate branch, Island Records, Inc., in the United States. The center label on a 4th & Broadway record marketed in the U.S. would typically bear a 4th & B'way logo and would state in the fine print, "4th & B'way™, an Island Records, Inc. company". Collectors discussing labels as brands would say that 4th & B'way is a sublabel or imprint of just "Island" or "Island Records". Similarly, collectors who choose to treat corporations and trademarks as equivalent might say 4th & B'way is an imprint and/or sublabel of both Island Records, Ltd. and that company's sublabel, Island Records, Inc.
[edit] "Label" and "sublabel" in Discogs
Below is something I wrote in a forum post on Discogs in order to help explain what a "sublabel" is in Discogs. I have since expanded and rephrased it slightly in order to make it more general. - mjb
As stated above, a record label company may have many different trademarks/brands, which they will refer to with various terms -- they'll say the trademark is a "label" or "imprint" or "division" or "project" of the company. Sometimes they'll say it's a division of the company's principal brand (you might see this when a company has incorporated in multiple countries and shares the brands among all of the offices). These brands might be considered to be "sublabels" among Discogs users.
Also as stated above, sometimes multiple label companies will have shared ownership and management, such as when one label company buys some part of another label company, or just creates a new label company that for various reasons it wants to incorporate separately. These companies might be considered to be "sublabels" among Discogs users.
All label brands and companies are eligible to be called a "label" in Discogs, with preference often (though not always) being given to company names being used as the label names, where possible. Using company names helps submitters get things filed "correctly", and helps establish relationships between labels (it's easier to understand that labels, be they brands or companies, are subordinate to a company than to a brand).
When particular brands or companies are set up as labels in Discogs, then the parent-child relationships between them are set up however seems most appropriate, given the limitations of the system. Sometimes we have to set up 'dummy' parent labels, and the system also can't show how brands & companies change hands over time.
Among editors and moderators and regular users, there are very strong opinions, that often vary from label to label, as to whether a given brand or company should manifest as a label in Discogs. It's based not just on the nature of the brand/company itself, but also on collectors' intuition, the system's inability to distinguish label roles (manufactured by, marketed by, distributed by, principal brand), and vague, variable criteria for the usability of label pages. This sometimes leads to labels sometimes being split by release territory without having the label name be a company name, or other inconsistencies that some moderators & editors find offensive.
Copyright ownership will always be credited to just the company that controls the artwork on that release, and it may not be the same company that issued the release, so don't always depend on copyright notices to tell you what label something's on.
Opinion & sour grapes from mjb: If you have no knowledge of the relationships between specific brands and companies, then you are not qualified to set a policy that applies to that label. What works for one set of brands and companies might not work as well for another, and vice-versa. So be careful about applying any philosophies and policies too broadly. I greatly prefer to experts on the labels in question than to try to come up with bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all policies. Often, the perceived benefits of such policies are outweighed by the burdens they impose on moderators and submitters alike, and sometimes they run completely counter to intuition and the purpose of branding. The worst example is the old policy of one-label-per-catalogue-number, which resulted in a requirement of filing 1980s German releases that have Island all over them under Ariola (Germany), while every other serious discography would've acknowledged both labels. This reduced the size of the Island label page, but at the cost of turning the Ariola page into an ambiguous dumping ground and making people very confused about what label things were "on" and even undermining the very definition of a label.
