[mb-style] [no label]

[Bogdan Butnaru]

I'm ambivalent about this, on one hand it seems like an often-used
term. But on the other hand it seems that it's not very well defined,
so I'd tend to reject it. Mostly I'm afraid of people moving things
back and forth between [no label] and [white label], and generally
about the ambiguity of the difference between those, and having things
in one group that might belong in the other.

However it doesn't seem common in my musical areas, so I'm not really
in the know, it should be decided by people who use it.

BTW, a thought: since it's not really a label, in the interest of
having just a single "[no label]" pseudo, and assuming my other
suggestions are accepted, wouldn't white-label status be better
represented by a tag? I mean, use [no label] for the release, and tag
it as "white-label" if it's appropriate. Since tags are supposed to be
a bit more flexible, they seem a better match for the concept.

-- Bogdan Butnaru — bogdanb at gmail.com
"I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O.


On Jan 8, 2008 9:46 AM, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2008 12:11 AM, Kuno Woudt <kuno at frob.nl> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_label  :).
> >
> > I'm guessing many white label releases actually have labels behind
> > them, but it may be hard and in some cases impossible to find out what
> > the label is.
>
> I can't help feeling this is a little like
> the situation with [unknown]; If we don't create it, people will keep
> creating it anyway.
>
> You did get me thinking that perhaps 'white label' is more of a release status
> than an actual label though.  Few white label releases actually match an
> official release anyway, and while many of them are promo's, quite a few don't
> precisely fit that description either, since a lot of smaller dance
> oriented acts
> (and labels) do only white label releases, and a lot of them are
> really demo releases
>  and only distributed to DJ's in the hope that something will turn
> into a breakout
> dance floor hit and get the artist signed or at least create some hype.
>
> This feels to me a language issue,  a little like the bootleg one.
>
> Compare these two listings of items for sale at a typical store that
> sells this stuff:
>
> http://www.globalgroove.co.uk/catalogue_used_label_White.html
> http://www.globalgroove.co.uk/catalogue_used_label_White_(Promo).html
>
> Or this, compare how many items they have that have the label listed
> as 'white label'
>
> http://www.juno.co.uk/labels/white+label/
>
> vs the ones that 'are' white label (but may have a label associated)
>
> http://www.juno.co.uk/search/?header_search_for=m_13&q=white+label
>
> If you're not familiar with the dance/electronica genres, may I
> recommend you have a
> tour of that store anyway, it's very good, and unlike most music
> stores has really good
> searching.
>
> I realise I'm not making a point very clear here.  It boils down to, I
> have this
> instinctual feeling that white label releases are worth distinguishing somehow,
> perhaps both at the label and release status level.  And that there are enough
> of these around, that if we don't have [white label], either people
> will keep creating
> it, or these will all end up under [unknown] anyway, and we already established
> people aren't too comfortable with unknown.