The reason is that they are not releases. They are promotional videos. You can add them as standalone videos. Then you can link those videos to the recording they are promoting.
This definition of release means a-ha - Take On Me (Official Video) [Remastered in 4K] - YouTube is a music video only release of the single Take on Me by a-ha, and deserves an entry in the existing release group. But if we take into account the context of how this artist group releases music I’m sure most people would agree this is not a release.
I believe all my points still stand. I would encourage anyone to address them.
My initial feeling is that I don’t agree at all, and I would tend to think of it as a release.
On further reflection, I think this is a question of whether that YouTube video meets the definition of a release, and I don’t really know what the (Musicbrainz) definition of a release is; I suspect there really isn’t one.
I also think if somebody wants to enter info in Musicbrainz about the video that’s “release”-y than that’s a good enough reason to call it release.
Examples of “release”-y-ness are (IMO):
- having a “release date” attribute (I don’t see the point in updating the schema/server to have release-date as an attribute type for recordings )
- the song was only published on Youtube, and you want to answer the question “was this song ever released?” with “Yes, on youtube”.
One other random thought:
It seems plausible/reasonable to create a recording entry for things that were never “released” per se:
- A recording that was only used at events (concerts/listening parties) could be considered unreleased
- A band may have unreleased recordings that haven’t been released but have had press coverage (there’s probably better examples, but something like “Chinese Democracy” circa 2005); they may be worth listing in Musicbrainz.
Okay, I’ve read your previous reply, and I’ve also read the Wikipedia link that I was too lazy to read earlier. It’s still not clear to me exactly what the difference is between Youtube (www.youtube.com) and Youtube Music. The interface is different, but it’s not clear whether they’re just different interfaces to the same collection of recordings, or are they different (possibly overlapping) collections. Are there recordings that are accessible through Youtube Music that are not available through “regular” youtube (and aren’t just repackaged-for-youtube-music versions of a recording available on regular youtube)?
I don’t see this as being fundamentally different than a promotional CD or DVD that is given out for free to promote a related album. Calling such a CD or DVD a “release” wouldn’t be controversial, would it? (can’t immediately find an example in musicbrainz unfortunately)
If it’s the official video (i.e. the a-ha video above), I don’t see a problem as I’ve added some from iTunes before. My worry with YouTube is that some might want to add all the videos that are just the cover art picture playing the music (which usually are from the labels) but are more like tracks than they are separate releases. If we are to consider letting promotional videos, they should have to be at least be verified that they are from the label or artist directly and should be actual videos, not just audio played over a static image. But I’d still mark them as promotional.
To provide what I believe to be a very clear example of how these are not releases contextually: the music video for the song VIOLET by another member of hololive, Ninomae Ina’nis, was released several hours ago.
It is not available to stream, download, etc in any other capacity currently, but it is a recording of the song and was uploaded to YouTube. By all standards arguing for music videos as releases, this should be the first release of this song, and a single entry should be made for the artist. But by the standard of observing how this artist and those in her company operate and contextualizing this upload, we know that the song is getting an actual release that is not this standalone recording. hololive talents make releases of their songs in a certain, recognizable fashion. This pattern appears as though it will be followed for this release, as we can see with the provided streamlink page from the video description for future streaming/downloading in music contexts.
This pattern is not followed by the music videos in question. There is clearly involvement at a production level from the same people who would be involved for an on-label release. There is a clear difference from the pattern of what is considered a release for these artists that implies there was a decision to not consider these uploads as releases by any previously set standard.
To address “release”-y-ness:
There not only would not be a point, but it would also end up holding redundant and possibly confusing information, since recordings can appear on multiple releases. But we can see that a standalone recording can hold all relationships these releases are being used for with the exception of mirroring the video thumbnail.
Here is a standalone music video recording for the YouTube upload linked above that I have created. Behold, as it has all information related, including the date it was made available on YouTube, despite using the recording entity. I don’t think there is an argument that the release entity should be used purely so the thumbnail can be saved to the Cover Art Archive, so if there is a continued push for using the release entity I would hope to hear a justification beyond having no place for information.
The recording I created handles this. It is a music video that exists. It was uploaded and made available to YouTube starting on a certain date. It is attributed to this artist, and several others took part in it’s production. It is not excluded from the database because you cannot see it on the main page of the artist.
I still think that the main difference between the recording you have created and the covers I’ve entered in the database is how they’re handled.
You yourself have said that VIOLET is getting a different kind of release and this video works as a promo music video for that. But it’s not the case for those covers
Why would music that’s only meant to be listened through YouTube and is only released in this platform not a release?
I understand that these is different than the releases that they get through the label, but I fail to see why if an artist releases music in two parallel ways one couldn’t be considered a release.
I really think its a thing of a case by case basis and your example works like that too. I can’t stress enough that my point isn’t every music video uploaded ever to YouTube is automatically a new single.
In the case of Suisei’s channel for example she even featured those same covers on her channel’s main page. I still think they have more weight than just some recording.
Not trying to discuss artist intent because unless the artist themselves comes down to the forum we could argue back and forth all day and never reach and agreement.
But what I see and what I think is still the same because this is music only streamed through YouTube, yes, in a video format. The same way stuff can only be released through video on a DVD or tape.
For the record, I don’t think that any video uploaded by the same artists to Youtube count as a release.
Still using the same example of a VTuber, a single clip from a singing stream would be more appropiate to the standalone recording, akin to something recorded over the radio on a given date.
The videos in question are not like that. The ones I thought were relevant enough to be added were the only instance in which a song was released, in the artist official channel. These are not promoting any other release or a recording (so far).
This addresses my point quite clearly too.
Would this be better and solve the whole issue? Yes, absolutely! I’d love to have the option to add them as video single like @Skeebadoo mentioned earlier, but currently we can’t. The closest entity we have, is that of a “Single” or “Other” for a release.
After careful consideration, I’m moving the releases I added from the singles group to Other as it seems the most reasonable thing to do. Added edit notes linking to this thread too.
I really think this is the best approach for these cases.
EDIT: I’ll probably add a few more of these in the future and I plan on use these as a guideline.
FWIW, I’ve been adding thousands of music videos and a couple YT covers too and would rather see an improved discography view than stuffing it into “other”
BTW, also created collections for “video as release”:
Seems more sensible than stuffing singles. Video in general is missing a good home on the Release page. A DVD Concert release also needs a better home
I feel the same! But I thought this was the best approach we have with the current layout of the artist page. TBH my current solution isn’t what I’d like at all either but I don’t know if keeping them on singles is the correct choice either…
Mostly because of this, IMHO video needs a proper place in the release page for an artist so it can get properly populated.
On another note, I have never used collections, is it possible to contribute to it whenever I add a new video as release?
What an incredible page/link!!
Re. making a ‘video’ category, wouldn’t you want to put a video single in the same group as a audio single if both have come out? So it would still end up in ‘single’ in some cases?
Is a potential answer more filters on the artist page - check a box to hide any rgs with only video releases in them. I wonder if that design overhaul is still coming after everything has been shifted to react?
Your timing is quite good with this question – this has been on my mind for quite some time and between the React move taking much longer than hoped and the pandemic, we haven’t made much progress on this front.
However, there are some gears turning in the background that may very well finally move this forward, but its too early to talk about that just yet.
Just throwing my two cents in…
I believe most of the videos in question (Hololive covers) should be on a release of some sort, since they’ve been released on a streaming platform, namely YouTube. Whether a Single, Other, or “video single”, I’m not 100% decided on.
For example, in the case of Ina’s “VIOLET” above, I might propose adding the video to a new release under the release group for the single, tagged as “Promotional”, since it’s promoting the release of the single.
Also, I’d like to note that most but not all quote-unquote “Official” Hololive releases have a true video release, just look at Gawr Gura’s REFLECT released a couple months earlier. It’s got a streamlink and everything, but the “Video” on YouTube is just a still of the release cover. I might still add a “Promotional” single if the video was released earlier, but I’d say just use the audio recording on the release in this case and don’t make a video recording just for a still-image “Video”.
In the case of the covers, I think adding a URL begin date is cool, but it’s a feature that almost nobody (including me, until a couple days ago) knows about, (though possibly not for long)
And anyways, think of the taggers, how will
we they get release dates tagged without a release to pull it from? Release dates are very important to us them! (jk, jk…)
To my eye, the Hololive gals, (and maybe Holostars too) have, in general, two parallel “standards for how they do releases”, one being through music streaming services like Apple Music, Spotify, etc, and one of them being music videos on YouTube. In every case I’ve seen for this group, most (if not all) of their musical content is said videos. Just look at Airani Iofifteen of Hololive ID, she’s posted several cover songs on YouTube, and I don’t think they’ve been released any other way.
As a total sidenote, I personally would likely add these as events, possibly even standalone video recordings for the whole stream, related back to the event (at least if they’re archived, but this is getting a bit off-topic)
…okay, that was probably more like 32 cents, lol
it’s nice to see some Hololive fans in the forums, btw~
Yagoo is best girl~
That would be ideal! The only thing I’d add is to relate the recording to the works being covered. But medley is a bit off imo, how should we handle that?
Ngl tried to resist jumping into this train for a loooong time but my resolve ended up failing a few months ago! I’m glad it did, tho
You’d just add those works as “live, (cover, and/or partial, if needed)”, just like below, (not hololive, but I don’t know if there’s any hololive examples yet)
Llamaman42 here, now UltimateRiff. Finally got the username change I’ve been wanting for a while
Just wanted to add, Hololive themselves have posted covers on their channels, namely Hololive JP’s “Ochame Kinou” (recording on MB) and Hololive EN’s “Country Roads” (recording on MB). I don’t know if it gets more official than that
I edited before I decided to post about the official covers, hope this helps!
Didn’t know about these covers posted on the Hololive official channels, I’m glad you added them!
Probably can’t top that one lol
Do you think these examples also warrant a release or would you just leave them as video recordings?
As always, I’m partial to think of them as releases
I like the way you did it, really! I have never added events before so I didn’t know we had a specific field for Setlist. That looks great for all the live singing streams.
I’d personally like to add those as releases too, pending the current discussion.
I usually add videos as standalone recordings before adding a release anyways… That way it doesn’t require voting time to change a recording created through a new release into a video.
Also, total sidenote, I realize I was wrong, and I’ve seen the error of my ways… Mumei is actually best girl~