I’m running into a lot of WEB releases that have Bandcamp pages with little variations in either capitalization or titles, but nothing is actually different with the music. Should these be made into new releases or should I apply edits to the ones that are already there?
And what about the record label? A lot of these Bandcamp pages have no label or UPC listed, but they were released concurrently on streaming services. To my knowledge, once you’re signed with a label, your music belongs to that label, regardless of where it’s uploaded to. Right now I’m thinking I should make a separate release in these situations, preserve the record label, but leave out the UPC. I’d like to get some other opinions or answers first though
1 Like
On Bandcamp, labels are usually shown in top left. “more from [label]” Also, the UPC is typically listed in the metadata. A quick way to check the barcode though is through Harmony: https://harmony.pulsewidth.org.uk/ or with the import from Bandcamp script: https://raw.github.com/murdos/musicbrainz-userscripts/master/bandcamp_importer.user.js
If there is no label listed on the page anywhere, then it usually is considered a [no label] release. I wouldn’t add the label from other sources. If the barcode & label are the same, just add the link to any matching digital release as they would be considered the same (unless cover art or something is different). Don’t edit any existing digital releases that have attached links to other sites without verifying that the existing info might be incorrect, etc. I don’t deal a lot with Bandcamp though and maybe some others might have better insight. Variations in capitalization are common amongst different sites and aren’t enough to be considered different.
6 Likes
I’ve often wondered about this with Bandcamp releases that are identical to other stores, but don’t have a UPC set on Bandcamp, but are otherwise identical. I haven’t generally separated them out since they seem like the same conceptual product - so they’re not a different UPC, it just hasn’t had the implied-identical UPC entered into the metadata by the artist/label. In other words, treating it as a case of sloppy data entry, rather than an intentional difference. Buuut I don’t know if that’s actually correct, even though it’s easier. 
1 Like
If somebody has inside information about what’s happening when the Bandcamp release is simultaneous with other streaming releases, but doesn’t mention the label, I would be very interested. I have been tending to treat them as the same, since I would also be quite surprised if the label really has no involvement in these cases, but maybe somebody knows better. I also assumed this was partly what “Note that online services are often inconsistent or unreliable in how they credit labels, so only split these if you’re sure.” is about in style. There is a similar note about barcodes: this I essentially always assume is sloppy data entry on Bandcamp when they’re missing. They can also sell multiple products on the same page, so sometimes you extract a barcode that is for one of the physical items instead of the digital release.
The key style line for me is “only add further digital media releases to MusicBrainz when there was clear intent by the artist or label to create multiple releases” – data just being missing, rather than explicitly different, doesn’t meet that threshold IMO.
I was (correctly, of course!) warned to look out for the situation in which a Bandcamp release is put on streaming services some time later: in that case it is much more likely that the Bandcamp one is really a separate no-label release, often from before the artist was signed.
By the way, I discovered recently that label links on Bandcamp can be region dependent.
8 Likes
I have an indie label and I often just handle the physical release - e.g. I will put out a tape or LP of an album. When I do so I usually also add the digital release on my Bandcamp, so people can listen. But I lay no claim to any involvement in the bands own Bandcamp release.
This may differ with larger labels, but generally speaking artists control their own Bandcamp page. If the band uploads and names all the tracks themselves, and don’t mention the label, and the money goes straight to the band, what does that ‘release’ have to do with a label?
A lot of people don’t know how to upload to Spotify etc (which is more complicated) so they go through a label which can do it, but I would be careful about reading that into the label being involved with everything.
All that said, I think it’s fine to bunch up releases when adding, but I wouldn’t merge cases where an editor has made the effort to split them out.
One situation where I am a bit more open to merging Bandcamp and Spotify etc is where they were all uploaded at the same time, as [no label], but Bandcamp has no barcode.
8 Likes
This is partly what I’m wondering – does it? (Or even if it does, do they have to give some of it to the label later?) I am definitely thinking only of cases in which everything went online essentially simultaneously (usually the same day), both to Bandcamp and to other services. If the finances really are done differently for Bandcamp versus the others, that would be a good reason for separating, it just seemed a bit strange if that was how it worked. But maybe it is – I will be more careful about merges. 
If there is a matching barcode, could that be a clue that everything is really linked together, and hence to the label?
For digital vs physical I am more used to there being different labels or some no label releases depending on the format. The situation you describe where everything’s on Bandcamp but some on artist pages and some on label pages is also special enough that I wouldn’t immediately assume that they should count as the same release.
1 Like
Bandcamp only has a simple payment system - it takes %10 (plus payment processor fees) and the rest goes to the account owner/email.
I have both a band account and a label account (these cost now but luckily existing ones were grandfathered in/are still free). I just checked to see that there isn’t some more complicated split-payment option that I’ve missed, but it’s all to a single PayPal (boo) account according to my settings window and the Bandcamp payment FAQ.
I guess they could then split the money with the label. But if a label ever asked me for money from my band’s Bandcamp, where they didn’t do jack sh*t, they can go shove it 
If they want to get the cash they should be paying for a label account, where you can manage multiple artist accounts and link to releases on other artist pages (in those cases you will see the label link in the top left corner of the release page).
But if the barcode matches the label digital release… I’m not totally crazy about splitting everything - that crosses the “same release” threshold for me as well!
7 Likes
I was actually just about to start a thread about this (in a more general sense tho)
I’m personally of the opinion that Bandcamp should usually be a seperate release (at least in the areas I work in). main reason being that independent artists will need to go through a distributor (DistroKid, CD Baby, etc.) in order to get their music on streaming services like Spotify, Apple Music, and Tidal, but that isn’t true for sites like Bandcamp, SoundCloud, or YouTube (tho there are surely exceptions, especially when you’re looking at a proper label)
that and if there’s no label and/or UPC on the Bandcamp page, it doesn’t feel correct to just mash them together on one release
4 Likes
It kinda bothers me that there is no clear standard on MB for this situation. it happened to me once that someone merged a digital release and a bandcamp release in a release group I was working on with the edit note that the platform bandcamp itself doesn’t make it a different release. that’s okay with me and what I would actually prefer to do in general. but in other cases with the same parameters it justifies a different release in the eyes of other editors.
I try to avoid dealing with existing bandcamp releases for this reason. if I’m adding a new digital release I include the bandcamp platform link. but if it already exists I’m not gonna merge them.
look at this recent release for example:
both have no label and are identical in all other aspects apart from the missing UPC on bandcamp. for me it doesn’t justify a separate release, especially considering the data inconsistency in general with bandcamp and their UPC data.
7 Likes
Kind of a follow-up question to this. I know that digital platforms / streaming services with the same barcode (i.e. all the same barcode for iTunes / Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal, etc.) should be part of a single release. If the same artist/label also uploads the release at the same time on Bandcamp, Soundcloud, YouTube Music, and/or other platforms without a barcode, should you:
A) Create a release specifically for all other digital releases without a barcode
B) Create separate releases for each digital platform w/o a barcode (i.e. Bandcamp, Soundcloud, YouTube Music having all separate releases
Separately from this, I am of the opinion that if there is a physical USB/thumb drive release with digital music files, this should also constitute its own release.
Would love to hear thoughts on this as there are still no specific guidelines for these.
YouTube Music is difficult to make general recommendations for, because there’s a mix of distributed music and music uploaded from the artist directly. if the video description says it was auto-generated and mentions a distributor, the associated release URLs can be added to the Spotify+ release (usually the channel name for these ends in “- Topic”, but not always)
I personally err on the side of splitting releases (since it’s easier to merge later than to split later), so I usually create a seperate release for SoundCloud and Bandcamp, but I think there are editors that don’t do this
1 Like
I mostly don’t merge now because I’m aware there’s a discussion about this, but the style guide suggests that there is no need to add a new release at all (unless of course there are other differences besides the non-availability of the barcode).
“Not all services list releases’ barcodes, however, so do not automatically assume that no barcode being visible means a new release must be added.”
If that sentence is out of step with what the community actually wants, it should probably be revised. (At least it could be clarified: it is quite open to interpretation, particularly around Bandcamp, where the possibility of adding barcodes exists, but they are not always provided – it could be reasonable to treat this differently to a provider where no possibility to enter a barcode exists even if the artist/label wants to.) The same section has
“If a digital media release already exists, only add further digital media releases to MusicBrainz when there was clear intent by the artist or label to create multiple releases.”
which also would suggest to me that the mere absence of a barcode is not sufficient to create a new release, unless there is a clear reason why the artist/label considers those without visible barcodes to be different.
As usual, I don’t particularly mind whether the choice is to merge or separate – ultimately it’s a style point, and both approaches have their pros and cons – just pointing out that there’s a bit of a disconnect between what’s actually written in style compared to the approaches that get discussed on the forum. This tends to confuse new users and cause arguments…
(On the second point, I think everyone agrees that USB drive releases are different. “USB Flash Drive” is one of the possible medium formats, for example, and you would have different “cover art” as well.)
1 Like
This is basically Differing/non differing digital releases with and without Barcodes… an ongoing discussion between editors all over again. It seems to be constantly confusing as there is no clear standard set.
@Sp00kyFox said:
if I’m adding a new digital release I include the bandcamp platform link. but if it already exists I’m not gonna merge them.
The inconsistency here is that if bandcamp release already exist when adding another digital release, the new digital release will not have bandcamp link, otherwise, it will.
As before, I don’t think related information that is split on multiple release instances is a good thing. That makes collecting relevant info harder as one needs to traverse release group and consolidate data.