Are exclusive link relationships worthy their own release?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f510eb37e30> #<Tag:0x00007f510eb37d68> #<Tag:0x00007f510eb37ca0>

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/78566094

Two opinions (?) here.
A: A release that is not streamable exactly as it is databased on MB does not deserve a link streaming relationship. A second release should be added, that reflects the streaming relationship.
B: Purchase websites should be reflected by one link only. Hidden tracks should be included in the MB release. (hope i reproduced this correctly here)

Any experiences, opinions, knowledge, solutions?
If wished, i can elaborate further. Just saving some time here.

2 Likes

Broadly, I agree. I can see some justification for removing the “stream for free” relationship from the release in question. However, how many people do you think actually use Bandcamp as a streaming platform? And those that do will almost all do so via the smartphone app after they have bought the release, and so I assume will be able to stream all the tracks.

Yes, I think this is correct.

I don’t see that these statements contradict one another. However overall I just feel that the (non)existence of the “stream for free” link is a very trivial issue in the scheme of things.

Looking at the edit history, it feels like it would have been better to have added a new release with 11 tracks and add a “purchase for download” BC relationship, leaving the 10 track release with only the “stream for free” BC relationship and an annotation. But again, this just seem like an excessive amount of effort for a trivial issue.

2 Likes

ok, thank you. i mean, we already had 2 differing issues, but it will be one in the long term.
in such cases as this, i will focus adding the downloadable version and not include the streaming relationship.

1 Like

Personally I don’t see two releases here.

This seems similar to a CD release where a selection of tracks from the CD is available for free download on the artist’s website. Except in this case the “complete” release is a digital media release and is also available gratis.

It seems to me streaming links for each track (except the one) could be set at the recording level rather than for the release as a whole. I don’t see the point of the release-level streaming relation given that there is also a release-level “download for free” relation with the exact same URL, but also I don’t think it matters either way.

1 Like

This would have a knock-on effect to a lot of releases!

imo it’s definitely better to just have one release, with the full amount of tracks included in the download. If people want to tag their stream rip they can live with the CD icon not going gold in Picard :stuck_out_tongue:

Re. the actual relationship, I have erred towards not including a ‘stream for free’ link if you can’t stream all the tracks, but when someone has added the link in later I definitely haven’t cared enough to vote ‘no’. It does seem like a pretty inconsequential issue (to me).

1 Like

The problem here is the following:

when a Bandcamp release has more tracks in the download version than the streamable version, there are plenty of cases:

  • one or more tracks cannot be streamed, but we are certain that’s the same release than on others platforms: I would keep the release as is, but remove the “can be streamed” link because that’s just not true (it can be partially streamed).
  • there are extra hidden tracks exclusive to Bandcamp, only available when purchasing: that’s clearly a different release
  • hidden tracks can be placed anywhere in the tracklist (usually at the end, but not always), exact title, duration, and track number can only be set by someone who actually downloaded the release. We can still add the release, as a placeholder (like we do for some pre-releases), but of course it isn’t totally correct.
  • the problem is the same with many digitital releases: track order that changes from one platform to another (usually without intention), variants with more or less tracks (one platform used the full CD, with 10 tracks, but one of them is hidden, another platform didn’t bother to add it, and shows a 9-tracks release of the very same album).
  • etc… digital releases are a mess.

So, to me, in the case of https://musicbrainz.org/edit/78566094 it’s pretty clear the free download archive contains 11 tracks, and matches https://musicbrainz.org/release/7663833e-de4a-499f-a926-920dde6d0f8c so I don’t see why we should remove the " can be downloaded for free at https://vintagecucumber.bandcamp.com/album/yoki-style-2013" relationships, but rather “can be streamed for free” (as only 10 tracks over 11 can be streamed for free).

4 Likes

as an 11th track was added to the first release after i entered my edits into the queue, these edits now are factual wrong. after a potential future merge, and a removed stream for free relationship, i think the release will look fine. however it still might be confusing for people that do not know that there will be (a) bonus track(s) on some releases and think the download must come from elsewhere. this is a problem caused by bandcamp’s intransparency, but i guess they want their artists/labels to be able to surprise the downloaders.

normally i would cancel my edits, as i am totally fine with the process and direction of this discussion, but to keep it a democratic process, i’ll let it run out.

3 Likes

Thanks for being pragmatic about this @XonE. As I mentioned, I think this particular case could of been handled slightly better, but it’s clear everyone involved is acting in good faith and are just trying to improve the database.

1 Like