Differentiating digital releases by store

MusicBrainz
22

I agree that identification is only one function, but I do not refer to rogue files at all, but the millions of releases and files on iTunes, Amazon, etc. Using iTunes as an example, the label (imprint), barcode and catalog number, assuming they actually exist, are not disclosed to the customer. Now with iTunes, we know that a barcode does exist as it nis required to. But unlike a CD, we do not know if that barcode uniquely identifies the release or not. It might be for all digital releases, be the same as the CD, or be unique to other factors… we do not know. To me, that does not seem like primary data to me.

If others are ok with half the primary data not being there, that is fine. To me though, it seems more appropriate to describe a release with factors that are important enough to be on the release… same logic as physical releases. This would be like listing releases by mastering facility, mastering artist and manufacturer of the software and hardware used. Sure, it is significant, and it surely does exist, but it is not by any means primary as it relates to regular people entering data. Such data requires more knowledge than you or I generally have for releases.

To make example of what I mean, take any 2 or 3 of these new releases, and tell me the imprint, barcode and catalog number for them, and then how that information was obtained:

Then do the same for any CD at any retailer, then you will see what I am trying to say.

I agree that the information is good to have, but for the majority of digital releases, it is just not there. I fail to understand how primary important information is N/A for the majority.

And the barcode and catalog numbers are not on the Bandcamp page either, making me wonder again how this information could be considered primary and important when I cannot even find out what it is on the release or the store front.

EDIT: An example of non music product. With a car, primary data is year, make model. From there, there is submodel , engine type, trans, etc. Although things like manufacturing plant are important to some (like me with my cars as it makes a difference), that info is not there or known to the vast majority of people. There is a difference between primary data and extra data. Do you know the color of your car? I am sure you do. But do you know the exact color code? Some cannot even get a clear answer to that from the car stickers, but just a sticker that needs to be cross referenced to get that code. That is why you will not see cars organized by color code, it is important, but not primary data.

23

All I will say is that I would strongly oppose a move to remove the label or catalogue fields from digital releases (if that’s where you’re going with this), because I find it important and interesting, and I have never found it difficult to find the label for digital releases.
Quite frankly I disagree with your reasoning on this topic in general, and I’m not interested in engaging with it beyond that.

edit: maybe someone else is interested in hashing it out in detail - perhaps I would find it more productive if it was clear what you actually want to achieve with this.

1 Like
24

It is not the point, as already stated though, the point is not to remove the information or not list it… Point is to list different information on the release group page, which is the topic of this thread.

As I mentioned, please see the link I provided, pick 2 or 3, and tell me the imprint, barcode and catalog number for them. If it is easy, you should explain to the rest of us that are not sure how to easily get this information. Please note I am asking for the IMPRINT, not LABEL, as that is what MB wants. I can also easily tell you the label, but again, what is listed in MB is the imprint.

25

I fear that is part of the issue, misunderstandings. My point, and I believe that of this thread, is that the current information listed as primary data for a release, the stuff seen on the listing under the release group, is not very applicable to digital releases. The idea is that listing information to show the differences between digital releases, like is currently done for physical releases, should be considered.

26

In my experience nobody has ever had a problem with using what’s listed in the Label field on a digital release, eg what’s displayed on an iTunes store page, for the label field in MB.

I find adding the store to the disambiguation field an effective way of telling them apart.
I don’t mind the idea of having a new column in the RG page, but I absolutely do not see how the current discussion (trying to argue that label is not important) is conduicive to that. Your time is better spent creating an actual ticket and a mockup of what you’d like to see.

27

This would be entering potentially incorrect information. iTunes does not list the label/imprint, they list the P holder. It is very clear after much discussion with the label experts here that the P holder data on iTunes is not to be used as the release label on its own merit.

There is clearly a misunderstanding on many levels, as stating that using improper information is easy makes no sense to me. So I do agree this is pointless. On the many threads on various areas of this topic, all of this has been discussed. Until I see the 2-3 releases from the iTunes list provided above with the names of the imprint, barcode and catalog numbers, and showing where that data came from so easily, I will consider this a lost cause as no real attention is being given. If you argue it is easy to get, show it. Using P holders for labels does not count, identify proper data for proper placement.

28

Label pages on bandcamp are easy to find, and I did give examples.
I don’t really care about itunes and it being hard to find on itunes or Amazon doesn’t mean it’s not important information across the board.

If you want to be taken seriously then make a ticket and a mockup with what you actually want to achieve.

29

Yes, you did. The label is easy to find on most all of them from what I saw. Not really barcode or catalog number, but label, yes.

If the forums and topics here are not taken seriously, then it just reinforces that I am wasting my time. What you need to understand is that users are wanting and needing data for digital releases (mostly not on Bandcamp). This is why people are developing scripts for sourcing data for taggers to online stores because the databases that are there are not up to par… the ones like Amazon, Discogs and, yes, MusicBrainz. It all depends on the purpose, goals and vision of MB. That is not for me to decide though.

My concern can be easily summarized by this … the primary attributes of a release here are, as seen on the list of releases in a release group:

  1. artist
  2. release title and tracks
  3. date of release with country
  4. release label with catalog number
  5. barcode

So as long as everyone feels that those 5 pieces of information are the best way to represent ALL releases, we are all set. I would be expecting to see all those fields filled in with verifiable data then. I follow guideline and use the artwork on physical releases for most all of that data, I will be curious to see what is used on digital releases for the data…

I guess that said, I have no more to add. If the point that the imprint, barcode and catalog number (and sometimes even the appropriate country list and date) do not fit in well with digital releases (without linking it to a store, thus this thread) is not clear enough to be taken seriously, and no one will show anyone how to find such information for the majority of digital releases, there is no logical discussion to be had.

1 Like