Digital releases: How to deal with single-track compilation excerpts on streaming platforms?

MusicBrainz
,
1

On streaming platforms like Spotify or Apple Music it’s common to see single-track “releases” in an artist discography when that artist has a track included on a big compilation album. These single-track releases often don’t have their own cover art and simply reuse the cover art of the compilation.

Example: Knowhow (Liquicity Drum & Bass 2017) - Single by Fox Stevenson | Spotify (MB entry) is an excerpt from Liquicity Drum & Bass 2017 - Compilation by Liquicity | Spotify (MB entry)

I suspect that this is a way to game the system on these streaming platforms to make sure users get alerted about the new release by the artist in question. Considering the frequency with which this happens I also suspect that it’s an automated process.

Should these releases be entered as singles into Musicbrainz?

2 Likes
2

Hmmm.
I Will say it is a release on its own.
Also, the first one is 2017, 2nd is 2018, not that that is relevant

3

I personally wouldn’t add a new release for that Knowhow page (or other similar pages like this one for Battleground). The compilation allegedly came out first (not that I particularly trust data from streaming platforms), so it doesn’t feel to me like there was a distinct single release event that’s worth trying to capture.

This is just my opinion rather than a guideline that I’ve seen written down, but if someone couldn’t be bothered to create a unique cover image for a song that’s already available as part of an album, I wouldn’t create a release for it just because it happens to have its own page on a streaming service.

With that said, I also wouldn’t vote against someone’s edit to add it if they care enough to enter it. There unfortunately aren’t many guidelines about how digital releases should be entered (as evidenced by hundreds-of-messages-long threads discussing topics like release countries), so everyone’s just doing whatever seems right to them. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
4

My thoughts exactly. I wouldn’t bother, seems pretty useless, but I don’t see why someone else couldn’t enter these.

5

No, it’s usually because licensing makes it impossible for compilations to be released digitally. The original rights holder of course can then release their track on their own.

Even when companies are siblings, licensing causes tracks to disappear from digital releases like here.

1 Like
6

I’m not sure I understand, the cases I encountered this were labels that release primarily digitally (with some compilations never released on a physical medium at all). In all cases I found both the “single” and the full compilation are available on streaming services.

7

Well, I do have an issue with this, closely linked with the existence of SAMBL that list all “the single on digital platforms not entered on MUBZ”.

Many singles, in compilation or not, are PURELY FICTITIOUS and contingent on UX/UI matters. Why ?
Because on Spotify, Deezer and Tidal, the “Featuring” tracks are at the bottom of any artist profile page, under “Also appears on”.

Does MUBz have to be bound by UX/UI workaround tactics ? That will be removed/stopped when it’ll be changed by platforms ?

To illustrate the artificiality of this, let me explain :

Past Practices

This is an album by french rapper Salif. Understood as such EVERYWHERE even by Salif himself on Myspace in 2008. It is a solo album.
This said, in 2014, on Deezer and other platforms, ALL the featured artist were put in “Artist Album”.

Therefore, the artists of the album are :

Salif, Samat, Fofo44, Mc James, Fofo 44 (funny), Aketo, Soprano, Genotype, Rim k and Mac Kregor

Direct consequence → COOL, the album is listed in the profile page of each individual artist.

On Musicbrainz → Should we really be bound by that and put as “Artist” the 9 artists being featured on this release ?

It is an antics because :

Current Practice - OP’s issue

For around 5/6 years iirc, when an album is released with featuring, at the same exact day of digital the release of the album, every single one track featuring another artist are also released as a single, with both artists as “Single Artists” of the single.

Example :

8 tracks EP → A Producer Album as they say in the hip hop/rap world ; mostly featuring, with a few instrumentals only tracks.

Therefore :

image
image1487×388 92 KB

5 singles. Only 1 is a real “Single” with a proper release (pre-album release, with visuals blablabla).
Are the other 4 “real singles” according , even though they were released the same day of the album as a batch ?
I stress my point, are they “Singles” according to MUBz although they exist only for the tracks to appear in a higher position on the profile page of each individual artist ?

Like Producer Albums could be 16 tracks longs, with 3 instrumentals, and no singles. Therefore, creating 13 “Singles” releases, the SAME DAY as the album.

Should MUBz add these 13 singles ? Each time ?

And, then, put them as withdrawn when streaming platforms change their UI to allow featurings to be more proeminent on featured artists own profile pages ?

8

No, that’s not necessary because it will be automatically listed as a “various artists” release:

9

What do you mean ?

The Original release of the Album as a Double CD release references only “Salif” as the Album Artist (+ in every store + discogs + wikipedia + his myspace in 2009 yada yada), the cover features only Salif.

9 tracks out of 37 have featured artists. No one put “Various Artist” in such matters. Thank you for correcting it for Salif, I was in the process of correcting, I hope it won’t cause any issue.

In platforms case ; Compilation led by a label used to have the practice (especially before 2022) to tick “Various Artist” for digital downloads.

Now, Labels creates artists pages and release each songs as a single.

Example ; Rap Media/Advertiser/Label Raplume (SHADES something now) released a Compilation.

2020 Original release, Album Artist : “Various Artists”

2025 Digital Rerelease, Album Artist : “Raplume”

hm

10

(I think you corrected the issue too quickly, in the link you gave us, I only see “Various Artist” release where it was actually enter by the contributor ?? but anyhow it was an example of an old digital release tricks)

11

I think this is an issue for a separate thread, because I do not advocate for listing 9 artists separately.

I don’t think we should… but does it hurt if a user wants to?

I think a strict rule like “you may not add singles unless […]” would also cause it’s own problems.

1 Like
12

To me this example just shows Spotify’s limitations as to how they list related artists. I have seen them add remixers and even lead vocalists using a “feat” that never appears on the original CD like that. It is not “artist intent” it is Spotify linking artists to other releases they appear on.

Spotify (and the other digital shops) have a very basic system for making other artists pages link to places an artist appears. They have no relationships like MB does. So instead they make a mess with their lone Artist field. Not something that should really be copied blindly by MB. At the very least, not copied to the Recordings if a CD release has set the recording as per the simpler\cleaner CD credits.

If it was originally released under an Artist, the Release should not suddenly become “various artists” due to Spotify’s limited system.

I also don’t see how they are now suddenly “singles” just because Spotify sell the tracks as separated items. That is a store choice, not an artist choice.
(Seems these new thread comments should all just split to a new thread)

13

It is nor a store choice, nor an artistic choice. It is a Distributor/Record Company/Marketing/People-in-the-know trick only relevant for the current UI of profile artist page that obscures too much the artist collab works by putting them at the bottom of the page (and not in their discography list).

Singles are not created as separate items because Spotify/Apple Music/Tidal wanted it. They are specifically typed out because featured artist new releases track not well highlighted if you do not do this.

Hence, the question of the original poster.

Why do you say “Spotify sell the tracks as separate” ? I don’t get what you mean, if you do not know this trick, the albums are just released without multiple singles.

14

But you see what I mean ! I compared them because they originated from a single issue originating from Distributor/Artist/Record Companies :

collaborative releases inside albums are too obscured by Streaming Platforms UI

They found one workaround (marginally used) to put everyone as Album Artist. Now, they use use “better & cleaner” workaround through batch-release of singles.

But what you’re telling me, it that one is refused as “illegitimate” by MUBz, the other “we should find consensus”?

Don’t we already have guidelines about what constitutes a release? I felt that “exploding” artist page with many many artificial release groups were something loathed in many topics there.

(they are good faith question by me btw!!! I’m not trying to be mean or anything)

Anyhow, I agree, I hate having more rules ; but similarly to the QHSE regulation philosophy, I’m convinced that collective solutions are better and more effective those based on individual action. I admit that I lack the knowledge… Maybe talking first with my talkative sibling developing SAMBL…

15

No, the MB community should aim for consensus on everything. And sometimes the community consensus is to create firm guidelines, sometimes not.

I sympathise because stuff like digital waterfall singles annoy the heck out of me, but as long as I’m not editing them I don’t really care. And I usually don’t edit these lazy singles with the same cover, but then sometimes a single has the same cover as the album and it really is a ‘proper’ pre-release/radio single by the artist…

I think for this discussion to go somewhere you could give examples of too many singles causing trouble in MusicBrainz (not links to examples on streaming services) and an example of what kind of written guideline you would want, to solve the problem shown.

1 Like
16

Agreed ! I was confused because I thought it was issues that falls into existings principles that have already reached consensus. But. I realise that I have a very “legalistic” mindset >_<.

I’ll write a topic for that indeed! Thank you for the answer! (later than sooner… sorry…)

1 Like