I don’t see the harm in tracking different well disambiguated digital releases even if it’s for differences like a transcode or a different file format or a different release date. If a user is interested in tracking their iTunes library specifically then other users out there are interested in the same information, just like some people want to track slight packaging/logo placement differences on otherwise identical sounding CD’s.
What is the benefit of merging?
Well. I guess it’s best to keep them separate. Had no idea about the booklets, etc. being different on iTunes vs. Google Play, etc even though they have the same barcode. Good to know. That to me is enough to make them different. As far as the technical stuff, I’m not into that, so glad to know.
That is 8 release entries (MP3 V0, MP3 320, FLAC, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, ALAC, WAV, AIFF) for every bandcamp album. If the album is available on Junodownload, it is another release for a 192 kbps MP3. There would likely be another entry for every lossy encoded platform unless they use the exact same version of LAME or whatever mp3 encoder.
Cataloguing different physical releases has a purpose for collector referencing (the price of a Blue Note LP can be more than ten times more if it is the very first press) and preservation, tracking the arbitrary encoding of the same digital source files on every retailer as an unique entry is a ridiculous waste of time.
4 Likes
No, it is 1 release for a Bandcamp album. Because nobody sees value in adding lots of releases for one, so it never happens.
However people clearly do see value in adding Mastered for iTunes releases, so I ask again, apart from strawman arguments, what’s the harm?
And I would see no issue for creating a release for a Juno download if someone wanted to. We have the capacity for it.
It really is up to the individual to decide how they “waste their time”.
I don’t think booklets are different, just some platforms don’t provide the booklet in the digital archive due to technical limitations.
Sometimes cover art image is different, but usually audio files are identical (whichever is the encoding format).
Sometimes release on digital stores has extra tracks (ie. “exclusive bonus tracks”), but most of the times i found those on another legal platform too…
Sometimes track order differs, in all cases it was more a mistake rather than an artist’s intent, and in many cases audio files were ordered the same, but titles were switched…
Most of the times digital releases are just ripped CDs (when they exist), or just re-encoded from files used in studios.
Imho it makes no sense to have “'Mastered for iTunes” releases, but if there’s a proof they actually differ from the ones available on other platforms.
And til now, i can say 99% are no different: same cover art, same tracklist, same audio.
And for me, “barcode” makes no sense for digital releases, qobuz for example is just using the CD barcode, and different barcodes don’t always mean different files. Somehow, same goes for labels…
2 Likes
This is exactly how Discogs do it, except people do not usually add 8 releases for something.
This general statement is not true.
857223004458 is Souvenir, POP ETC - Qobuz
857223004465 is Souvenir, POP ETC - Qobuz
857223004489 is (one of) the CD.
Unless MusicBrainz wants to have a schema change where the UPC is removed from the Release, then UPC (along with reasonable cover art differences) are distinguishing features of unique releases.
2 Likes
An example where iTunes lacks MFiT, while Qobuz says it’s hires:
8790001228948 (CD, listed for completeness)
Discogs https://www.discogs.com/release/11959819
8790001230804
iTunes (MFiT missing) id1359843267
Qobuz (hires) https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/galaxy-of-dreams-3-various-artists/nc7619uh67w4a
8790001230538
iTunes (no download) id1374629235
BC https://liquicity.bandcamp.com/album/galaxy-of-dreams-3
Deezer https://api.deezer.com/album/61852212
Spotify https://tatsumo.pythonanywhere.com/album/6uEB0fSd2nvMErbYHeol5A
Qobuz (no download) https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/galaxy-of-dreams-3-liquicity/spq7a8q9m7b7b
Example by yindesu has only one iTunes ID, available as download and stream, MFiT badge present.
id1061314789
1 Like
That is the only instance I’ve ever seen where the Apple Music & iTunes ids for the same country were different. Especially since the iTunes isn’t MFiT. The Quboz link isn’t working. Looks like that release has been removed. I’ve seen a few instances where the hi-res audio on HDTracks or Qobuz was the same barcode as MFiT. Plenty where the MFiT is the same as Spotify, which is why I think they are the same release.
Yes, you’re right, I just noticed it changed, and they also changed their URLs to not include the barcode anymore.
So the statement isn’t true anymore, but it used to be during last years. Looks like Qobuz is now doing more than ripping CDs.
I left out the locale part of the URL. en-us doesn’t work.
Try this adding gb-en like so Galaxy Of Dreams 3 (Liquicity Presents), Various Artists - Qobuz
If you’re still getting HTTP 404 they are probably discriminating your IP.
I’m gonna edit my previous post.
1 Like
Slightly off-topic as it’s not about MFiT but still touches the issue of GTIN on digital releases.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/61438929
Rammstein happend:
602577493850 (Digital, it appears Qobuz has no streaming licence but Deezer does and they share same GTIN)
602577493867 (MFiT)
602577495267 (Spotify)
IMHO we need a schema change, this is madness.
1 Like
What are MFIT and GTIN?
Oh ok found Mastered for iTunes and GTIN is like the more well known names: EAN/JAN/barcode…
1 Like
If they have different barcodes then IMO they qualify for different releases, no matter how store-based releases the current schema will generate.
3 Likes
Agree with this as physical CDs can have different releases just due to small artwork text changes. Digital should get the same. FLACs released by the band at source are likely to be subtly different to ones released by a store later.
It is slightly confused by Picard as it can wipe out any visible differences due to the tags. That can’t happen with a CD.
So it comes down to - what is MusicBrainz an index of? Seems logical to find a way of logging any differences in some way.
It’s fairly simple. Different barcodes mean different releases. Occassionaly, and lately more common, that MFiT & others share same barcode. This is why I proposed what I did above. However, it seems the majority still think that we should keep MFiT and other releases as separate releases. I suppose others can take it further and go to different filetypes, etc, but this has been avoided. Sometimes a hi-res audio site, i.e. Qobuz & HDTracks also shares barcodes, but these are typically kept separate from non-hi-res releases.
At this point I wonder by what definition GTIN are assigned. Which differences mean a new number.
Is it just for sales tracking?
Not all labels handle it the same way it seems. Evident by the mess we see sometimes:
- Shared GTIN for CD and digital.
- Either shared or separate GTIN for streaming, download and processing (MFiT and
24bit?). - Different editons of CDs sharing same GTIN.
Are these perhaps just screw-ups or is there a system?
Then we got the case of an artist changing his distributor. Only the GTIN has changed and iTunes redirects old ID to new ID. How are we supposed to discover this, if not by chance?
What if these releases were only added after the fact. Would we ever know about that distributor change?
We would need an extensive guide on entering digital releases for new editors. We can’t expect everyone to know these often hidden details.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not for “dumbing down” things. But maybe we need a new definiton of releases in the digital domain as long as we don’t know how the industry uses them and for what purpose.
Unfortunately, it’s by chance a lot of the times. However, I try to pay attention to the new releases on iTunes and they typically tell you when they are reissuing an old release the week they are doing it. Also, I use ISRC.net as they sometimes show when the new barcode went into effect. Typically sales go up on reissues as well, so you’ll start seeing old titles pop up on Billboard charts, etc. the week that popular reissues occur. It’s definitely not exact and I wish that iTunes, etc would just give you the true release date instead of showing the original dates a lot of times, but this is what we currently have to deal with. Btw, I rarely see different barcodes for Apple Music vs. MFiT iTunes, so that’s another issue to make your head hurt, and sometimes the Apple Music release uses the same barcode as Spotify, but the MFiT release has a unique barcode. 
1 Like
GTIN is simply a 14-digit version of UPC, EAN, JAN, etc. Add two zeros at the beginning and the 12-digit UPC becomes a 14-digit GTIN. Add one zero and the 13-digit EAN/JAN becomes a 14-digit GTIN.
Any consideration that defines when a new GTIN will be assigned is the same as what decides whether a new UPC or EAN is used. That is, if they are considered different products — in many cases this will be an arbitrary decision by the company assigning them.
2 Likes