Digital releases

MusicBrainz
,
33

You’re probably right, but it’s a pretty damn hard call to make. I’m still not 100% sure what the proposals are, honestly. I do see the point that we’d want to differentiate a badly made digital release from a good one, but:

Does this mean you’d have one release for iTunes and one for Amazon and one for CDBaby and one for Bandcamp and one for the Spotify stream and one for the Tidal stream and who knows how many more, or am I misunderstanding the idea?

If so, that does sound like a bit of overkill for a complete duplicate (for the data we store anyway) with a different store link, which makes something like the “variants” idea seem tempting. Right now, we would need a userscript to even be able to do this cloning without having to re-enter half of the data and get angry at the world for it :confused:

If the idea is to differentiate digital releases that are audibly different, that sounds at the same time more directly important and even more confusing to determine.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying the answer is not to store this info either, just trying to figure out how.

3 Likes
34

Really all I was saying is that an example like ‘10 releases for every bandcamp release’ is hyperbole. I don’t think anyone is advocating for that.

In my personal opinion you would make a new release if there is a difference that you want to store. This can be format, label, cover art, notably different credits etc.
Just like with adding a new release for a different CD matrix, you would not HAVE to, and I would not expect it to even happen often, but we should be ALLOWED to if we do it properly.

Variants is a whole different can of worms. If someone can figure out how to implement it that’s great. I see the value in not duplicating data, and it affects almost everything in the database. The issues I can see with it are probably for another thread.

35

IMO, I look at a stream as a stream. But I need to admit I have a bias opinion as I do not really even consider it a release in the first place. But I see the counter side where it is released, as in you as the end user are able to hear and experience it, so that is a release. But I would vote to have YouTube, Spotify and other streaming locations all as a “stream release” but with references citing the specific streaming locations (I believe that is important).

For this comparison specifically, IMO absolutely. For me, there is enough of a difference that I will scrap one for the other. There are many reasons, some have been mentioned, including Amazon’s crappy rips, the differences in encoder which causes differences in sound, etc.

In addition, there is a major factor that is not audible. A lossless file can be used in more ways than a lossy compressed file. So there are reasons I want or even need a lossless file and a lossy file just cannot work. But for many, just listening to the file itself will not be any different. My point is that I believe that lossless and lossy are for sure different, period.

I also agree that this all gets difficult. It is hard enough to actually understand all the different quality settings and file formats / containers, but to add to the complexity, there are fake files out there, not just in pirate environments but files that are sold as well. My only thoughts on how to “fix” that are to use the store/source as the driving factor for the release. This would match the logic used on physical releases. Example… if I have one of those CDs that were produced using MP3 files (and they do exist and were/are in fact sold legitimately), there is no expectation that the user evaluates the CD to ensure it was actually created from an appropriate lossless source.

It can sound that way in some cases. But this is no different than a CD that is the same CD but with a different barcode on it. The data is all the same, but the packaging (or store) is different. Same with the BMG CD club releases, etc. If a store sells a product that is in some way different than another store, that is by current MB guidelines a different release, just the same as a different color vinyl or a different barcode or catalog number on a CD. What makes a different series of printed numbers on paper any different than a difference of digital characters “printed” in metadata? That said, I agree the HOW to handle this is key.

Generally speaking, all lossless files are the same as they can be converted to and from each other without loss. It is important to keep in mind though… this is not actually true, but for all intensive purposes it is hard to argue a case against “lossless is lossless”. For lossy, the top three players in container formats are MP3, M4A(MP4) and OPUS… although at this time OPUS is more behind the scenes (ie. most all YouTube streams are OPUS audio now). That list is also in order by genetic superiority, theoretically speaking of course.

1 Like
36

Perhaps an example would be good.
Does anyone find this release group particularly offensive?

The steam and bandcamp version have different cover art, but if they didn’t the only difference would be format and tags (different track titles on some tracks), and someone can merge them.

I don’t know about thwaller, but all I want to do is be able to store that data, when it is of interest, regardless of cover art, and not have to worry about wasting my time.

37

To clarify… you are suggesting that you have 2 releases that differ by cover art, have the same track listing but are in a different format. These two releases should be the same release, but noted that there are 2 different formats available for it? I can think of three similar examples, from Katy Hudson (MB appears to be in error on this release as well), Tiffany Evans and Eminem where there is a release with different covers. So with clarification, I think there should be some good example data to discuss.

In your example, it appears that the “stream” one has only 31 tracks, not the 32 listed in MB. Also, just a comment, I would not even consider that one a release, in my opinion. The reason is that it requires the game in order to get/use it. To me, that makes it part of the package, like a box set. If you buy the release, the game, you get that as well. But without the game, you can’t get that as a release on its own… per the web site if that is correct. Just because I would not add it though does not mean I am saying it is wrong to, to make sure my statement is not misunderstood.

38

You misunderstand me I think. Different cover art is currently used as an explicit reason for a new release in the guidelines, so you can ‘officially’ add any digital release with a different cover.

I have added all those releases, and am just asking if people would confused or bothered by them if they didn’t have different cover art. I want them all to be there, even if the only difference was different track titles or format (as long as they are annotated and disambiguated effectively).

For me whether a soundtrack (or a cd) is packaged with another product is irrelevant. If it can be played or ripped someone’s going to want to tag it. And sometimes it’s the only way to get a soundtrack, and we would never say a soundtrack can’t be on here at all afaik. But I appreciate that you might not have any interest if you don’t have those types of files yourself :slight_smile:

The ‘Steam’ example is actually a good example why this is good data for MB to have. Often you have no idea what format you’re getting from a storefront, or how many tracks etc. I have all of those releases and can confirm those track lists are correct even if the Steam tracklist on the site is missing a track - information you can literally not find anywhere else on the internet. And won’t be able to once again if they are merged because someone ‘doesn’t see the need’ for multiple digital releases.

39

AFAIK we already do this. I really don’t mind to differentiate that a release is available in low quality in one shop, and there is another high quality version somewhere else. E.g. having an Amazon MP3 release and a release for a 24 Bit 96 Khz FLAC version from another shop would be a no-brainer for me, especially as the other shop wuld advertise this as being special. That’s a good reason to differentiate releases. Also we should be able to record the formats a release is available in.

I am only against duplicating releases from different store fronts for no good reason. And especially not listing all the formats available on a single store as completely separate releases.

I disagree with the “store” part here. We don’t do separate releases because of a different store for physical releases, that would be crazy. As you said yourself we only do this if they are actually different, and the “store” is not the actual reason. So we should not take this as an argument to add separate releases for different digital store, but we should figure out some guidelines what we actually consider different on digital releases

5 Likes
40

Yes, more exactly Bandcamp encourages artists to upload lossless audio files (WAV, AIFF or FLAC), which (being lossless) are equivalent, formats available for download are all generated from lossless data.

Some artists even upload 24 bits / 192 khz lossless files, which can be downloaded in any supported lossless file formats. When you compare with crappy MP3s most websites (including Amazon) provide…

3 Likes
41

The 3 releases are perfectly correct, since either cover art or tracklist differs. Why would this be “offensive” ?

But do you think it would make sense to create one release per format available at Bandcamp for https://musicbrainz.org/release/9adcff14-7dba-4ccf-a6a6-298bcde3dd46 and https://musicbrainz.org/release/806e67c4-d3bc-4c23-9e98-65c06cd26057 ? I guess not.
MB is lacking some infos here: in which digital format each release is available.
Note that the bonus track when some amount is reached is quite rare, but following cases are happening very often with digital releases:

  • digital release initially has N tracks, M tracks are added later, no url change (Bandcamp)
  • digital release has bonus tracks varying depending on the source (iTunes vs spotify vs Bandcamp)
  • digital release can be streamed, but the downloaded archive contains more tracks (very often on Bandcamp)
  • cover art is modified after initial release
  • digital release is “labelled” after a while after an initial “no label” release, but the release is not modified (same tracklist, same cover art, same release date, label is added in annotation or smt)
  • each track has a different cover art, album its own
  • different websites propose the same album with different tracklist (not by intent, but by error)

All those cases (and few more) are always non-obvious to handle, and not always well managed on MB side.
If you combine digital audio formats plus those various cases, we can quickly have a lot of digital releases for one album, and “too much information may kill information”…

4 Likes
42

How can a release group be offensive?
Because there are bogus releases that should be merged, inside?

1 Like
43

I do and don’t agree. For CDs, whether I go to one store or another, the CD is likely the same CD. With digital, that is opposite, where it is more likely to be different. I can only but the product iTunes delivers from iTunes for example. The difference is that the CD is manufactured and distributed through retailers. This is not the same nrom for digital. But I agree that the store needs to make a difference to be different. This will create difficulty though, as in how a user will know. An MP3 from Amazon will not be the same as an MP3 from Bandcamp, but how does the user know this aside from a difference in store? I know this simply from looking at the file you get, but what is the expectation of all users?

44

You are right in this assumption, but I cannot disregard the interests of others. I think the interests of all editors collectively make a great system. If this makes a difference to you but not me, that is good because you can reach and help users that are like you, and same in reverse. One of the auto-editors here recently made a lot of changes to a release that I added, and honestly, it makes no sense to me but I can see the flow of information at least. I am leaving it alone only because I do not understand all the classical stuff that is done here. For me, I consider those changes “wrong”, but I catalog and use those recordings no different than any other recording. Those that do classical apparently do things differently, so I in this case leave it at that. But it does create an issue in that I can no longer use the MB data, it is over detailed to a point that it no longer meets my needs and actually would create “wrong” descriptions. Please note my use of “wrong”, vs wrong.

On the reverse, I need to remember that MB will not (I assume ever) be as critical as I when it comes to digital releases. I have not used all digital retailers, but I can say that there is a difference in product on maybe 95% of all retailers, meaning that for me, the retailer is a critical part of the release. Well not really the retailer in itself, but the product you receive. So to what level does MB wish to record such data? I will say that to some degree, it is useless to me. I accept that lossless can be treated as all the same (although not fully true), and consider lossless sources as primarily valid. I consider iTunes almost as valid because (no arguments intended here) their product is near/at the best you can currently get in a lossy release when it comes to the quality of the encoded audio itself. I could also say that the M4As there are worse than MP3 as they can become corrupt easier, but the stability of the MP3 container and metadata does not offset the quality of the enclosed audio for me. Point, I could personally care less about the different MP3s that stores sell, or even those stores selling M4A releases (which are not iTunes releases but simply AAC encoded M4A files), because they are all less than ideal. But for one who does not care as much, they will care about such things as they just want a nice sounding MP3 file, since MP3 works on all their devices.

I think realistically, it might make sense to have all lossy releases under the same release, but using the variation factors in some way, depending on how that might be implemented. A separate release can always be made if that lossy retailer/release is in some way notably different to the user, but otherwise, the same. This is an issue with merging though, as user 1 might see it different while user 2 does not. So appropriate marking/annotations/deceiptions/etc will be needed. I think we also need to use the REAL release being sold or provided. With Bandcamp, all those different download options are not at all different releases, but a convenience provided by Bandcamp. The release itself is the primary/master file provided to Bandcamp (as another user explained above). You are almost 100% always best off to download the lossless version and make your own MP3 files because those online converters, as well as most all the software people install to convert formats, are all poor. The do processing with little to no configuring needed from the user, which is a cookie cutter approach designed to provide acceptable results. Users like me will go through much effort to setup encoders in very specific ways to get very specific results with the intent of the best quality encoded audio possible.

EDIT: Disclaimer… I do not like Apple nor do I intend to promote Apple or any of its products. I simply use the fact that their encoding systems and processes are quite good, no matter what I think about them.

45

9 posts were split to a new topic: Game audio/music rips - bootleg or not?

48

As I say, if it wasn’t for the cover art loophole, these are the kinds of releases that I have had merged (note that the tracklist isn’t different, just the tags for the tracks, which I consider interesting information) in the past, by people who want to ‘tidy’ ‘identical’ digital releases.

Nowhere does MB specify that, for instance, digital releases with different formats can be separate releases (eg the steam release in that example vs the bandcamp one).

I mentioned this hypothesis in my post - please supply an example of this being a problem in MB if you have one. I don’t think ‘too much information’ is or will be a problem, and if it becomes one the specific cause/s can be addressed.
I have added most of the variations you list with no resulting trouble to anyone. Some I personally don’t think warrant a new release, but I don’t think it’s an issue.

I haven’t answered a lot of your points @thwaller because it’s not of particular interest to me, and I think distracts from what you’re trying to achieve in the OP (better data for differing digital releases, in Picard or otherwise?). Complicated guidelines for digital releases will make things even more complicated for users, will be difficult to enforce, and involve a level of personal opinion and judgement (‘gatekeeping’) that I do not think suits MB. For example trying to establish some kind of format hierarchy or format-based merges. I just want to be able to add a new digital releases when there is a difference that I think is interesting, and not have it all merged by someone who doesn’t think the difference is important later.
If you make a new thread concerned with game bundles/soundtracks, I would be more than happy to jump in with my loud opinion :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes
49

Yes, that is at least partially correct on the game soundtrack question. It is more trying to understand how those work, especially since I do not do games, thus no soundtracks for them either unless they are a normal music release, like a audio CD.

This is where I think NOT having enough concrete structure will fail. If I want to merge two releases and all of the data fields are a match and it is only in side notes where there is a difference, chances of that being missed are higher. If I look at a list of releases and I see the format of CD, HDCD, Digital-Stream and Digital-FLAC for example, I can see right away there is a difference and there should be no merge.

I think it is important to look at the main differentiating factors, the reasons one would create a separate digital release, and make such data easier to see like it is for physical mediums. CDs on the list of releases in a release group have the barcode and catalog number where digital releases do not. I mean, they can have such data, but that data is more on the not useful side. That barcode is printed right on my CD, but is not anywhere on my digital release, thus, not valid for me the regular user.

I might be wrong, and I do not want to put words into someone’s mouth, but I interpreted @Zas statement differently. I took “too much information” as trying to over specify, like having a listing for a 192, 44.1kHz, LAME MP3… vs simply MP3. If I am correct, I would agree things cannot be so detailed that the normal user is confused just by looking at it. In the cases that such information might be a critical factor, it could be added in annotations or similar. At least for me, if I read things in there I do not understand, I just ignore it and leave the whole release alone. I do not need to understand it, because the editor who did all of it knows something I do not, and I would assume that others with interest in it know some of the same.

I think it is more implied than explicit. I would think at very least there could be some sub-selections under Digital Media like Stream, Lossless and Lossy. But even as I say that, I ask myself… do all MP3 users know that is classified as “lossy”? Maybe it would need further description like Lossy (ex MP3, M4A, Opus, Ogg, etc) and Lossless (ex FLAC, AIFF, WAV, etc), and Stream (ex Spotify, YouTube, etc).

EDIT: As I think of what I typed… there is yet another flaw. M4A files actually can be lossy OR lossless, as M4A is only a container, not an audio format.

50

If you’re saying we should have some sort of visible field, eg format/s, then I agree.
I didn’t get that this was your main concern, because of all of the related discussion. You should open a ticket for the new feature and link to that.
Explicitly allowing new releases for different formats (currently considered candidates for merging by many editors) would be a related step.

Re. “too much information”, my point is that there is currently nothing stopping someone from adding a release for every format right now, as you say it may be ‘implied’ (I personally haven’t found any official mention), and yet it is not an issue.
I have added releases that distinguish between 192 and 320kb MP3 and I do not believe it has caused confusion.
As I say, without examples, it seems to just be a convenient argument (and potentially the only one available), and certainly one that could be solved with extremely simple UI changes (filtering or hiding digital releases for those who don’t like seeing them).

51

Well, a good quick and fast summary of my whole collective statement is more digital release information. All we currently have is to mark the medium as digital. Physical releases have barcodes and catalog numbers, different sizes of vinyl and types of CD, etc. I am a bit open as to how that “more” gets here, but there should be some structure.

You are right on nothing stopping people from adding separate releases for any criteria they want. One large example of this is adding a separate release for “Mastered for iTunes”. If we are not going to separate iTunes releases from all others, then Mastered for iTunes is no different, it is simply an Apple iTunes release, nothing more. All that it really says is that Apple has done a great job at branding as it really offers nothing to warrant a separate release that any other iTunes release does. If we look at Amazon and iTunes, a regular iTunes release is combined with an Amazon release, but the Mastered for iTunes is separate, that just makes no sense at all.

I mostly agree, however, there are no examples in the database for one reason of nuts like me do not add crazy stuff. The flexibility that is in MB at this time offers those like you who have added separate for 192 and 320 to do so, yet also allows users to combine anything not physical as the same. I think the flexibility to leave the option causes no issue really, but a guideline that uses too much detail is where the problem would be… and the above notes on Mastered for iTunes just proves that point. When you have information that people do not understand, it can get used incorrectly, although not necessarily causing a problem per se.

I would except that I see that as a part of the whole here. Those categories, if you will, need some thought and will require the input from this topic as a whole. In my prior post, I mentioned that a M$a file can be lossy or lossless. So having a Digital-M4A selection would/could cause a lossy and a lossless release combined into one, which MAY be against the intended guideline structure. There are also places like Bandcamp which can/could be lossless, lossy and stream all at the same time, so that is also hard to classify. But possibly the database would hold that release separately in multiple mediums… but we could also list it as a single release with 3 variations… stream, lossless and lossy. For me to put my thoughts into a ticket would be asking for a database restructure to handle, and since I know that is not going to happen, I am hoping that some sort of middle ground can be decided here with some give and take on both sides.

52

Replying to myself, I mentioned a database restructure for my thoughts. This is what I mean…

I organize my music by artist, release, track listing, format. So for example, I might have:
Kumi Koda - AND. Under the AND release group, I have standard and deluxe. Then under those I have the mediums like CD, digital MP3, digital M4A, etc.

So to place that in MB, using this prior conversation, that would leave the artist the same. The release group would be the release name with the track list variations as the releases. Then under each of those releases in the group, there would be variations of the different mediums/formats.

This offers an advantage that is currently not there. I could go in and say I want a release. Ok, I found it, I see it is regular/standard and deluxe, well I want deluxe. Ok, so I can get it in vinyl, CD or digital MP3 or digital M4A. To me, that is the actual structure of a release, since whether it is on vinyl or CD, it is the same release for that artist, just released in different formats/mediums.

So in that case, digital could be a single release with multiple variations. So a digital release could have variations of MP3, M4A, FLAC, MP3 320, Opus, etc. Whatever is appropriate to describe the specific source being added. They are all under the same “master” release because the group of recordings is the same for them all. This would also mean that a change to correct an error could be made once and be applied to all of the appropriate entities.

That is what I would do, if I were to make a new MB. It is really just the same as the source does, meaning the artist/label/record company/etc. YOu have an artist who makes a release, and that release is sold on various formats/mediums. The standard and deluxe are sort of sub releases, each getting their own list of available formats.

2 Likes
53

Currently, i can find one release in, at least, 15 different digital formats (various levels of compression, various containers, lossy or not, etc…) sharing the exact same metadata. I have very good reasons to think having 15 releases makes no sense at all.
And since that’s digital there’s no technical limit on the number of possible different formats, in the future more will appear for sure.

It is more or less the same thing with CDs and different pressings: we do not have one release per factory, for the simple reason it makes no sense.

BUT i wish those informations to be stored: for digital i think it is important to know where i can get the FLAC 192khz 24 bits, or the crappy (but small) MP3, in which online stores, etc…
For CDs i want to know where they are pressed (different matrix), even if released as ONE release.
MB has currently no good way to store such information, this is where @reosarevok is right, we need to define “how” to store these informations, there’s no question about the fact they are useful at least for certain users.

I already explained why it is a problem. I guess you don’t care, but it is all about being able to maintain the data, if we have too much data without good tools and enough people to maintain it, the database quality will decrease.
MB is all about having the quantity AND the quality.
You misunderstand me if you missed that i actually want to store information about all digital versions, but not by useless data duplication.
Currently MB doesn’t offer much choice in this field, it doesn’t mean we don’t have to imagine better ways to do it.

And my feeling, being in computer science since 40 years, is that extra duplication will cause more harm than you think on the long term.

6 Likes
54

Two short comments:

  • For release formats, once the release attributes are in, we could use that to specify formats (same as we can now specify, say, work keys). Whether we use it to say “this release is available on all these 15 formats” or to say “there’s a noticeable difference between these releases: the format” or something in between is an open style question that we should talk about though :slight_smile:

    • I realize formats are theoretically per medium, not per release, but I think this makes more sense than waiting until we have some sort of medium format attribute, since I expect there’s few cases where there’s two digital media in a release that have different formats.

  • This new post is related to this, so opinions?: Almost identical Spotify releases

4 Likes