Digital releases

There are actually cat # on Beatport that look like legitimate cat #. But, yes, many are just the barcode thrown in the field.

1 Like

It doesn’t seem to be possible to assign different barcodes to physical and digital releases on Bandcamp, so most barcodes apply to the physical release. As a result I would only trust the barcode on BC if the release is digital only.

1 Like

Doesn’t matter. If a digital release on Bandcamp has a barcode, than it’s the barcode for the digital release. I’ve edited many Bandcamp releases that share barcodes with other digital outlets. Also, many iTunes, etc. releases also share barcodes with physical media. It’s still the barcode for that release.

2 Likes

So all the similar releases from below release group could be merged together?

Regarding the quality will the new field be available at Media drop down box (ex: Lossy/Lossless/HD) or only at the store link with format. First option would be nice to better organize its collectio.

Thanks

I personally would never want those merged… It looks (at a glance) like someone’s gone to the effort to make a really comprehensive release group. Amazing.

(Something like a seperator or filter for digital vs physical could help for those who don’t like it)

3 Likes

For me it would like trying to keep records of all the shops that had a specific CD available including their internal references, catalogues and other marketing tools which is not the purpose of Musicbrainz :slight_smile:
Also it could be quiet complex as “Release mode” was not created to handle the nature of those data which are not fixed in time (It could be available in a shop and/or country then removed then back again).
And there are the other issues already discussed such as labels (not the same meaning as for physical), impossibility to verify the data from public sources,…

Nevertheless seems some people are interested to keep those infos so we could but “Relationship” seems more appropriate to handle the evolution in time and/or the differences between shops

Taking the old Release group example I would see:

Releases:
- 1 for the 11 tracks CD
- 1 for the 11 tracks Digital Media showing Lossy/Lossless (5 to merge together)
- 1 for the 15 tracks CD
- 1 for the 15 tracks Digital Media Lossy/Lossless/HD xxbits/xxxKhz (6 to merge together)
- 1 for the 20 tracks CD
- 1 for the 20 tracks Vinyl
- 1 for the 20 tracks Digital Media (3 to merge together)

With this example of relationships (fake data):

Stream for free: Spotify under [no label]
in: Albania from 2018-04-06
Vietnam from 2018-04-06 to 2019-01-14

Purchase for download: Qobuzz under [no label] with barcode XXXXXX1
in: France from 2018-04
Belgium from 2018-04 to 2019-12

Purchase for download: HDTracks under Initial Artist Services with barcode XXXXXX1
in: USA from 2019

Purchase for download: iTunes under Initial Artist Services and Mastered for iTunes with barcode XXXXXX2
in: USA from 2019

Purchase for download: Qobuzz under IAMNEW with barcode XXXXXX3
in: France from 2020-01

In details it means a specific release should be created only in case of major difference(s) on the Track numbers or music files (ex: real remasters).
Marketing stuff from shops (ex: Masterised for iTunes) should be ingored as rips from CD (see 1)

For the main release data:

  • Date: The first one from the different platforms
  • Country: To grey out (not really relevant as restrictions can easily be bypassed and change in time)
  • Label: To grey out (as no imprints on Digital releases and the ones from platforms dont refer to the same notion)
  • Cat number: To grey out (as for labels it would ends up mostly in wrong information)
  • Barcode: To grey out or to allow multiple values

1 Not sure about this one. To my point they are not a new release but a rip of the CD version, not a specific release of media (files in this case). But I m missing knowledge on this: How were made releases in the 2000s (real remaster or just rips) and legaly (ex: can a shop provide digital files along a CD is selling to a customer without specific contract).

No. If they have different barcodes, they are different releases.

6 Likes

I am not a collector of digital, but don’t see the problem with this Release Group. If the barcodes are different, then they are different Releases. We use far smaller differences in the CD versions to allow different releases. Small changes in artwork is enough for a new Release, so the same should be fine for Digital.

Too much information is better than too little. A difference is a difference and is interesting to someone…

4 Likes

I have yet to see a good reason for not storing as granular info for digital as we do for physical - at least none that couldn’t be solved via UI (for instance being able to filter or seperate digital media on a label page).

That release group in MB must be the only place in existence where someone who asks themselves ‘I wonder what the difference between all these flippin’ digital versions of Sainte-Victoire is’ can find an answer, thanks to the hard work of @Fabe56.

Why we would not work to integrate that into MB so everyone (including people who only want to see physical details) is happy, but want to just remove the detailed data, I can’t understand ¯_(ツ)_/¯

1 Like

I have a few comments on this statement…
I generally agree, however, when it comes to digital releases, I think a few changes of thought need to happen. Examples, when I have the release “in hand”, how often is it that I know the barcode? With a CD, yes, distinctions are made, but based on what we can see, on the release, in our hand. If a CD does not list a featured artist, it is not supposed to be listed for that release. That means that information not on the release is disregarded, for that release. Why is this logic not applying to digital releases?

I do agree that all information has value. I, as well as others, have proposed ways to address this with a tiered approach to releases. But having release details that a person in possession of a digital release will not know as primary attributes seems senseless. You will be stating identifying factors that do not actually help identify the release.

I would love to see more digital release detail, but not to a point where it becomes meaningless at a primary level. Primary identifying details need to be found on the release itself, the same logic as physical releases. Attention also needs to be given to the fact that those factors are not the same.

Just my opinion. I hope the logic makes sense. You cannot apply all the same rules to physical and digital, they are totally different. Physical releases nitpick every aspect of the physical release, why not the same on digital (being the metadata and encoder specs)?

1 Like

I’m not sure what you mean here. I think that is currently the case on digital releases. The only thing I can think of that may be an unknown is barcodes on sites that don’t provide them, i.e. Amazon, Tidal, etc. Some have started to do catch-all’s for non barcode releases. I’m not sure if that’s the way to go or not. I admit that I assume that if a release is on both Spotify & Deezer with the same barcode, I typically treat the other digital releases as the same release unless they have a different barcode. I also count differences in artwork, if everything else is the same as a different release, just like I would if it was a physical release. As far as the “feat.” apparently the guidelines quietly removed the “not featured on back cover art” thing and now if they are listed in the liner notes you can add them. I had voted no to a few until they pointed out that the guidelines don’t state that. I know the guidelines used to, so why was that removed? I think because so many rap releases, etc, have “feat.” artist that show on every digital release, but were only found on the liner notes on physical media.

3 Likes

Well, let me give some examples…

  1. how many digital releases contain a barcode?
  2. how many digital releases contain an “imprint” label?
  3. how many digital releases contain a catalog number?

Personally… I have a 3TB music storage as of now. I would guesstimate that 5% include a barcode. 0% include a catalog number. The number that include the imprint, that is a variable. There is no logo printed on the CD and/or its artwork, but we have a vendor in the meta. This is typically the entity that requested the ISRC. That is not always the same as the “imprint”, as is used for physical media.

I want to emphasize… as a user, the current offerings of MB as it relates to digital releases is not useful to me. That I believe is the intent, to provide a benefit to the people. That is only my opinion, but I have not been using MB for a while, but I still do care about the initiative. So I participate at times.

Most digital releases contain a barcode. Most digital releases contain an imprint label. Not many have cat #, but some do. Every release on iTunes, Spotify & Deezer MUST have barcodes. Almost all on HD Tracks also have barcodes as well. The label that Spotify & Deezer return are the same as the physical imprint most of the time. However, you have to “view source” to find out what it is iTunes or check ISRC.net. You are correct that they aren’t always the same as sometimes they will say things like Capitol Records, Inc. instead of Capitol Records or they’ll actually state a label as “FP” as the imprint in the copyright label info, but than show UMG as the “label”. So, yeah, it’s not 100% as it would be on physical media. However, I will say that digital media information has gotten way easier to find than it was a few years ago.

1 Like

I am interested to see proof that over 50% (meaning most) of all digital releases contain a barcode in the metadata. I have a large collection of original media files that disagrees.

I do not consider Spotify as a “release”. I consider Spotify as “radio”. Just me, but I consider any place that streams without “purchase” to be radio.

All respect @tigerman325, we had some great convos, I mean no disrespect.

It is required for every release uploaded to iTunes, by their policy to have a barcode. Now, I’m not saying it is necessarily always found in the metadata they provide because it is not. If it is, it’s typically located in the “.jpg” filename for the cover art. I have a file that gives barcodes for every release that was on iTunes back in January that I obtained from a person here in the community boards. Streaming releases, that are found on Spotify & Deezer are no different than any other digital release that can be purchased. They all have barcodes. Spotify & Deezer’s are found in their APIs as it their record labels. Not sure why you totally dismiss what is obviously (unfortunately) how releases are going forward with streaming. It’s more than just a radio playlist. They have full releases there that you have to pay if you don’t want interruptions or ads.

3 Likes

Oh yes. :love_you_gesture: :heart_eyes:
If anyone knows a userscript to hide digital releases, I will use it.

Update

OK I did a very rough one, quickly: mb. HIDE DIGITAL RELEASES

I will probably make it better in the future.
But I will already have some rest, thanks to it.

2 Likes

Post gets re-edited next morning

[s]Currently use the “Musicbrainz: Ultimate list destroyer” script to hide this mess of “countries you can buy the track in today” from MB screens. https://github.com/otringal/MB-userscripts[/s]
Thanks to @jesus2099 pointing this out, this feature is now built into MB and probably has been for ages. Script not needed.

Next I need someone to write a Picard script of “if countries > 5, set to Worldwide”.
And thanks @outsidecontext also pointing out that this script exists and I had just forgotten to add it to Picard

All is well :slight_smile:

This is not “release” data, this is “which shops it can be purchased in today” data. Often been shown to not be RELEASE date details. Just misleading noise. (Ignore my rant)

3 Likes

Someone has done that :slight_smile:

5 Likes

Ahh thanks,

Just hope “hidding things from the eyes” will not prevent to resolve the different pending topics :slight_smile:

For instance:

  • Option to select quality level of Digital media files (as we can select the type of CD or Vinyl)
  • Filtering/Ordering Digital releases by default in UI
  • Clear definition of what requires a new Digital releases and what not (ex: different barcodes, same files but different shop, release suspended for a time on a store but republished later with same data,…)
  • How should be treated release dates & countries to distinguish clearly the shops informations from “proper” release ones (ex: There are differences in countries between the different stores, some stores show the original release data and not the release date,…)
1 Like

Are you sure this script is still needed?
I think everything (hide big lists) has been coded in MBS now, hasn’t it?