I am keen to have everything added that can be!
As long as it can be said to ‘come with’, or extremely closely related to, that release in some form.
Ok. I started slow, and focused only on R Isaac. I am trying to get the artist profile completed and the releases under also completed. I want to see how this might work, meaning, to have a solid process and procedure to add such things.
I did edits a few hours ago on a DMC release, and things are very inconsistent. I do not think it is due to bad editors, but editors without information and guidance. As another editor pointed out on a different thread on a related topic, this seems like an simpler version of the classical genre edits. There are aspects that are not really normal, as in the same as a standard commercial release from a standard artist.
Any feedback is appreciated. As I stated, Ray Isaac is the only artist I have started on in order to keep visibility. So far, all suggestions have been applied, some waiting on feedback before continuing to the rest of the initial adding.
1 Like
The cover art section handles PDFs, not sure about DOCs. Can I suggest also adding a single Cover image? If I found something like this when tagging I’ll download the PDF, then upload a JPG from it for a separate Front image. My media centre does not handle PDFs so I personally prefer jpg/png.
With Sweetest Pie - don’t need a Release remixer if all the Recordings can be identified. Otherwise that Release is looking more like I was thinking. I add as many people and places as I can find references for.
On Sweetest Pie - you only linked one Work. All those recordings can be linked to the same Work as they are all derived from it. (remixes don’t get their own Works)
1 Like
To make sure I understand, you are saying to take the DOC or PDF and convert to an image, then upload that. Correct?
Ok on the release mixer. The reason I did that is because the whole release is the same mixer, so I figured have the release appear under the artist vs just the recordings. I am still seeing how that works, so I will keep this in mind. Could I also clarify… you stated “don’t need”, does this mean it is ok to have it? I know there are some items where data should not be placed, so I want to make sure which case this is.
Could you clarify the linking of one Work? I do not believe I linked any works. What I did is create the recordings, and enter 1) a remix of and 2) remixer. There are two recordings in play, a clean and a dirty/explicit version. I am guessing I am misunderstanding here, this is not an area I have done much in.
If you have a PDF - uploaded it as it is.
But also find something that works as a single Front image, and extract a JPG of that. Upload that as well. This gives us something “digital file friendly” as well as the full document. (In this example you already have a good image in place as “front”. I was more thinking ahead in case you only had a PDF)
(And if any one asks why I would extract an image from a PDF, it is the same reason I scan the front of my paper booklet and upload a JPG. Format shifting to something useful)
With the “Release” credits. If I see duplicates like that I would normally delete them. I don’t think it is a “Must not do”, but more a case of “Not needed”.
Usually an Artist Credit appears at release level due to it being written in the booklet of an album, but not made clear which track they actually worked on. As you have the details for the Recordings, no need to repeat at Release.
Works. Sorry, I may have confused this. Click on Edit Relationships, now look on the right. I would expect to see “Sweetest Pie” linked to each entry on the right hand side. (My pre-coffee brain thought it had seen one done… but that was me just looking the first one up as I had not realised you have four tracks duplicated in this list)
1 Like
I don’t see any real issue keeping it, but it is essentially duplicate data, as far as the database is concerned. that isn’t to say it can’t be useful to some.
that said, for remix releases, I’ve recently started crediting the remixer as the release artist. since a lot of remixes I edit aren’t approved by the original artist (and are therefore a bootleg of the original artist), but it is an official release by the remixer.
(edit: a good example of this is The Living Tombstone)
not usually, but there could be exceptions.
1 Like
Yeah, I realise it is another one of those Great Debates that run in circles… 
but for now, generally a remix is a version of the original Work.
2 Likes
I thought about this as well, although with different logic. I mean not to say your logic is not valid, just that I considered the same with different logic… making me think again on this.
Do we know if the remixes provides by sources like iTunes are approved by the artist? There are numerous EP type releases where they include numerous different versions of remixes. I only curious as to how we know when a remix is artist approved and when not. In the case of my edit, I fully believe this is not artist approved. It is more a question of curiosity on how we get such information when it is not so clear.
We have releases from artists like DJ Rectangle, released under his name, but those were more of a non-stop DJ Mix, where her we have separate recordings as a remix of the original. I also see a lot of “Artist A x Artist B”, but those seem more like a mashup style recording vs a remix. Alesso is another I can reference. I have seen in the forms of “Alesso feat Artist A” and “Alesso, Artist A”.
After a bit of thinking, I tend to think more on the lines of @UltimateRiff in that the true artist here is the remixer, but I think stating featuring/with/etc the original recording artist is also needed, as they provided (even if involuntarily) the base content that made the remix possible, and unlike classical releases, the original artist’s performed work is remaining present in the recording.
Interesting topic…
Hmmm, ok. I will need some training on this. The initial option for Work was “recording of”, which does not initially make sense to me in this case. That said, I believe I am simply misunderstanding how it works.
The item being remixed is a “recording of”, therefore the remix is also a “recording of” that same work.
Look at my example and click on the works. You will see the original track and remixes are linked to the original work.
In the above example - click on Memory Banks and you see a list of the Recordings and remixes in one place. Song “Memory Banks” - MusicBrainz
2 Likes
I think it’s more likely than all the remixes you see on SoundCloud, but I don’t know of a way to tell if a remix is approved or not, besides it showing up on an official remix release or maxi-single…
I do recommend leaving the original artist as the track/recording artist, like was done on TLT’s remix album.
that is, if the release doesn’t specify… in a case like TLT’s Discord remix, he does credit the original artist.
(note in this particular case, the instrumental track is entirely original, the vocals are the only part from the original Eurobeat Brony track)
2 Likes
Could I ask that this new release I added by looked over?
I was notified of this just a bit ago, so I attempted to capture what I could on the release, including a PDF of the email notification. Just wanted to see what the thoughts from others are on the content added and the sources added. Mostly, if there are any ideas for more info, or things that could be done differently.
2 Likes
I don’t see the point in the PDF format. There is no date on it. And you are revealing an email address that should probably stay private.
If you want to do this as a Proof of a date of release I would have: used a JPG so it was easier to view, made sure the email app could show an actual Date (dd/mm/yyyy), censored any bit of personal info (email addresses) and removed the advert from the bottom (crop the sendinblue logo).
I like the idea of a quick screen grab type snap of this kind of data, but keep it focused and quick to view the facts. And don’t get tangled in privacy issues with the email address.
Or maybe I am too picky 
looks pretty good, you even added the copyright relations! I sometimes forget to do that, lol
by the way, a handy tool for adding releases from Spotify (and also Deezer and Apple Music) is a-tisket. it’ll automatically seed all the track information, and even add some data that isn’t shown on the store pages, like release labels, ISRCs (with a seperate tool that’s linked), and barcodes. there have been some issues recently with newer releases, but I haven’t really had many of those issues myself.
1 Like
Ok, your points are understood. I see that the date did not make it to the image, I missed that. In your opinion, if I work the printing of the email to ensure the date is there, and ensuring no email addresses are shown, does that bring value to it?
What I am trying to do is provide documentation of the release. There is no booklet for these. To me, that email is sort of a booklet. At least for me, it shows me the story of the release. Should I go back into my collection and open this release… I might ask, what is this , why is it here, where did it come from, etc. This email tells me that. It is easy to get information on say a release from Rihanna. The story behind it, where it came from, etc. But for items like this, most people end up with them as a bootleg type download from random pirate sites. There is much more behind these releases that many people never see or even realize is there. Many who create these types of releases place a great deal of time end effort into making them and they are proud when they release them.
If the consensus is that there is no value, I will respect that however, as my intent is to provide value in this initiative of mine. I am trying it out with new releases, as all possible available material is there and does not rely on what I decided to keep or not keep from prior releases.
For this, I will remove that PDF and redo it, adding more of the header info (making sure the date is there) and ensuring that email addresses and other personal into is removed. Does anyone thing that modifying the PDF after to highlight the date is a good idea? Examples might be to add a red box around it, a section of text with an arrow pointing to the date, or? I often do not like to modify material or content, but if it will help in the value of it, it might be worth it.
EDIT: to clarify I am ok modifying the email image, as long as it is clear what is modified. The idea of a red box around content is fine by me, but not bolding the text itself. As long as what I change is clearly a modification, I am ok doing that.
1 Like
I personally think there is value, it is quite interesting… However it’s definitely not necessary. You don’t really have to provide anything beyond a spotify link. That’s how digital releases are.
If you are keen to put in the extra work, I would do minimal to no editing, beyond removing identifying info. Additional text stuff you can add to the annotation imo.
1 Like
I am ok doing the extra work. Just hearing you say that you see value is reason enough for me. The PDF I added is similar to a poster for a release, it is an advertisement, a PR move of the work. For me, it shows the excitement of the artist, the initiative the artist has taken outside of the normal marketing and distribution channels, etc. In this case, he is the distributor as I see it. This is the job, just in a different way, as the distribution and marketing channels of the major labels.
In regard to the need to only provide the Spotify link, the email includes a link for download. For me, that is an important part of the release. While others can for sure RIP it from Spotify or other sources, this shows a legit and legal source of download of the release in its released quality. That link is not private per se, As long as you know where to get it or can find it, you can use it. This is an aspect of a fair number of historical releases that has never been captured. Examples of releases being released via Twitter, Facebook, etc including a download link to me are important, as it was the source of the release. Keeping in mind I do not personally consider Spotify a “release”, but a broadcast of the release.
I really appreciate the comments on this topic. I am keeping an open mind and listening to all comments made. Thanks to all for helping mold this process.
1 Like
Maybe something like this, but cleaner, would work better? Please be critical, there is no sense in sharing material that is not of the best use.
1 Like
I agree with the aim, which is why I gave the feedback. A quick image to check for those details is a useful document. I have also used Fan Club emails for release dates before and not thought of uploading like this. Nice idea.
With so little on the email I don’t think it needs highlighting. No red box needed. I’d just give it an image comment of “Release Date Email” or similar as it is well focused on what it is. The simple black redactions are good as it shows that you are removing personal details.
The reason I said “stick to JPG” is this as an image is handy to check for reference which is quick to do in the MB GUI. Downloading this as a PDF, saving to the PC, opening a reader, takes too many steps just to see a confirmation of a date.
2 Likes
I would leave out the whole email header, and just include the contents. I would put the date it was sent in the edit note. But if you think it’s important then leave it in.
I wouldn’t highlight anything in red or anything like that - we don’t allow ‘fan editing’ for album art, and I feel like that should be applied here too. People can use their eyes 
2 Likes