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
I would not lose something so important to an edit note. Some releases the edit histories can go on for a dozen pages. If anything, the date is the only thing relevant in the document. It is the one thing we want to know from this page.
The contents on its own says nothing. It needs that date to validate it as a document. 
1 Like
I added the header in per the feedback of loss of importance as it did not have the date on it. I like the idea of including the date, as it supports the date I entered on the edit.
This is a struggle in my mind. As I stated above, I agree with the not editing the material. However, in order to get the date there, I need to include the header which requires some redaction.
This is what I am tending to agree with. I am not sure there is a perfect way to do this. I either exclude the date, or I modify the document via redaction. I think it best to get more information with redacted parts vs not having proof of something. I think it sounds a bit strange to say … I cannot prove the date of this release, because in order to I need to remove private info from the image. I think the fact that I have and can prove the date, that is something that over time will be lost. I did check on Spotify, and only the year is listed for the release. I think the email is proof of a “release event”, as long as the content provides the needed aspects of such.
1 Like
Ok, this makes sense. I did not see it this way the first time you explained. Does MB work with PNG the same as JPG? JPG requires extra work to do, as the format is basically obsolete. PNG or WebP are defaults in all my software as of the last few years. Some softwares have even removed the saving as JPG. But like the MP3, although it is basically obsolete and replaced, it is not going anywhere anytime soon as it is used everywhere.
For curiosity, I checked my screenshot tool. It uses PNG and there is no option to change the format in the GUI. Given this is Linux, I can change this in the back end, but the point remains that JPG is no longer even an option. That said, I can provide the image in basically any format, it just requires conversion. Plenty of imagemagick scripts to make short work of it.
The precedence for adding images like this is promo stuff like here:
Not screenshots of dates tbh.
Your word plus the Spotify release date is more than enough evidence for the release date on MB
Release images aren’t the place to store date text strings. We have a release date field, and the annotation for anything extra (e.g. ‘album announced on…’)
Edit notes are where you provide evidence for data you’ve entered - if someone is looking for evidence for the date, they will look for that edit, and the edit note that came with it.
1 Like
PNG is fine, just seems over kill to me. Kinda weird that some systems are dropping JPG but I guess they are happy to keep buying huge hard disks. (Lets not get into an image debate - I am probably just cheap 
)
JPG\PNG are a single click display option. Seems perfect to me.
I think I was confused by posts in another thread about added documentation. I thought this was a spin off from that. So you are pointing at the more pure “this document should not be here” guideline? It is not “cover art” so I see that point.
1 Like
Agreed. This is not the place for an image debate, nor is it relevant. For what it is worth, though, the reason is quality of image. I use Linux, so I am not sure what others (Windows and Mac) are doing. Example of the same image in different formats:
- PNG - 523.1kB
- JPG - 183.2kB
- WebP - 42.8kB
Softwares like Inkscape and GIMP do not offer as “save as” for JPG. GIMP via the export feature allows JPG, but defaults to PNG. Inkscape does not support JPG at all anymore. You can export only to PNG for raster. There is (or was) an extension that brought this functionality back though.
The problem with the above method is that few support WebP and many do not even know what it is. I use JPG only if it is supplied to me (as converting further degrades the quality) or it is from my digital camera. For web use (like web site images) I use WebP. I think of it like PNG = FLAC and JPG or WebP = MP3/M4A.