In this instance, a release I am working on updating has a unique release in Japan. Usually, the script is not transliterated into Japanese, but it was this time and it’s the first time I have seen this. This is also their only album that is transliterated.
The Japanese release has both a unique UPC (US:5054197649653, JP:4582546598808) and is under Ward Records as the label.
So in this scenario should I add it with the transliterated text or add it with the original English titles? Would you still use the transliterated relationship even though it’s not a copy of another release?
edit:
I also found the Japanese Spotify link and it looks like the album is only transliterated on Apple Music.
I guess now with the addition of the Spotify release, I could use the transliterated relationship for the Apple one, but the question becomes is that even necessary and worth the effort?
No. Different bit-rate is not enough to create a different release. If the Apple Release and the Mora release have the same barcode, they are the same release. Apple has 24-bit audio now anyways and has for a few years. There are many releases with 3 mora links or 3 HDtracks links, etc. It was decided a couple of years ago to not create separate releases. We used to separate them, so if you see separate releases for them, they should be merged, if there are no other differences.
I thought that was the case but I got thrown off by @yindesu adding that specific Mora release while I was in the process of adding the Apple\Spotify one, so I thought maybe there was something special I didn’t know.
Is there a way to see a Mora UPC?
Mora has the same label and the lossy link has the same catalog ID as the physical release, so I imagine it might have the same UPC as the physical release which is also the same UPC as what is on Apple and Spotify.
There is no way to see a Mora UPC outside of when they are in the URL. Mora tries to use the cat#'s in the URL (yes, when it’s not the barcode, it’s actually the true cat #.), however, when a release has no cat#, they will use the barcode instead. Most releases distributed by UMG, for example will show the barcode, whereas the Sony distributed releases have the cat #. We used to separate out the releases by hi-def, etc. but then it got to a point where there were 5 releases of basically the same release otherwise. So, the guidelines have now been updated to show this is not wanted. You can double check Jaxsta on cat #'s as they show them there as well. Unfortunately, you have to pay them to see the barcodes and it’s not cheap. If you see a release that is on mora, it most likely is the same one on Deezer and/or Spotify. If it’s a hi-res release, it’s usually the same as the one found on HDtracks or Qobuz. They will sometimes have Japan only releases, that are typically the same as the one found on either Deezer or Apple Music. I wouldn’t create a whole new release based of a mora release unless it had different labels, etc.
I know but before finding the Spotify and Mora links, I was unsure how to go about adding a release that was both unique and transliterated, since the psuedo-release guide only talked about copies and I had never added a transliteration release before.
I just went and looked at the release group. If mora has different cat#'s in their links (except for suffixes _L, _48, etc.) then this is a sign of a different release. That is why the other mora release was added. They aren’t the same release.
Or would it be better to remove only https://mora.jp/package/43000002/ANTCD-49688_F/ and add GQCS-91393 as a catalog number for the release even though I can’t confirm a UPC for the mora release?
What yindesu said. They are 2 different cat #'s so different releases. Both are already in the RG. The one yindesu set up is for the hi-res release. No need to set up anything new as both are represented.
BTW this conversation gets a little confusing when you tell me “no” to something not because it is wrong, but because, unknown to me, you already did it. Especially when do you it after what I said.
Also, I know they go together on the physical release but on a digital release, which usually does not have a catalog# and often shares the UPC of a physical release, that is not necessarily the case, especially if the mora release does not have a barcode, it just makes mora and Apple/Spotify more like two halves of the original info.
This thread is honestly a chaotic mess since post #5 (which was retracted in post #10 as an incorrect answer to your post #4), but there’s a lot of assumptions I’m making because you made this topic originally about the difference between barcodes.
I assume you are aware, but if not, a different barcode is usually the effect, not the cause, of different MB Releases. For example,
different release labels can cause different barcodes
different release countries can cause different barcodes
different catalog numbers can cause different barcodes
For your original example, all 3 criteria apply.
I created the release for ANTCD-49688 because you had never discussed that specific release in this topic (before the retracted post #5).
Now I tried to explain why, for this record company, they are using the same identifiers (catalog number and barcode) for the 16bit digital release that they do for the 16bit CD. (And via multiple retailers, not just mora, we know that the 24bit digital release has a different catalog number than the 16bit digital release.)
Weirdly enough, Style assumes that everyone recognizes that releases with different catalog numbers should be different MB Releases, as this basic premise is never stated (unlike for barcodes).
Sorry for adding to the confusion by not mentioning the fact that I remembered mora was a thing and adding the links to the release I created, forgetting that mora IDs are official catalog#s, all happening before seeing the release you added.
Putting ANTCD-49688 aside for a second, what I was getting at for GQCS-91393 is that it is the catalog# for the physical CD and mora, but usually an Apple/Spotify release does not have a catalog# even when the digital UPC matches the physical UPC (unless I am wrong about this, which is news to me).
I.e. if the mora release did not contain the UPC, then the mora release was a UPC-less release with a catalog# (matching the physical CD) and the Apple/Spotify release was a separate catalog#-less release with a UPC (matching the physical CD). How do you know for certain that just because one side has one piece of the data, the other without a doubt does as well when neither explicitly states it?
Rounding back to what you said about ANTCD-49688 and 24-bit releases having a different catalog#. How does this come into play with a release like the Apple Music one which has all bitrate and frequency options, up to 24-bit 192kHz, contained in one release?
Going by the digital UPC/catalog# conjunction happening on the combo mora/Apple GQCS-91393 release, then should the Apple release not be part of both and/or contain both catalog#s because it contains both 16-bit and 24-bit audio?
Oh also, the post was not specifically about the difference in barcodes, that was very obvious, it was specifically because they were different and the other release had a transliterated title and track list while not being a full copy of the first release (due to those differing barcodes), which the pseudo-release guide says is how you add a transliterated release. So at the time, I was not sure what script to add the release in and if it would still qualify for the transliterated relationship. This portion of my questions cleared up once I noted that I found the Spotify link (and later mora, without adding another edit to mention it) that was not transliterated.