I haven’t run into this issue yet, but with Harmony showing distributor data from TIDAL (as well as YouTube Music showing it in general), it might only be a matter of time before someone does (if it’s as common as the couple videos I’ve found lead me to believe)
if a digital release is moved from one distributor to another, should a new release be created? (provided of course no other changes are made at the same time, like label and cover art)
the process behind the scenes seems pretty simple, according to this YouTube video I found. you create a new release with the same metadata as the old release (including at least titles, ISRCs, audio file, and I think UPC), wait for the change to get through to the streaming platforms to sync listen counts and playlists, then remove the old release on the old distributor
I don’t know if the release URLs change with a distributor change or not, but at least the distributor relationship would. also there’s the fact that it briefly creates a second version on several streaming platforms (at least Spotify, YouTube Music, and Apple Music)
I see two options:
create a new release with the same metadata (save for the distributor relationship)
use the same release, but mark the old distributor relationship as Ended and add a relationship for the new distributor (with dates, if known)
I don’t know that I’ve got much of an opinion either way on this at the moment, as I could see decent arguments on either side
also, is there any consensus on the same physical release changing distributors like this?
Your video is about a guy copy-pasting ISRCs from an old release to a different release. It’s never the same release on any music platform. Actually, you already knew that:
Big labels like Lantis and NBCUniversal Entertainment Japan have switched digital distributors many times. Every time, it’s a new URL / new barcode / other differently identifying metadata etc. on all music platforms. Normal MusicBrainz practices on how to recognize different releases and their release dates apply.
to clarify, even if all the fields, release countries, and cover art are identical (including Label and UPC), you’d create a new release for a different distributor?
I mostly ask because I know some independent distributors let you use a preexisting UPC as well as ISRCs (I know TuneCore and TooLost have this, I’m guessing others too)
(can you tell I’ve been looking for a distributor? lol)
If it’s a different Apple Music URL and different Spotify URL, why wouldn’t you create a new release? Do you have an example where everything you’re saying here is the case? I’ve seen labels change distributors, and your hypothetical requirements here / MusicBrainz requirements have always been violated in one way or another.
I don’t have a specific example yet, but I’ll try and keep my eye out for one (and might test this once I start releasing my own music too)
to be clear, I have no issue creating a seperate release when it’s known to happen (I am Mr. Split Releases, after all ), I’m just seeing if there’s consensus one way or the other since it’s a bit easier to find such cases now
I’ve never entered distributors, but could you add start and end dates for the relationships? That and marking URLs with start/end dates might save the trouble of splitting releases that are otherwise identical while capturing all the same info.
I assume you saw my comments about how the situation you’re describing is something that nobody can prove has ever existed before?
The normal way that you would identify that a release “changed” distributors is that it has a different URL/ID on all platforms and that the new barcode doesn’t have the same prefix as the old barcode. These kinds of digital reprints sometimes also have minor cover art differences (colorspace, letterboxing, etc.)
The most important test, as it were, for digital downloads would be whether a platform like iTunes Music Store thinks you own the new release. (Hint: they won’t.)
The only example of a label changing distributor that I can think of off the top of my head is when Warner Music bought Parlophone. The distributor changed to Warner Music Group and the label was renamed from EMI UK to Parlophone UK, but the URLs and barcodes stayed the same.
those would be seperate releases due to the label change of course, but it confirms that distributors can change and leave the UPC and URLs intact (at least for major labels)
thank you for a solid example of the more common case where there are other differences, like UPC and label
@Comrade_Mike, you happen to have example releases for your that particular case (or other similar ones)? I can’t seem to find any common releases under EMI UK and Parlophone UK, for instance…
Another real example: Universal Music Japan reissued the A-Sketch catalog on 2025-09-17 and 2025-09-29. Same barcode, but new catalog numbers per OTOTOY. New links/IDs on all music platforms.
This is your warning to import all the missing digital releases and links before the old links are presumably deactivated in the near future.
Update: The old releases have already been withdrawn from mora and OTOTOY.
), I’m just seeing if there’s consensus one way or the other since it’s a bit easier to find such cases now