How to handle "extra releases" linked to a specific release?

MusicBrainz Style
,
1

Hi!

I’m currently dealing with releases that can be qualified as “Extra / Bonus CD”, and would like advice about the best way to add them to the database.

To give you an exemple, Shikata Akiko published an album called VAGRANCY in 2023. It is in MB’s database here. As she often does, Shikata made this album available to a few different resellers, and for two of them (Animate and her own webshop) she provided the option to buy a special set with an “extra CD” - “Snowdrop” (AURA-0043) for Animate, and “Deneb” (AURA-0044) for her webshop.

If you look into VAGRANCY’s release group, the Animate version has been added to it, with “Snowdrop” listed as a third medium.

I don’t really agree with this way of doing things, because this is not a variation of the VAGRANCY album. You can look it up on Shikata’s official page for the album, but VAGRANCY is a digipak with two tray slots for its two CD’s (AURA-0041 and AURA-0042), and “Snowdrop” is physically separate, with its own jewel case, cover art and booklet (you can see it for example on this auction item). Which, to me, clearly indicates it should be its own release.

Another way I have seen it addressed in MB in the past is to create a specific release group set to the “Other” primary type, like for the CD “Yume no ato” (AURA-0031) which was sold as a set with the “Ayashi” (AURA-0030) album (only in Animate shops), and once again, in a separate case, with a separate cover art and booklet.

I feel like this second way is a lot better, since it goes along well with the Release guidelines, and you can also add annotations to give details on the circumstances of the “extra” release, but maybe there’s an even better way to do things ?

I’m still quite new to editing and discovering new guidelines on the regular, so I would love to hear your thoughts about the best way to deal with this kind of releases !

2 Likes
2

Could you buy the “extra CD” on its own? Or only when buying the main album?

It is very common for an artists to sell one version of a release as a single CD, and a second version as two CDs - one with bonus material on the extra CD. This is treated as a different Release in the same Release Group. Yes, CD1 is exactly the same in both, but you have a choice of two different packages at checkout.

Look at it as you are documenting the different versions of the package that is available.

3

Personally, I think it’s best to create the Bonus Disc as a release labeled “Status:Promotion” within the same release group.
As shown in the example below:

4

If Animate actually sold a set that was packaged together and has its own barcode on the whole set, then it should be its own release. However, the auction shows that the barcode is attached to the retailer bonus jewel case, and doesn’t identify the other release which has a different barcode, and so it’s clearly separate. It’s been previously answered for normal Japanese industry practice that the regular release should be separated from the retailer bonus. e.g. see Release group “おとぎ” by Eve - MusicBrainz which has examples of both retailer-exclusive editions and retailer bonuses given alongside a normal release.

Technically the retailer bonuses should be in their own release groups (because they are not versions of the album) and the retailer bonus linked to all applicable releases using Relationship type / Supporting release - MusicBrainz.

5

Thank you very much for your answers!

It looks like I inadvertently reactivated a years-old debate :sweat_smile: . There were a lot of very good suggestions and examples, and I definitely learned a lot! It’s also comforting to know that there are other J-music fans out there struggling to make coherent discographies out of… well, the japanese music market.

I didn’t think about adding a “Promotion” release inside of the Release Group for the “main” release, and it is a very interesting option. I still wouldn’t say that it is perfect, because adding a release this way does not directly add the promotional content on the artist’s main discography page.

I understand completely the opinion that adding promotional content would add clutter to an artist’s discography, and there are certainly many cases where this is very true. … But in Shikata Akiko’s case, most of her “Bonus” releases are very polished, adding to the lore of the main release, or focusing on specific aspects of it (some of her non-CD “Bonus Content” include 20~50 pages lore book(let)s, artbooks, or music partitions, but this is not GoodiesBrainz), so I feel like it fully deserves to appear in her discography.

To answer @IvanDobsky, the “extra” content is also never released at a later date, or anywhere else – at least, Shikata has never done so in more than 20 years of musical career. So, each “Extra CD” is in fact a unique release, and I feel like new fans may potentially miss out on some very good works by having to dig into each release group to find about the “Extra CD” releases.

Since Shikata’s “Extra CD’s” are made with a lot of artistic intent and contain unique recordings ( = that don’t, and most likely never will, appear in any other releases), I personally think it is worth it to add them as separate releases and make full use of the annotation field, as well as the “Supporting release” relationship type* to keep the discography as clear as possible.

\* Supporting release

*It exists! It was… well hidden. The MBdō is truly endless!

I’m also willing to invest the time needed to make the discography coherent, if that is needed and welcomed. I understand that there are no hard guidelines for this specific case, and that a lot of the current classification depends heavily on the editors’ personal preferences, so I am not sure if that is the right thing to do.

It also actually brings me to a related question, about which primary type to use for the Release Group in the case of adding an “Extra CD” as a separate release.

The “Extra CD’s” are very short, and could, in theory, veeery loosely match the definition of a “Single”, as defined by the guidelines for the japanese market., especially since some “Extra CD’s” can (rarely) contain instrumental versions of the main release’s recording, like in the Oto no Komado Extra CD (included with the “Oto no mado” album sold on Shikata’s official webshop).

My question, I guess, is “how much should I avoid using the ‘Other’ category?”. For example, I read that the [Multiple languages] option is now to be used only when every other solution has failed. Does the “Other” RG category has a similar treatment, or is it alright to use it for “Extra CD’s”?

The “Oher” category would be my first choice, since these releases weren’t ever intended for radio play, “commercialized” separately, or used for “promotion” of their related album (in the sense that there is no common recording, ever, between Shikata’s “Extra CD’s” and the linked releases, whereas a single would usually promote actively the latest/upcoming release of an artist by “teasing” 1 or 2 shared recordings).

Anyway, I feel like I rambled a lot, but thanks again for taking the time to guide me through this, I really appreciate it! :blush:

6

I didn’t read everything, sorry, but it seems you should have extra CD in the same release as main disc.

You would have several editions of main disc: regular edition without extra CD, limited time edition with extra CD 1, limited time edition with extra CD 2…

2 Likes
7

I just wanted to point out that - putting aside the guidelines for a second - making a new release group could lose this important connection.

3 Likes
8

The majority consensus in Bonus Disc (which I already mentioned) was not to do that for this kind of standard JP release practice.

The hypothetical application of your view, as presented in Bonus Disc - #28 by yakumo0209, flagrantly violates artist intent.

9

You’re right, but I think that the use of the “Supporting Release” relationship would mostly mitigate that loss. Whatever the form the editor ultimately decides on to add those “Extra CD’s” releases, that relationship is a fantastic tool, since it allows the creation of a link to any release in MB’s database.

The downside is that it can only link to a single release, not to a whole release group, so you would have to add the relationship once for each release in the “main” release group, but I can see it work, and then be further clarified with an annotation.

At the very least, I think that adding the “Extra CD” as an additional medium to an otherwise identical “main release” should be avoided, since it prevents the addition of this relationship and masks the artist intent that was originally on the whole “main release” group.

10

I don’t really have a strong opinion, I haven’t studied the precedence and the guidelines.

But I would additionally note that - if you add it as a separate release - if it wasn’t for sale separately, but was given as a free gift, the release type should probably be set to ‘promotional’. This means that the release will be hidden from the default artist discography.

All you will have that lets people find it will be the single line of text at the bottom of the linked release page.

It (only having a promo release in the release group) will also hide the release from some third party sites like Lidarr and Sens Critique, which is often why people want to add a new release group in the first place (so it is picked up by those sites).

Again, no strong opinion, I am not invested in this artist :slight_smile:
Just not sure that making a new RG serves your goals of giving this release more prominence/making it more legit.

3 Likes
11

But if the only way of getting it “free” is to buy a specific release in a specific shop, then I don’t see how it is not in the same release. :wink:

2 Likes
12

Your understanding of a “release” doesn’t seem to match Release - MusicBrainz which specifically includes barcode in its identifying properties. In this case, the artist intent is clearly that there are two separate releases that each has a unique barcode. (It’s not that a single release has both barcode 1 and barcode 2 on the same cover art - it’s that release 1 has barcode 1, and release 2 has barcode 2, and they never come into contact.)

A store selling a bundle/set of distinct products doesn’t mean the bundle/set becomes a MB Release.

2 Likes
13

The definition of a release is matching the bundles, IMO, more than a 1 to 1 relationship with barcode:

But if a CD is sold together with a specific other, and there is no other means to get it, it’s the same (bundle) release.
Like there are game bundles on PC game online shops.

2 Likes
14

For example, suppose an album is released in two versions: a “First Press Limited Edition” and a “Regular Edition.” Then, five different stores each offer a separate Bonus Disc with their respective versions.

In your view, this would result in a total of 12 releases: the two base versions (Limited Edition and Regular Edition) without bonuses, plus 10 variations from “2 release types” × “5 Bonus Disc types.” This seems overly complicated.

In contrast, by registering the Bonus Disc as a “Promotion,” the total number of releases becomes 2 ‘Official’ releases and 5 “Promotion” releases, totaling 7. This not only looks cleaner but also accurately reflects the artist’s design intent and helps when actually checking the collection.

15

I don’t mind having as many releases as there were different bundles.

I prefer 10 well defined real releases than 5 fake partial releases in 5 fake release groups, actually.

1 Like
16

That says to me that these are part of the original release. If they are only ever available as part of that release, then they are a different version of that release with these separate bonus CDs as disc 2. Pretty standard thing. The Artist Intent seems pretty clear. There intent is that you can only have these extra CDs if you buy the Release they come with. And if you want botn bonus CDs then you have to buy the Release twice.

It is also very common to have multiple barcodes appearing in one release.

And no, I don’t really see how these are “other”.

Yes, 12 versions. I don’t see what is wrong with that. Pretty common for a release to also be bundled with different items to help get extra sales. See also different coloured vinyl. As a collector I would want to know what other versions there are.

With the OPs example the only way I can get these bonus items is visiting three different online stores to make three different purchases of the original Release.

Catching up on the debate after being away for Xmas, but basically agree with @jesus2099

3 Likes
17

Thank you for taking the time to read the debate and answering ! Isn’t it just the perfect time of the year to restart an old controversy? :sweat_smile:

You’re right that it was the artist intent to provide different stores with different products, and this is also reflected in the different prices set for each bundle (which is not a metadata MB stores, but I find is relevant in this specific case). In stores that sold limited editions of the VAGRANCY release with an “Extra CD”, the “regular” version of the album was also available at the same time.

The customers chose to pay more for the bundle including the “Extra CD”. This is why I thought about classifying them as “Other” rather than “Promotional” in the case of a standalone RG (in conjunction with the “Supporting Release” relationship), because these CD’s don’t really fit the “Promotional release” definition: they are not give-away, and clearly have a monetary value.

Yes, they are only sold as a bundle, and the artist was the one who chose to publish her works this way, so I understand how it could be considered a single release, even if it encompasses multiple items. This isn’t ideal, though, because a MB release can only have a single barcode and featured front cover art, which will create some data loss and bury the “Extra” release.

Ok, so, maybe I’m about to start another controversy (I’m so sorry :smiling_face_with_tear: ), but I feel that these “Extra CD"‘s do not fit the definition of a “promotional” release, and do fit entirely the definition of an “official” release. … How would you feel about adding them inside the “main” release group, but as an “Official” release, rather than “Promotional”? It could let us fully record the “Extra CD”’s data while keeping the link with the “main” release intact, and prevent them from being hidden by default as “promotional” releases are. Are there reasons why it wouldn’t work?

18

Personally I feel that is wrong as you are trying to split bonus CDs from the Release that came from. What would stop other people splitting out bonus CDs of other releases?

An example of something I own: https://musicbrainz.org/release/30bcf6b0-7a11-48e4-aa27-8e65e7888ca0 This album was released with a copy of an earlier album included in a “limited edition”. This also led to multiple barcodes in the package. A slipcase held two different albums. A barcode on the outer slip case. A barcode on the book holding the new album. A barcode on the older album. Three different barcodes. All sold as a limited edition of the new album. This is not a compilation - it is the new album, with a bonus disc of the old album. Three different barcodes, but only the slipcase is relevant for sale. The sticker makes it clear that artist intent sold it as one.

Or another one: https://musicbrainz.org/release/ed0f9cdf-1815-4c0c-852c-801d582fe3e0 a limited edition of an album release that bundled a DVD into the package that was sold. A DVD only available in this limited edition. The slipcase has a barcode, and inside this slipcase are two items. A CD with a different barcode (the main album) and a bonus DVD without any barcode. A package only available in this form.

I could dig and find other cases where bonus CDs were added in with a release. To make a special package. Fans will often buy the same album multiple times just so they can get the alternate versions.

If your artist wanted us to treat these bonus CDs as separate releases then they would make them available to us as separate releases. Suggesting these are split out and documented as “promotional” seems to break reality as to how they were actually presented and sold. They were not supposed to be sold as separate items.

I know if I kept digging I could find some Releases with bonus CDs that then took those bonus CDs and released then as separate albums\EPs many years later. In those examples they made separate new releases of the bonus material - but this did not change how they were originally available. As a bonus CD as part of an original Release. As the artist intended. This is important for MusicBrainz to document. Document how we could originally get our hands on the music.

5 Likes
19

Thank you for your thorough answer and your examples!

I think I have a better understanding of how I should approach these “Extra CD” releases. It was particularly interesting to see how you used the annotation field to keep a record of all the “extra” data that could not be added in MB’s predetermined fields.

In the end, MB is a database, and while its rigid structure can feel limiting at times, it’s also what keeps it accurate and consistent. It’s also not the right space to promote lesser-known releases of an artist, and I’ll try to keep that in mind going forward.

Many thanks to everyone for taking the time to share your opinions and to guide me through this specific issue! :blush:

3 Likes
20

The annotation fields are really useful for those little extra facts and details that you want to share. In your examples I’d note the stores that the special editions were available at. It is a useful little space to share a bit of extra history.