I believe it is, but want to double-check with others. I am talking here about “stream for free” links. My main reasoning is that ISRC is distribution independent.
Note that I think that even if number of tracks differ, it makes sense to add such links as release level relationship (rather than recording level) as long as tracks that are on streaming platform sound the same as those on vinyl/cd. The same goes for releases on different streaming platforms that differ only in barcode (that can obfuscate on first look which platform is source of barcode though)
one should add a separate digital release instead of adding the streaming links to the vinyl/CD releases, and separate digital releases based on barcode. you’re always free to add the streaming links to the individual recordings though, provided they are definitely the same.
@teethfairy is right. Create a new release for every medium type and barcode. You can add multiple streaming links to the same digital release if they all have the same barcode, cover art etc.
No digital shop links should appear on Vinyl or CD Releases.
When you add the Digital Release it usually shares the Recordings of the CD/Vinyl version. So when you add your Digital “Stream for not quite free” links to the Recording then you’ll find that same link will usually pop-up on the Recordings on Vinyl and CD pages too.
Digital Releases need to be separate as usually have separate barcodes, and sometimes will swap in alternate tracks.
ISRCs are on the Recordings, and this is where a commonality lies between physical and digital mediums. It can also sometimes let you spot when a digital release difference from a physical one.
No, that’s a textbook example of a relationship that only pertains to one release, the digital one. I remove these on sight and a lot of editors do it too. I’m surprised the GUI doesn’t warn you if you try and add download/streaming relationships to a physical release or purchase for mailorder for a digital release.
There may also be the situation where a record label’s website has a discography page that lists the release, but also provides a link to download. I would add this link to a physical release, but only with the “discography entry” relationship type.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to introduce new link type rather than splitting related info on multiple releases? Distribution type differences are irrelevant to final product. For example one of the:
Supportive streaming location
Additional streaming location
Streaming variant
Related streaming location
So original links used during import can stay as they are now, and any new links (missing barcodes, bandcamp, subtle data variations etc.) can be added to related links category.
That’s clearly not true - for a lot of people, the CD or vinyl they collect is the relevant final product, for example.
The recordings, where a lot of the specific details about the music live (like performers, recording location and date, etc) are in any case already shared. The things that are not shared and only stored on one of multiple releases are specifically the ones that apply to that one release rather than all of them.
IDK how experienced you are with javascript but if you really want to see streaming/download links on physical releases, you or somebody else can make a userscript to display them
document.querySelect the release group link
use the API to get other releases in this release group
for every digital release, use the API to get the streaming/download links
@RandomMushroom128 thx for the idea, I can do that. But then it looks like better idea to just seed on individual recordings as MB already can display that on release page. It also has a benefit of reuse.
@reosarevok, I understand now. My mistake was that I focused on audio segment. Thx or explanation.
I would add a new digital media edition with Harmony if it doesn’t exist, which will automatically populate links to most digital distribution systems and takes minimal effort. It will also document the release existing in case it gets removed or changed in the future.
But it often populates wrong release date, because of the source data showing only original album release date instead of digital release date.
And also, if you know how to do it, please don’t add that copyright annotation and add proper relationships instead, recording-label (p) year and release-label (c) year.
It bugs me to always fix that, each time I come across an imported digital release (delete release date if too old, and move annotation to relationships).
Shouldn’t that be release-label too? I thought ℗ can apply to any fixed form of music, including a recorded track (i.e., before mixing), a mixed recording (what MB has), and a mastered release. So without knowing which the ℗ applies to, adding it to recordings instead of releases seems wrong.
Edit to add: Like if the release says “℗ 2025 Some Label, original recordings ℗ 1985 Other Label” for a 2025 release of audio that was recorded in 1985, then I think using 2025 on the release and 1985 on the recordings makes sense. But if it just says “℗ 2025 Some Label” without more info, then that seems like a release relationship to me.
Of course one needs to do additional research for the date. I assumed that the annotation was wanted. Why would they make Harmony to add this otherwise? It was purpose built for MB even though it has other uses too. The copyright date is an indication of when the album came out if the date is not available elsewhere (original edition not in the database). I add the date in clear text if the annotation doesn’t already contain it.
Purely because the API can’t get at the correct relationship while adding a new release. The release has to exist before the copyright can be added. So it is left to the user to do that edit themselves.
The Release Relationship is the correct place for copyright details. Then it can cross reference the data like everything else in this relational database.
I get more frustrated by those bogus release dates and many editors don’t check, or don’t realise that Digital Shops didn’t really exists before 2006… Or no release date will ever be on 1st Jan.