Hmm well if it’s not clear if they should even be separate then I wont make a ticket yet.
I’ve linked in some people who were asking about it so if they really want it they’ll pop up 
More discussion on IRC:
https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/libera/musicbrainz/msg/5003998/
2 Likes
According to Edit #118446983 - MusicBrainz we can’t have an “original karaoke” version in the west using the same standards that we would apply to Japanese music. That can’t possibly be what you have in mind, is it?
1 Like
Swapping something that is labelled as instrumental to karaoke seems wrong. Just because there are no words does not make something karaoke. The artist labelled it as an (instrumental).
The Cure have just released a new album, second CD in the deluxe pack is instrumentals. It is to allow the music to breathe and not there for people to sing over.
5 Likes
Then @reosarevok I think we have to call this karaoke relationship otherwise, because it has no use if we cannot use it, here:
Removing leading vocals from the mix is exactly the definition of the word Karaoke.
On the other hand, an instrumental version is when you have instruments playing the lead melody instead of the vocals with lyrics.
This is a very important part of the definition of instrumentals, I don’t know since when it disappeared (or never appeared) in Instrumental definition.
A real instrumental contains the melody, not only the backing tracks.
But karaoke are often mislabelled as instrumentals (even in Japan).
Calling it an instrumental is just a genre/style kind of decision.
Can we rename karaoke relationships (there are at least 2) to lead vocals removed (includes karaoke), for example?
2 Likes
I’m not sure where this comes from, but that’s not true of pretty much any instrumental version of a recording (by the same artist, released as “instrumental”) I can think of. It’s true of instrumental covers, maybe, but those are something else and have a separate place to be marked 
5 Likes
Then if the melody is not there, it should be a partial instrumental per current (wrong IMO) definitions, as it is lacking the melody, which is the lead part of a song.
But again, this is the definition of a karaoke.
An instrumental (not partial) contains the melody, played by instrument(s), not just chord progression and rhythm.
Otherwise, there’s no interest in this instrumental relationship, we have karaoke already.
The definition of a karaoke is that it’s meant for people to sing it, because that’s what karaoke is all about. It makes no sense to say something that was never intended for karaoke is a “karaoke version”. That is why we have a separate “karaoke” option - it is to say “we still care about the lyrics for this recording even though it’s instrumental because it’s meant for people to sing the lyrics”.
2 Likes
A relationship should just be about factual content meaning.
Not about how people use the recording:
- Some people use karaoke recordings to listen to them, without intention to sing
- Some people can sing over non-karaoke recordings
There is a recording with removed lead vocals:
- The lead vocals melody is replaced by instrument(s): Instrumental, or whatever new name
- The lead vocals melody is not replaced: karaoke, or whatever new name
Or we keep only one relationship and use partial checkbox for the karaoke, as before.
1 Like
If we made these about factual content only, then “instrumental” would be used for all the current karaoke relationships without backing vocals in the mix, and “karaoke” only for the ones that just remove the lead vocals rather than all vocals. I don’t think this is something any of the karaoke editors want though.
The fact remains the difference we’re trying to cater to right now is “are the lyrics relevant”. This is always going to be a bit of a grey area for stuff not labeled “karaoke” explicitly, but I can understand in the Japanese market for example something labeled “instrumental” is often meant for karaoke and the lyrics matter.
Outside Japan (and possibly other “karaoke-heavy” countries) this is not the case, and I think many bands who put out “instrumental” recordings would be either amused or annoyed if you called them “karaoke” recordings, depending on what they think of the concept of karaoke 
1 Like
The types of recordings they are (recordings labelled as instrumentals), are the same worldwide.
If things are so, we should just drop the karaoke relationships and just keep instrumental, as before.
And just use partial if lyrics or lead melody are missing from the work
And remix, when all tracks that remain in the mix are the same as the full recording.
But whether the lyrics are relevant to the recording or not is not the same, which is the entire point
I’d be happy to drop karaoke entirely and just use instrumental, but I suspect the people who have been taking care of karaoke music for decades would not love that!
1 Like
I’m one of them but, I was doing that with a definition of instrumental that really means something different, sound-wise, not just the usage of the recording.
Like you explain, the difference between instrumental and karaoke is just what the user intend to do. So for me it sounds as blurry as a genre, and I don’t edit genres.
If instrumental does not require that the melody is played by instruments, then I would gladly stop editing differently karaoke vs instrumental.
When we remove this or that track from the recording, then it’s just a kind of remix, and voilà, it’s more simple.
I am already editing without mini-albums and maxi-singles, so I can perfectly live without karaoke.
The problem with instrumental vs karaoke was already spotted some time ago by @derat:
From Edit #118446983 - MusicBrainz, the Style Leader is suggesting that what we’ve been doing for over a decade:
(In popular music), “Instrumental” tracks are a complete recording of the work (excluding lyrics), intended to be listened to as-is - the track is re-arranged such that all the significant parts of the work, including vocal melody, are played on instruments. A “karaoke” track is an incomplete recording of the work - the vocal melody is missing. Vocal harmonies and backing vocals may or may not be present.
only applies to Japanese popular music and not English popular music. It looks like the other 3 of us currently involved in this discussion would disagree.
1 Like
The purpose of karaoke in MusicBrainz is to preserve the lyrics language and lyricist credit, and the purpose of instrumental in MusicBrainz is to drop the lyrics language and delete the lyricist credit. So you definitely can’t do that at the Recording-Work level without causing a significant change in the functionality of MusicBrainz.
2 Likes
There’s also the fact that some karaoke version are not full instrumental either. They may contain chorus or side lyrics meant to accompany the singer. And those would definitly not fly as instrumental
For exemple the instrumental version of the “never gonna give you up” remix of Camelia is meant to be for karaoke (would link the recording but searching it is hard due to japanese script…)
3 Likes
given I would need to approve of such a guideline change before that happened, it’s fairly unlikely to happen outside what I’ve already mentioned about karaoke-heavy markets
You can’t just pull the decades-old rug out from under all of us. You are suggesting that at least 3 of us long-tenured editors are all mistaken with how to recognize the difference between a “karaoke” recording and an “instrumental” recording of a work, and that others who have accepted this guidance are mistaken in doing so. In the issue linked to be jesus2099, multiple people had liked this explanation of the difference prior to this issue coming up today:
It was never supposed to do with whether the popular music came from a “karaoke-heavy market” or not.
2 Likes
It’s possible that renaming the relationship might be a useful thing to do?
The Japanese term “karaoke” has unfortunately suffered from some changes in usage over time both in Japan and as it has been adopted into other languages, such that people now associate it either primarily or only with the recreational passtime with machines that display lyrics for amateur singers to sing along to.
But the original meaning, still used in Japan (derived from “empty orchestra”) referred to pre-recorded backing tracks used for professional live concerts - which might be the same reason that these mixes were created for many western artists.
A related concepts is Philippines “Minus-one” recordings, which were mostly there to make a cheap B-side for a single, but also encouraged people to sing along. And in some cases, the reason for publishing the instrumental/karaoke versions of the tracks is to invite people to publish cover songs by recording new vocal tracks.
(Keep in mind that for a lot of western music - and even significant amounts of japanese music - karaoke tracks intended for amateur sing-along are often re-recorded, or possibly even midi, covers in order to reduce required royalty payouts or storage space - in Japan, the original recording with muted vocals is specifically called out as a “original karaoke” recording to distinguish it. The recording-recording relationship is only for original karaoke tracks, a special case of remix; the recording-work relationship applies to any type of karaoke track.)
4 Likes
Indeed, when is the original artist, it’s most often a karaoke, a mix where they remove the lead vocal tracks.
Instrumentals are mostly covers and karaoke are mostly same artist different mixes.
Yes.