Maybe this is a dumb question. Why can’t something have both an Instrumental and Karaoke relationship?
If we know something is labelled by an artist as “instrumental”, then give it that relationship.
If it is also used as a “karaoke” track, then also add that relationship as well.
I don’t know why it has to be one or the other? As this thread shows, some people are interested in Karaoke. Others of us just want to be able to find our instrumental versions within our collection.
Yeah but for me, a real instrumental version is not a new mix, trimmed down without lead vocals.
This is not an instrumental.
This is just a sub/de-mix: a karaoke.
OK, remove vocal tracks and there you got your lazy b-side (aka a karaoke recording).
An Instrumental, a real Instrumental (version), is a complete thing, with the melody of the work played by instruments, of course.
Think of Isn’t She Lovely (instrumental), played by saxophone, for example.
If there is no melody, choose a better word if you wish, but otherwise it’s called a karaoke. 
Not in my collection. If I have a CD like the new Cure album where a whole disk is marked as Instrumentals by the artist then they are instrumental version.
If it was a Karaoke CD then they would have written Karaoke on it.
I can’t exactly see that new album be put on at the local Karaoke bar. 
Consider that changing most instrumental tracks in the database to karaoke would be pulling the rug out from hundreds of equally long-tenured editors that aren’t as active in the JP space. I have never in my life added a single karaoke recording to MusicBrainz (though I could be forgetting rare instances).
Your line of argument in the edit note is very hard-line - either a Lady Gaga track with vocals removed is “karaoke”, or there is is no point in having the karaoke type at all. You would not be able to blame it on the style lead if this was put to a community vote and karaoke disappeared altogether. I would consider it a very safe bet that karaoke would not win out over narrowing the definition instrumental to only include recordings where the vocals are replaced by instrumentation (if I understand correctly).
Then put it to a vote. That’s pretty much what I requested from the Style Leader before your thoughts.
All stereo recordings are not labelled as stereo.
It’s not printed “Single” on the packaging, but singles are still singles.
They print instrumental (even in Japan) but it’s rarely so, it’s karaoke / BGM / backing tracks / no vocals
etc.
This Tomorrow (instrumental version) you’ve added is not an instrumental version, it is a karaoke, a BGM, a backing tracks version, etc., they’ve just removed the lead vocals from the mix.
In the west is the same, actually, there are many original karaoke on single b-sides, like Roses Are Red (radio instrumental) that you can check there it’s a karaoke / BGM / backing tracks / no vocals (we can pick a name you prefer or the most common worldwide, if it’s not karaoke; like EP was chosen instead of mini-album), but not instrumental.
Here is a true instrumental: Love Story (instrumental version) (even if there were background vocals humming, I would say instrumental)
But obviously, there are two point of views that won’t agree.
So I think it’s really better to remove karaoke relationships and manage with what we have (instrumental, partial, remix).
Because when karaoke was added, instrumental definition should have been changed.
I’m pretty sure in old forum and/or mailing list, the definition of instrumental where it says it plays the lead melody by instruments, was shared.
For this poll please assume that you have to pick one of these two choices (no middle ground) as defined by @yindesu:
Note: This limited poll should obviously not be considered binding, there may be other options, scenarios or discussions that the style lead wants to consider, if at all.
We have separate style guides for Japanese release capitalization, not sure why people are against have separate style guides for karaoke releases?
Speaking from the perspective of a musician and a heavy listener here: (expanding what I said in the MB community chat here)
I think “karaoke”/backing track vs instrumental is generally about the intention of the performer.
Like releases containing a collection of professional covers with no load vocals marketed as “karaoke CDs” are obviously backing tracks whereas I wouldn’t put that label on Recording “A Doll’s House (instrumental)” by The Living Tombstone - MusicBrainz or Recording “Writing's on the Wall (instrumental)” by Scandroid - MusicBrainz for example. The difference being that the first one is intended to be sung along to, whereas the second one is intended to be listened to as is. There are cases I’m more ambivalent about, and they’re not necessarily exclusive, but they are different and it’s definitely not clear cut. However, not all kareokes are instrumental and most instrumentals are not kareokes.
Recording “A Doll’s House (instrumental)” by The Living Tombstone - MusicBrainz
I think this one might not actually be a good example for your point - The Living Tombstone have done a bunch of stuff in video game music and vocaloid music in ways that are adjacent to Japanese media, and I’d bet that they’re familiar with and copied the practice of including a karaoke track like is common on Japanese singles.
I do agree that the main thing here probably is artist intent in the end, but that isn’t always something we can know, so having some guidelines to help distinguish them is a good thing.
Also, I’d argue that if the artist releases an “instrumental” track with a significant change to melody caused by not having the vocal track present, and it’s not intended as a karaoke track, that difference in composition might actually be worth counting it as a different work (in which case, the work would not have lyrics, so the “instrumental” flag on the work-recording relationship is not needed).
I refuse to take an absolute stance like the two options in the poll. As the person who originally proposed the karaoke relationship, I feel that it is useful, particularly for the case of Japanese media and likely also for media from other regions of the world. In particular, it helps distinguish such tracks from instrumental versions which do represent the entire composition of the work. Using the “partial” flag isn’t a good solution, since that is also use for e.g. a recording that does not contain the full length of the work, but does represent the entire composition for the length that is included.
I also recognize that there may be cases where an artist releases a track with vocals removed without the intent of it being used as a karaoke track (or equivalently, backing track for live performances or cover songs).
When an artist puts (instrumental) after a track then I think they intend the track to be known as an instrumental. Or maybe I’ve just gone totally crazy 
When an artist puts “(instrumental)” after a track, they’re saying that the track is different from another version because it contains only (or, at least, mostly) instruments. It doesn’t clearly provide a reason for why that’s the case. It’s very common for “instrumental”, “inst”, or similar to be used on original karaoke tracks in Japan, and that usage may be influencing artists outside of Japan as well.
I think instrumental B-sides were a thing in the West and Europe without the influence of Japan (late 70’s 45’s, at least), but perhaps someone can prove me wrong.
Personally I am still certain that 99% of the non JP world, including artists, will be very confused if you tell them that their instrumental tracks are actually karaoke tracks.
This is also where I am. I have a heap of instrumental versions in my personal collection. Not one is meant to be karaoke.
The poll is a little brutal - removal of Karaoke is possibly a bit over the top. But it should only be used where it is clearly the artist intent that the track is for Karaoke use. Not just because vocals are missing. Just like @aerozol’s comment above, plenty of artists release tracks because the are proud of the musical content and want you to hear it without the lead singer warbling on.
I don’t really need an instrumental attribute that does not require the recording to contain the full composition.
But I need a way to differentiate those two:
I don’t really care the name given to 1 and 2, but their purpose and fundamental difference should be clearly explained in their respective helps.
Currently, we surprisingly don’t have 1, and 2 is called karaoke.
@jesus2099 - You are still missing out on the understanding that many of us like our instrumental versions of music as they are. As the artist intended. 
I’ll give the new Cure album a close listen today. Pretty sure that instrumental CD is just that - the instrumental part of the music with Robert’s vocals removed.
This is certainly NOT a backing track. It has been released like that so you can here how good the music is on its own. Without focusing on the voice. It is putting the music in the front.
As to B-sides of singles. My age means I remember the 1980s/90s and UK singles would be padded with all kinds of extras. Extra mixes, instrumentals. Versions of the same music to allow multiple singles to be sold to boost sales. In the UK at that time these were as described on the cover - instrumental. Not backing track. I don’t think Karaoke had come to the UK at that time. We should not be changing tracks like this.
An instrumental version allows you to put the music up front and hear how good it is on its own.
I’m not missing it at all, I also enjoy them.
Be them on singles or on albums, does not make them different in nature.
Be they released in Japan or in France, does not make them different in nature.
Call them BGM, backing tracks, karaoke, vocal-less, whatever, but we would have to find a name.
I mean the name of the attribute, I’m not asking for a rename of the tracks, recordings, etc.
They already have a name. The one the artist gave them. 
This Cure album is pretty good without Bob singing all over the top of it…
And this here is the problem I can see in general.
As I have said a couple times already, the reason we separated karaoke from instrumental (which was also intended for stuff like hip hop beats without the vocals, so very much for the “backing track” idea in that sense) is that the reasoning for karaoke was “the lyrics are still relevant”. Having two attributes helps in this sense: if it’s marked “karaoke”, data users know to keep and use lyricist information, while if it’s marked “instrumental”, they know not to. The difference is a judgement call, but that’s not the first judgement call we have in MB.
In Japan (and probably in genres heavily influenced by its music) “lyrics are relevant” seems to be the default. Those seem cases where it’s sensible to use karaoke by default, unless clearly not the case.
In the west, I feel there’s two main branches of instrumental “backing tracks”. One is what IvanDobsky mentions, just “our music is so good it’s great without the vocals too” - which is also great for listening while working or whatnot where vocals might be too distracting. The other is coming from the hip hop / reggae / urban world, where beats are often published separately, and while sometimes the idea is for them to be used to be sung on top of, that is not to sing the same song but to make other songs with the same beat. For both of those cases, the original lyrics info seems entirely irrelevant. As such, “karaoke” seems like a bad choice for them. I’m sure there are a fair amount of legitimate karaoke tracks in the west too, whether marked as “karaoke” or not, but I don’t feel it’s as common and the default being “instrumental” seems sensible.
We could have “karaoke” renamed to “backing tracks” or something like that and have them all be the same, and have a separate attribute for instrumental versions where the instruments play the main melody. That’d be fine! It’s just that we would lose the “are the lyrics relevant” distinction which I have understood people cared about.
I see, the “lyrics are important” reason is a good one.
But with this discussion, we see that the usage of the same backing tracks version will be different for people A and people B, whatever their country* or tastes in music.
So this leads to problems in MB edits being too much subjective and people A will say Instrumental (1) while people B will say Backing tracks (2).
So it would be good IMO to remove that subjectivity, that artist intent, to go with only “OK, what is this recording in nature”, is it (1: with melody) or is it (2: without melody)?
* Even in Japan, those B sides are most of the time just listened to to enjoy the backing tracks, not for singing directly on them.
Because for karaoke they simply go to a karaoke parlour with all the hardware needed (or at home with JOYSOUND on Switch or whatever), not really using their CD singles.