Hello, I must start by asking not to judge too harshly on my editing… decisions.
That said, I took a peek at adding more information to this release which ended up taking a lot longer due to not having that much experience with editing existing releases other than the ones I’ve submitted.
Anyway, if you take a look at this edit you will notice I believed the solution was to simply add a new release event with XW country and date for the Bandcamp release, however after looking for more sources to see if there was a correct release date I ended up finding that this release has six different dates, one from the original submission and four from the different streaming sites/allmusic page (left on my latest edit note, on amazon’s artist bios section it suggests September 2014), and I don’t really know what to do for the release country either since the original submission tagged it as Germany, I couldn’t validate whether it was accurate or not.
I looked for similar posts on this forum but i couldn’t find one so any guidance on the actual styling or corrections to be made is appreciated.
After a little more digging, I can only find info that is perhaps out of topic, since it would relate to the label, on Qobuz it is credited for Heavenly Records but on Bandcamp I believe no label is credited, but on the other streaming sites, it is attributed to the COMPLICATED GAME label… the earliest mention of this album on the artist’s socials is this facebook post which mentions the limited edition cassette for which there is this discogs entry (also released under another label), but that would simply be a different release.
No worries. Trying to make sense of the data on digital shops is challenging. 
I ain’t no expert in Digital Media, but will add a few things.
Different labels would mean different releases.
Most digital releases use the Release country as Distribution location and generally ends up being Worldwide.
Digital streaming site dates are a mess, so hard to advise there. If you see something the artist says it is more trustable. If in doubt, just leave no date. Looking at your example I’d likely just write in 2014 and maybe pop the other dates in the annotation and see if anyone else has a clue one day.
I hope you don’t mind, I have put in some edits for those releases 
I give reasons/links in the edit notes, if you want to see what and why.
Thank you, this is thorough and informative.
I was checking your edits and noticed you left Edit #149559024 - MusicBrainz intact on the Heavenly Recordings release, is that correct? It does say Complicated Game on that relationship so it made me a little confused.
On a similar vein, I went ahead and tried to follow on your footsteps to get the ISRC, but there is a UK one and a US one, however instead of putting both you selected the US one for the recordings. I would like to know why, does it have to do something with the date?
Thanks in advance.
Basically I did a quick pass, but I didn’t try to tidy/examine all the relationships.
Amazon gives me a headache so I didn’t look at it - following the ethos that edits should always improve MB, but don’t have to be perfect/cover everything! You may want to make further changes/move that relationship.
The Soundcloud link/release also gave me pause… but I have other things to do today 
Interesting… I just added the ISRC’s for the new release that I added, using the Harmony post-import release actions page, which is basically just muscle reflex at this point.
The same recording shouldn’t technically have two ISRC’s, but lazy distro-ing can make it happen.
If I’d thought there might be two sets, I would have added both (the ‘Link Harmony Release Actions’ userscript gives convenient access to the Harmony release actions page for existing releases).
The same recording can have different ISRCs and I consider that normal after working on ISRC Scout. What should never happen is that different recordings have the same ISRC. I don’t see any problem with it as who cares if recording is identified by 1 or another unique key. This should never happens within single ISRC database as they should have primary key in the database. I documented 1 case here out of several I encountered: . Spotify having same ISRC for 2 different recordings.
I can’t remember which at the moment, but I believe there is a Karajan recording of a Beethoven symphony with the same ISRC associated with each movement on Spotify, so four different recordings with the same ISRC.
That happens a lot. Mainly due to Various Artist compilations. It is very common for the single and album ISRCs to get swapped with each other. Publisher \ artist don’t really worry as the payments still go into the correct bank account. But errors like this make it hard for us to use ISRC as a unique identifier for a recording.
That is not the case I presented above - 2 songs are completely different
The barcode is from [PIAS], and if they are assigned sequentially, this is probably from 2025/2026.
Agreed that it is common/normal, but technically the distributor should be using existing ISRCs for re-uploads.
So it is down to laziness (or more likely alack of knowledge about ISRCs, which I can’t really blame someone for) on behalf of whoever is distributing when it happens. Agreed that it doesn’t cause issues for MusicBrainz afaik, but still… technically correct is the best kind of correct 
Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, it is correct to assign new ISRCs to remasters, whereas MB treats remasters as the same. So one MB recording could have multiple ISRCs even if everyone does things by the book.
That’s an excellent point!