New digital release adds

The whole style of digital releases is not my intent here, as it is still debated widely and many have many opinions.

My point here is that I just added a digital release,

I added this with a Discogs reference, using worldwide as it states, and later added an iTunes release. As MB does not differentiate between a FLAC and a M4A release, I do not really see an issue with that.

My question is did this add violate any recent accepted practice? If others want to hack it up, that is fine, I just want to ensure that I am not adding improperly.


This release looks fine. For future reference, if you want to do this more you might check out a tool like a-tisket to automate this almost completely.


I have been referred to that tool, and others, a few times now. I mean no disrespect, but it is going to take me some time in order to use such things. Any tool that does a lot, and especially those that make actual changes in larger amounts, I have extreme hesitation with.

I will look for this specifically myself as well, but can this tool submit multiple ISRC’s for a release? That is one of the most time consuming parts of my edits, needing to go into each recording and add this detail.

a-tisket does link to another tool that can submit ISRCs as part of the workflow, the tool being:

I haven’t used the tool independently from a-tisket, but it looks like you can if you choose. it seems to only submit from Spotify though…

edit to actually comment on the release:

I will note that some digital releases do have catalog numbers, it’s just that most stores don’t display and/or store that information (an example from Japanese site OTOTOY). I usually leave that field blank, or sometimes [none] if it’s self-released (like a lot of Bandcamp releases)

I also see someone has added the long countries list of release events. you don’t have to do this, but it will be added by default if you use a-tisket.

1 Like

This is correct, but there is MagicISRC if you prefer to do it manually and/or have another source of ISRCs.


Absolutely. Even bootlegs and DJ digital releases do.

If someone wants to mess it up like that, they can. I want nothing to do with that mess, as it is not really correct. It has nothing to do with the release event. At that rate, each and every online store will need its own release, which makes no sense at all, especially when we do not even differentiate between release quality.

Yeah, so I had a look at the edits you mention. This is the exact reason I have lost most all interest in digital media here. That is insane and makes the release store dependent, which can also change at any time. If we are placing so much attention on the store, we should include store aspects, like store ID and such. I do not understand it at all.

As I mentioned, I am ok with doing the add, others can make a mess of it. When I add what I add, I see use to it. After such edits, I have no interest anymore.

EDIT: It would also be my opinion that if you place an itemized list of countries, then you should provide a reference for each of those countries. So if you want to list 100 countries (release events), then you should have 100 references showing the release event in each of those countries. Otherwise, the data becomes overly cumbersome with no relevance. It is simply bulk data populated from APIs that users of the product never see and cannot use. If you tell me that said release is available in India, then show me so I can obtain it.


After seeing the mess this tool created on the release I added, I have no interest in it. The ISRC tools, those I do as it might speed up the adding of useful data. If others want what that creates, that is ok. But what it creates takes a release I like and can use and makes it something that I cannot use, as it no longer represents my release.

This release with that barcode isn’t available to me in NZ - presumably there is a reason for this.

Maybe we will get a release through a different label? I’m sure you can understand that for that one it would be useful to set it to NZ. If you follow that thread of thought it then makes sense for this one to show that it isn’t in NZ.

Does the display for it suck, yes :stuck_out_tongue:


Do you actually know this, or do you assume this? Just because one (or more stores) do not provide it, does that mean that no store will? Or that it might change?

for what it’s worth, you can use it to add [Worldwide] releases. under the list of countries on a-tisket, you can “Set the release event to only US” (or whatever country you set as preferred country), and then change it to Worldwide on the MusicBrainz page. I do it all the time~

but it is your decision, and I respect that~


That’s quite insulting, but yes, when the distributor/label put this release, with that barcode, on the internet they specifically excluded the list of countries listed (now) in the annotation.

I did not mean it that way at all. I am sorry you took it in that way. What I am meaning is that the exclusions you list are specific to the stated stores. Do we actually know that other stores do not use the same barcode and have it available in NZ? I know we can prove that a store uses a specific barcode, but can we prove that no other store does?

On physical releases, there are times where a barcode is used on multiple release events. I make the assumption that digital could be the same. I make that assumption because I have no fact to say it is not true, so I must account for the idea that it might be true. I look at such things very scientifically. In that, there is assumption and there is fact. Both are appropriate and can be applied differently. By no means is either meant to be insulting.

1 Like

I’ve never come across licensing that is store-specific. A-tisket check’s the big three - yes there are others out there, but I haven’t come across it before (edit: you know what, surely I have. But that would be in a pretty immense sample size).

Bandcamp for instance would be [worldwide], and I would add a new release for that, compared to these. But it will also probably not have the same barcode, or the label involvement (though it can of course vary), or different (c)/(p).

By the way, this is how submission works for everyone who uploads to these big storefronts (click to enlarge)

Pick regions:

Pick stores:

You don’t individually pick a region per storefront. Everyone has to use a middleman similar to this to submit to the big stores btw, you can’t submit to Spotify directly. And each submission costs $.

Hopefully this sheds some light on why it would be extremely strange to skip Japan and NZ just for fun or whatever?

If you’re new to this, and need these things explained, then don’t assume and assert that editors who have been working diligently and closely with digital releases for years, if not decades, are ‘messing things up’. Assume that you’re the one with a lot to learn.


I specifically asked if you were assuming or if you knew in order not to make any assumptions. “Do you actually know this, or do you assume this?” seems to clearly ask if this is a factual statement or an assumption. Fact was even before assumption, there is no assertion in that statement.

If you want to say I am new to digital releases, that is your opinion. I never put myself in front of or behind anyone else. Even if I know 90% of something, that means there are others that know something I do not. I only question what does not seem to make sense in the interest of clarity. I personally do not see how it is fact that just because a list of vendors that use a barcode do not include a few countries to mean that all vendors do the same. That is simply not how logic works. If there is some sort of proof, it is not presented. What is presented is one way logic, thus the question.

And this puts an end to the topic. You are using examples from selected stores and stating that all stores are the same. This is not something I will participate in. If you restrict the release to only those three vendors, then sure. But that does not appear to be what was done. Licensing is often different between vendors, so there seems to be confusion here.

If looking at things using pure logic is not acceptable here, ok. This is supposed to be factual work. Ability to prove everything entered. To me, that means that if you make a statement in edit that proves something for three vendors/stores, that release is specific to those three vendors/stores.

You are free to find exceptions, and then vote accordingly.

This region list kind of looks to me like we should have that in the MB country list. If that is the typical structuring of the earth in music stores, mirroring this in MB would help reduce the country list issue.


Coincidentally, I added these two digital releases right now.

I don’t understand how it would be helpful to mark both of these digital versions as [worldwide].

(though, to repeat, the UI/display needs work)


After thinking I do want to respond to this. Please enlighten us all on how all this works. As you have claimed 20+ years experience on digital releases, you were clearly one of the very first to even do a digital release.

The fact that you feel insulted on a question asking if fact or assumption, then your reply only proves that you are assuming, is strange to me. Your solution s seems to be… let’s make some assumptions to create mass edits, knowing it is not 100% correct. In order to solve this, other editors can monitor all your work, and vote no when you are wrong.

As far as who needs to learn, you might want to first understand that anyone who has “decades” of experience in something that is just decades old sounds like the words of the roommate of Al Gore, you know, when he was creating the internet. This is 2022. That makes the overall digital release world approx 22 years old… and the very first ever digital release was in 1997.

What I suggest you learn is how logic works. Just because you can prove that three sources do things in a certain way does not mean that all do, and it does not mean that all users follow the same protocols. That is not how logic works. As I mentioned, if you want to use the logic of three vendors, then make the release specific to those three vendors. Do not apply logic that is not there to other sources, unless you can also prove that to be true, which you have not and do not do. You are the one asserting your assumptions on others while sitting denial that you are doing this. Simply looking at the MB database shows us that the industry does not always follow the rules we assume they should. This is why we validate our edits, at least we are supposed to.

While I get that editors, as you are doing, want to make mass edits and do less work, that defeats the quality levels. You are making edits that you use generalizations to provide reference, which is not a valid reference. Do I think you are “messing things up”? ABSOLUTELY. You are creating edits based on assumptions and forcing it on other users. Not all agree with what you are doing either. Maybe think before you run your mouth with assertions while accusing others of doing just that, when no such thing was done. Otherwise, just keep to yourself if you believe your opinions cannot be questioned. As an editor, if you are asked to prove your edit, that is on you to do.

I was talking about you passive-aggressively attacking @tigerman325 who gives his time and hard work, just like everybody else, to make the database better.

That attitude is unacceptable - if you are new to entering digital releases into this long-standing database don’t come in here and start waving your hands about how it’s all wrong and existing editors are doing “insane” things.

This is a community database and if you think the way we do recordings, ISRC, DiscID, AcoustID and digital releases (so far…) is extremely stupid and broken and wrong then this database might not be for you. Or stay and restrain yourself from insulting the community of volunteers.

BTW if you can prove that this release is available worldwide, be my guest. Barcode 00602445714490. I work from evidence - the edits you have issue with provides it. You are free to counter it.with yours.

1 Like

I feel you are the one that attacked me. There is a difference between disagreeing with an edit and directing it to a person. I have nothing against tigerman325. I do have something against you attacking me directly stating I have stuff to learn. You do not know me, I do not know you. Once you told me my statement was taken my you as insulting, I made sure to state that was not at all the intent, I was asking a question. Your response directly attacked me.

I have been asking questions a lot, trying to understand. In that, I see not all agree with the process of adding a huge list of countries, yet it is just forced on all by those that do it. I feel that it is the job of the editor to prove their edit. However, you state it is the job of others to disprove it. This is backwards to me. If you state a certain barcode is something, you should prove that it is. As I mentioned, if you take that release and make it for that specific three stores, all good there. You can then add any others that you can prove match the same criteria.

You are the one that claimed 20+ years of experience (ie “decades” means 2 or more by definition). The whole start where you found my question insulting, at least as I see where the insults started. I see nothing wrong with the question, as both answers could be acceptable. All that was needed is to say… yes I am assuming, but it is based on this and that. That is all I was asking, but I needed to derive it from your later statements.

Sorry again you took it offensive. As I stated, it was not intended in that way, and I made that very clear. Yes, I disagree with the editing that was done, due to the above. I do not disagree with tigerman325 for making edits. Anyone could have made the edit, it would have made the point no different.

I find your insult unacceptable. I am not giving you basic instructions on things, as that is also insulting. I have clearly asked how to do things in MB style, and I question what does not make sense. “is extremely stupid and broken and wrong”, those are your words. No need to make something an issue that is not there. Questioning and debating does not mean what you state. All I have stated I do my best to provide logic and reasoning, a use case, etc to explain why I am questioning. The AcoustID, it was shown that my point was in fact correct. Is that not good info? It was told to me that the AcoustID did not care about the encoder, turns out it does. This is known now because I questioned it. I did not say it was stupid, I gave an example that challenged. Did you read that thread?