New digital release adds

MusicBrainz
22

I was talking about tigerman325 when I referred to years/decades of experience (yes, decades was an exaggeration). How you refer to them (messing things up, doing something insane), without inviting them to the discussion, is not ok.

I don’t know why you’re saying you disagree with what “I’m” doing, as I haven’t added any countries to your release. I looked at the evidence that tigerman325 has supplied on that evidence, and the counter evidence, and voted accordingly.

Honestly, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed yesterday and I should not have posted. I am sorry. But I stand by my posts - it was not okay to talk about tigerman325’s edits in that way behind their back (without linking here from the edit). Thinking that I would just assume something wasn’t available in NZ was annoying, but I should have let it slide.

By the way, if you got your release from an international store, add it as [worldwide] with that as the source. Nobody will stop you, I certainly wont. I add plenty of [worldwide] digital releases. But that Discogs release was based off a version with a barcode that nobody’s shown was released in NZ (note: I have no idea why. Usually I can find another release, different barcode, that has it here. This release is weird)

2 Likes
23

This was a misunderstanding, you have now clarified what you were referring to.

I can see your point here. I did not do as you state as I never mentioned a person’s name. I had no intent on calling anyone out, that is my belief, my opinion, and it is not directed at any specific user(s).

I think this was also a misunderstanding, and I thought I corrected after you stated. I did not assume this, I asked. Since that script identifies that three stores use a barcode in the same, there is an “assumption” that all that all do the same (as I see it). That is what I am questioning… do we know this or are we assuming this… we is better you use, as again I am not directing the script usage/style/results/etc at any one user.

I agree with the edits from that script as long as all the sources are those queried by the script, or are otherwise proven the same. I had an edit where a barcode was added to the release, and I asked the editor on this. The editor responded showing the other references fall in line. Perfect! That was what I questioned and now it is proven in the notes.

I am trying to make an effort to detail my edits further, by advice of others here. To do this, I need to understand in more detail the true workings of things. My questioning of all the items you list above is to gain that understanding. Pointing out issues, or potential issues, is how we learn and improve. I certainly did not realize the AcoustID could be different from a quality MP3 to a WAV. I am glad I questioned it. I would have expected a poor MP3 to have this difference, but was a bit surprised that a quality one did. This also changes how I think about edits. I no longer look at the AcoustID the same. I know now that the clean and explicit versions can very well have the same AcoustID, so I should not consider that in trying to differentiate.

All is good, I get it. I come off as aggressive a lot, and when it is misinterpreted, that is on me. I do want to add though, the last edit you commented on with the countries, note I did not vote no. I abstained and stated my point. I left it at that. I am not trying to interfere or block things based on a belief or opinion like this until a proper guideline is published to address it. Then a “violation” is clear vs opinion.

1 Like
24

My screenshots from the submission tools should provide some insight into why it’s generally accepted that they all would.

I don’t know why a label would have a license for countries based on storefront. But I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s impossible that they might do something strange. But I couldn’t find anywhere in this case that let’s me listen in NZ.

But if there’s examples of other storefronts differing (but having the same label and barcode), then that would be very interesting, and it should be taken into the equation.

If you feel your addition was hijacked then fair enough, that sucks. But we don’t really have ‘catch-all’ digital releases in the same way we don’t for CD’s. If you wanted to be safe I would use a storefront like Bandcamp as reference when you can, and link it. BC will be worldwide 99% of the time, and people will leave it. Mostly :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

25

I get what you say here. However, I try to add what it is that I have. If I have an iTunes release, I do my best to add an iTunes release, and when possible, even match up the sore ID and Album IDs. That is me being overly picky as it is not really needed. I do this because the iTunes stores as example sometimes differ in small details from store to store, and the only way to tell is the Apple IDs within…

Saying that, it is possible that the barcode might also do this. I do not know. None of the iTunes releases I have include a barcode, so I have nothing to base any sort of decision or opinion on.

Maybe this is something others can help with? I often use the Album ID within the iTunes file as my “barcode”, as it will tell me in perfect detail exactly where it came from. Each store (unless it changed) will have a different Album ID for its release. This is something MB does not currently keep track of.

This is something else that puzzles me with such releases. Using iTunes again, there is no mention of a label. All they disclose is the (p) holder and vendor with ISRC. When I say this, I refer to what is in the metadata of the files. Given that with a CD neither of these is proper for “label” selection, where is the label coming from?

This is one of my issues… I understand that you say same label+barcode, that is how MB is structured, but if I have these releases, I dont know either of those pieces of data. The only way to get it is to already know where it came from… in order to know where it came from. That is poor wording, but maybe you see what I mean?

EDIT: I wanted to add in case some are not aware. I use iTunes a lot for references. I greatly dislike Apple, how they operate, treat customers, etc. I use a lot of iTunes releases (or M4As made with qaac / CoreAudio (iTunes) due to the quality of the result compared to other lossy formats, primarily the MP3. The great majority of my digital library is M4A and FLAC… I even purge MP3 files when I can replace them with M4A even. Just wanted to be clear that I in no way personally support and stand by Apple.

26

Every iTunes, Spotify, etc, release has a barcode number. But it’s not displayed on the page, because I guess Apple assumes there’s no use for the end user. So why do they have it? Because it identifies releases - and their (c), royalties, and in what region those should apply.

As you’ve mentioned it would be kinda crazy to have a new release for every storefront. So it’s actually really convenient that labels are forced to use a submission middle-man to submit to all these stores, and do it all together, because they get one UPC when they do that step. Now we can check for that code on the website (via, for instance, A-Tisket, or simply ‘view page source’ in the browser) group these releases and not go absolutely insane trying to add a thousand releases with duplicate information - or adding one with no information or a jumble of information.

It’s even more useful if you are interested in music information that goes beyond the file you have on your hard drive - after all, some people are also interested in tracking label catalogues, digital rights, all that stuff. This way we can uncover, logically group, and provide information on what label has rights and who owns the (c)/(p) where.

In terms of practical use we’re really using the digital barcode the same as a barcode on a physical CD, which isn’t really there for the practical user but for store use - but sure can be handy for identifying an ‘item’. As an aside, if technology had given us cheap and effective ‘invisible’ barcodes I don’t think we would see ever them on physical releases either, which is what we’re seeing happen here.

Btw when I first starting adding digital stuff I also added them as [no barcode], and I also questioned on the forums why we were adding them if I couldn’t see them, believe it or not!! :shushing_face:

3 Likes
27

I never felt personally attacked. We all cool :-), Just doesn’t like the country lists. I get that. I will reiterate though that it’s not about where stores are located, even though that’s how a-tisket finds where a release is licensed. It’s really about that more than anything. Only using atisket is a first step, but I always follow up on my release adds with Jaxsta which shows the full distribution lists of where a release is licensed for sell. A lot of times it actually helps prove that a release is a full Worldwide release even when a-tisket excepts small island nations, etc. It’s not 100%, but definitely the best resource on the internet for finding what countries or regions a release is licensed.

3 Likes
28

I appreciate the understanding. It seems got a little carried away and the actual happenings started to get lost a bit.

I completely understand the back end portion of the barcode. Why it is not displayed to the user, I am not sure as well. Honestly, as a user (not thinking MB), I really do not care, I actually care more on the Album ID, which was mainly what I was thinking. I can see how the barcode might help others though, as even aside from that, adding more detail never hurts if it is proper. I am one who likes the “non MB label” labels, so I get your comment there. They provide good value to me.

My main question is that, looking at myself only, I have tons of iTunes files, and thus, tons of AlbumIDs and no barcodes. I would love it if I could utilize MB to decipher those AlbumIDs, since they do not always live long on Apple’s web site. What I wonder is if there is some correlation between the barcode and the AlbumID. I have no data to tally for this, so to get a solid sample would take a lot of effort (a lot of barcodes to lookup). If someone already has this in their data set, I wonder if some sort of useful relationship might be found there. I think it wold be great to be able to use MB to identify what digital release is in my hand, same as I can a CD.

In the thread I started on the barcode logic, my intent was to find out how the data is actually used. I recall someone making a comparison something to the like of same as a guest artist, or who played guitar. I see value in that. Case: I like drummer Joe. I cam look up all recordings Joe played drums on. If I apply that to the barcode though, what do I gain on digital? On a CD, I gain the ability to identify my CD.

I just try and place logic on things. What is it, why is it there, and what purpose does it serve. At the very start of my issues with digital, I got frustrated because when I looked up a CD, I could quickly identify which MB entry was in my hand. With digital, the parameters shown to me on the release screen are not even on my release, thus providing secondary value on a primary screen… if that makes sense. Not meaning there is no value, I guess more misplaced value?

1 Like
29

Here you go :-). Yes, all IDs have a corresponding UPC and DanielTB80 has been updating them for a couple of years now. So, nothing before 2020 that had been removed, but it’s been a great help if you know an ID and a release is no longer available. Great text file and has every Apple release!

2 Likes
30

I use the barcodes all the time. I use them to verify if a release on Spotify, Apple, Deezer, Tidal, 7digital, etc. are the same release or not. They also help in determining ISRCs on ISRCsearch or SCPP. While now not as needed with scripts getting them from the API it is still handy in identifying releases. They are given by the label and are used on many different services even independent ones or sometimes even Bandcamp and Soundcloud have the same barcodes, so they are not unique typically to a certain store, unless of course that store has an exclusive release of some sort.

31

Thanks. I will look at this. Unfortunately the older stuff is already gone (if I understand you correctly), but this is at least enough for me to see if my thoughts might hold true. Maybe (hopefully) it is also database driven. Otherwise I can make one and update it depending on how often the file is updated. Interesting…

I have done/been doing this in a different way, not using barcode… sending query to the iTunes API to locate the AlbumIDs. The main issue in my methods is when iTunes closes the store page for that ID… then the data is lost using my method. That is one of the reasons I treat a lot of metadata like gold on such releases.

As a side not on the topic, one thing I find interesting is that I can have a release with two different AlbumIDs, but the contents are identical, aside from the relevant metadata. I do a lot of digital recording matching based on the ISRC, and I find it interesting how you can essentially build releases vs buying the same recordings multiple times. Obviously I am aware that comp releases reuse previously released recordings, I just find it interesting that the ISRC allows the creation of them, with proper versions too, quickly.

EDIT: for active IDs, I wanted to note that the iTunes Artwork Finder works for this. It will take the ID as search criteria and provide the cover art for it. The possibilities here are intriguing.

1 Like
32

So… it seems that with that binary a conversion from ID to UPC is a click and literally a second away. This would be easy to have a web based UI pull directly from it. Has anyone done this yet, that you are aware of? Thinking through the most effective way to extract data as sometimes using the terminal is not convenient. There is no sense in playing with an end game that is already there.

33

Is the Apple albumID the last bit in an apple release page url? In that case I guess we do store them, but in the relationship field (like with Amazon IDs). Not sure if that’s the ID though

1 Like
34

Yes, as long as the store ID is correct, that is it. It is also called CollectionID and I think a few others depending on which naming convention for the data is used.

2 Likes