I’m copying this from another thread, since I really think the wording “intent” needs to be completely removed from the guideline, as it implies that there are unintentional changes (two distributor generated barcodes, for example) that wouldn’t be a new release because there isnt’t “clear intent” behind it. The wording “intent” is not used for physical releases, and it shouldn’t be used here either.
I don’t like the wording of the guideline. I think it should probably be more explicit. “Intent” is vague and not useful for a basic guideline on how to separate digital releases. A distributor assigned barcode changing into another distributor assigned barcode is probably not intentional by the artist/label at all! We do not talk about “intent” with physical releases, we talk about differences. The way it’s worded makes it sound like the actual interpretation of a different release by the artist/label overrides these, which it shouldn’t do.
The bolded parts here should be changed:
Digital media releases (download/streaming releases) should always be entered as a separate release from their physical counterparts. If a digital media release already exists, only add further digital media releases to MusicBrainz when there was clear intent by the artist or label to create multiple releases . This requirement can be satisfied by the following:
To something like this instead:
Digital media releases (download/streaming releases) should always be entered as a separate release from their physical counterparts. If a digital media release already exists, only add further digital media releases to MusicBrainz when some aspects of the release differ from other releases in the database . This requirement is satisfied by any of the following:
Not to be rude, but as an editor I really don’t like the implication by reosarevok here.
Adding the amount of releases I’ve added to the database is a lot of work. I do not want to contact an artist every time I see a release missing a barcode on Bandcamp but it has one on digital retailers. I’ve added hundreds of releases like that. I don’t want to send a hundred emails and wait for responses. I want to add the thing correctly as quick as possible and be done with it without having to worry about the response. What if the artist is deceased or just doesn’t answer the emails? This should not be necessary at all for such a common thing. Again, no offense, but this response is exactly why I think we should remove the word intent from the digital release guidelines, as we do with physical releases. A CD that has a mistake that is fixed in another printing is a separate release. We do not have to ask the artist if it’s an intentional separation, if they consider the fixed printing a separate release from the one with a typo. The guidelines tell us that any differences in artwork IS a separate release. It should be the same here. It saves everyone time, editors and artists/labels who don’t have to answer emails about this.
Edit: I don’t think I have to point this out, but I will still since I don’t want my post to be misunderstood. I’m not against contacting artists for database related things. There are legitimate cases where contacting the artist might be a good idea, due to inconsistencies in information or similar issues, but absolutely not for something as basic and abstract as what the definition of a separate release to a database they probably have no experience with adding information to should be. They would just be confounded by the question, and rightfully so, because it’s something that should be handled internally, just like physical releases are.
1 Like