On the recording edit section, there’s a checkbox for Video after the length. Again, on the external link, if we put a YouTube link, there’s another checkbox for the video attribute there. Seems like both does the same work, right?
Doesn’t the URL relationship make it automatically a video?
Since I saw music videos are stored as separate recordings even if they are using the same track; does that means theoretically every music video should have a duplicate recording?
To my understanding, this thing is made for DVD mediums which used to include music videos as part of releases. So, wouldn’t it be better to have a track property of “video” instead of making a recording? It’d definitely be less hectic.
I take your point about having to mark video in both places. I can’t think of a case where a recording should be marked “video” whilst the YT link is not (or vice versa).
But, external links to YT “videos” and Apple Music tracks can be audio or video. A YouTube video is considered audio if it just has a still image; especially if it was auto-generated by a music distributor, like The Orchard.
It’s not just for that. Video tracks can be found on releases (physical or digital) that are video-only or a combination of audio and video. Some music videos are standalone recordings. In all these cases, you can relate the music video to a work. Videos as recordings are a good thing.
I wouldn’t say “duplicate” since the length and other things can be different, but yes: every music video should be represented as a recording distinct from the audio-only recording. Even when the audio track is the same, the video recording can have relationships that don’t apply to the audio recording (like “shot in” and “shot at”). You can then relate the video to the audio recording with a “music videos” relationship.
On the recording edit section, there’s a checkbox for Video after the length. Again, on the external link, if we put a YouTube link, there’s another checkbox for the video attribute there. Seems like both does the same work, right?
Not exactly, to my understanding of having put in an absurd number of MVs. The video check after the link adds the little video image to the beginning of the song title, indicating that it’s a video recording, not just an audio track (be it from the release, radio edits, etc) allowing MB users to sort and filter video-only recordings, e.g.:
As @Anesidora pointed out, MVs should be entered as a separate recording so that additional information (such as where it was shot, who the director was, etc) can be properly recorded without adding all of that information to the audio track, which should have just the basic information of writers/composers, along with the recording information usually found in album notes of session musicians, background vocals, engineers, etc. Also since each video has a (usually) unique “album cover” (ie, thumbnail) it’s more than worth it to arrange the music videos/broadcasts separately from the audio tracks. Example:
vs.
And in addition, there are some songs that have only been broadcasted, but not officially released (much to every fan’s dismay) for example:
which has no album or official studio recording, or is even registered on KOMCA (and I’ve looked.) but is obviously still a music recording. The video indication on that is rather helpful so no one goes looking for an album that doesn’t exist (yet).
In cases like this, the youtube music upload should probably be added as a streaming service link to the audio recording using the “music.youtube.com” domain (this example) instead of “www.youtube.com” - and without the video option checked. The music video is a separate recording with the video option checked, and should have a video link to the main youtube domain.
And there’s also plenty of cases where the artist will put a song up on YouTube as a “video” with a still image without it even being probably intended for YouTube Music, but just as a way to put their music everywhere, in my experience.