Regarding YouTube-only live recordings and albums

MusicBrainz
, , , , , ,
1

Salutations.

So, I was wondering what are the guidelines on the legitimacy of YouTube-only releases and recordings. I’ve added multiple single songs only available on YouTube as standalone recordings, since it makes a lot of sense in that regard, but I’ve found myself confused about two situations:

1. Are albums released on YouTube valid additions?

For instance, the band Destroy from Argentina released their EP, Trece calaveras, on YouTube only. It wasn’t released on any other platforms, nor available for digital download, at least not officially.

Then, Zeqqi Besel released his first EP on YouTube in 2019, before it was released on Spotify and other streaming platforms in 2023. The result is that the release date on MBz shows up as 2023, even though the album was officially made available years earlier through Besel’s YouTube channel, but not available for download or streaming in any platforms specifically for this purpose.

2. Are live/rehearsal recordings uploaded to YouTube/Vimeo/etc. valid standalone recordings?

For instance, the band Demente Oxidental have a couple of recordings on YouTube; specifically, there’s a live recording of them, uploaded by a random person, plus a rehearsal recording uploaded by a band member. I’ve usually added studio recordings, or anything that’s at least recorded in a mildly professional manner, as standalone recordings as long as they were released by the band itself mostly, but there simply are bands that never had social media, mostly due to their existence predating said social media or its popularity.

Similarly, various bands also upload rehearsals to their YouTube channels, usually recorded with a lower quality. For solo artists, many (such as the aforementioned Zeqqi Besel) regularly upload videos of themselves playing covers by other bands, or their own songs, also in a rather impromptu manner. I am uncertain as to whether these releases would be valid or not.

I’ve tried searching the forums for topics that would answer these questions, but the few I found were quite old and only really confused me more than they answered my questions, as they also held differing opinions.

2

I’d say yes to both points, in fact I’d say for your first example for situation 2, it could be added as a bootleg (meaning unofficial) release, and your second example could be a demo release? (not too familiar with demos, but that sounds about right…)

I’ll usually add any (music) YouTube video as a release on MusicBrainz, as they’ve got a release date, cover art (the video thumbnail), and perhaps even a label, details that can’t be properly captured by a standalone recording by itself

3 Likes
3

I’ve generally added YouTube videos as standalone recordings myself, but in any case I certainly agree with 1) being legitimate releases.

2 Likes
4

For the live video by random person, I would create an event.
But maybe we don’t know the date.
This video IMO does not really deserve more than an event in MB, it’s not enough qualitative, this one. :wink: Except if video of this band is rare.

5

I have this same question: should fan-made live recordings published on YT by the fan be part of MB?

I come across these types of listens on LB, and it would be nice if these listens could be linked to recordings. For that we need the recordings in MB. If we don’t, then LB libraries will be a lot messier. But if we add every fan made YouTube published live recording then we perhaps make MB a little messier?

I’d like to add them for the purpose of LB linking, but I’m uncertain if I should…

6

I don’t see why not, as long as the status is set to “Bootleg” they will not clutter up artist pages by default.

2 Likes
7

I would add those as standalone recordings (which then do not require any status, bootleg or not!)

2 Likes
8

Thats what I do … For example

or