Release or Not Release?


#1

Part 1 of this question is this… are these releases to be considered releases… and all those like them:

  1. Porcelain Black - 313
  2. Iggy Azalea - Digital Distortion

These are just two recent examples of this type of release. These are considered valid by their respective artists, but there is no official release of any sort that I can find. Meaning an iTunes purchase page, a Best Buy store to buy a digital or physical copy from, Amazon store page, etc. I would assume these both would qualify as a release, but which type if my assumption is true?

I have some other releases, that were/are for sure bootleg releases, that currently there is almost no trace or sign of anymore. Mostly are wiped from existence as far as a regular internet user is concerned. Meaning that the takedown requests have all been applied and search engines will not provide any links to locate these releases anymore either. No download or even information about what the release was is easy to find. Some of these are in MB and some are not. Those that are not, I believe the answer is more clear, they are not releases since they fail availability and general information. Would all here agree on this? Now for those that are in MB, I know some of those I have added, and at the time, they did pass those criteria. But now, they do not. So for those, should they be removed, or left to stay?

This last portion came to be as I was trying to fill in missing release data on artist releases and came across one of those and thought, I have that, I Will fill it in. I quickly saw that the only source of data I had available to me is my own personal data.


#3

Quick Googling of those releases didn’t suffice to explain what the question is… Could you summarize for folks (like myself) who’ve never heard of those artists before?

On the second question, though, I’m pretty sure if it ever existed, we keep it. The only requirements for inclusion are that (a) there is reason to believe it actually exists/existed; (b) someone can find enough info about it to make a minimal catalog entry; (c) someone felt it worth the time to enter in to the catalog. We’re very inclusionist.

Found a newsgroup discussion from thirty years ago about an undeground release being traded on cassette tape? Seems perfectly find to me to enter that release, if you can dig up enough information to do it. Which isn’t much—you don’t even need a track list.


#4

Sure, no problem. I should have done that in the first place.

Porcelain Black - 313
She (the artist) states via online social media: “My album is divided into two parts. One part is More Rap-Pop. Those songs I will be releasing today. The other half is dark-more industrial”. This is stated 9:58 AM - May 18, 2017. This ‘part 1’ consists of 4 recordings, ‘Cadillac’, ‘Quit Lyin’, ‘Player Hater’ and ‘Too Much of Not Enough’, which can all be found on YouTube. It is my understanding that these recordings are released under Porcelain Black Records, and not any of the labels she is associated with. Now, first off, I question the poster named “PORCELAIN BLACK” on YouTube as one of the 4 recordings was removed due to copyright claim (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwOn1m_68r8), which seems a bit odd if she is posting them. But given who the claim is from, it might appear that a portion of someone else’s recording was used in some way and that band requested the removal. Hmmm.

There is a solid referencing of the date and the 4 recordings, but it leaves me with the issue… where exactly is/was this released? And how? Also, this is “one part” of 313. So, is it a 2 release release, or is this a partial release of a whole release? It is my understanding that this is part 1 of a 2 part release, that will be / is considered one release, just released in 2 sections. But given that this is a new release, I find the problem of proof of existance. Meaning per MB standards, I have no Amazon, iTunes, Discogs, Spotify, etc reference for this at all, references being available worse than most bootleg releases.

NOTE: The issues with this release stem from issues with her record label. This is why this was self-released.

Iggy Azalea - Digital Distortion
Working off of the same issues as above, Iggy’s record label and she had many issues with this release, and the end result (as it stands now) is that her record label has scrapped this release. There is a “leaked copy” of this available. She (the artist) has been fairly vocal on this, indicating her label will not be releasing any more singles for the release and noting the issues surrounding the release in general. It is rumor that the “leak” is at least in part from her own doing to get the release out due to the 4 years since a last release, and trying to keep a solid career in place. We know that no releases for 4+ years can be career damaging, but these statements are rumor only, that she has responsibility in the leak.

So what is this release? We know it exists, and it is out there. The record label is not releasing it, at least at this time, but it appears it is going to remain a dead release. As with the above, there is no “official” release location, like Amazon for iTunes for legit official releases, or a download or stream site for a bootleg release like DatPiff for example. But we know for fact that the release is real and for the most part, the recordings listed are all confirmed recorded and some already released as singles.

I hope that clarifies things. Please accept my apology, it was not correct in not explaining ande assuming all this to be known. The second portion is answered, if it is there, it should stay. If it is not there, it can be added only if there is adequate support.


#5

I think this is correct.
Though the “adequate support” required for entry into MB database is “good enough evidence for the existence of the release”.
“Official release” or “commercially available” is not required for a release to be entered into MB.


#6

The second one seems easier — that’s a bootleg release. I don’t think rumors the artist is OK are enough to count a release as sanctioned by the artist (though of course if at some point evidence emerges, the release status can be changed). Some of this should probably be explained in the release annotation. If the issues with the label are resolved and a later official release is made, that’d be a 2nd release in the same release group.

The first one: I’d enter the tracks that were released as a release here, and leave off the ones that have never been available. AFAIK, a release is when you make music available—music that’s never been heard by anyone but the artist and her label(s) (and no doubt lawyers…) doesn’t strike me as released. Posted on YouTube definitely counts as released. I’m not sure if that’s bootleg or not, the obvious thing to do here is just leave the status blank. We don’t know. (Or at least I don’t from your summary, but maybe you do.)

Once/if the rest is released, I’m not sure if it’d be best to edit the existing release to add the additional tracks, or add a new release (in the same release group) with all the tracks. Probably the later.


#7

If you were looking for it, then other people will be as well, and I don’t see the harm in making a release or release group with the notes in it. Even if the tracks aren’t publicly available.
We are a database as well as a tagging resource after all, and data can be very useful even if it simply represents a meaningful lack of data.
Marking it as unofficial will hide it from the artists ‘regular’ discography.

That’s my opinion and not an interpretation of any guidelines by the way :innocent: