Requests for Votes Thread

Requesting votes for Edit #99168811 - MusicBrainz

From what I can tell based on the links mentioned in the edit, this album should only have 12 tracks instead of the current 13

Would love to get some more opinions on this edit (or the whole set).

Basically, it is a subunit album by only a subset of the members of the group, but was released under the name of the entire group (and consistently so across all streaming platforms). This could, of course, just be a promotional/marketing move. Meanwhile, the layout/design on the physical album isn’t obvious at all, and could be read in multiple ways.
The way it was submitted to KOMCA is unambiguous, again:

I actually contacted the agency for clarification, but haven’t received a response yet and likely won’t before these edits would go through.

EDIT (2023-04-30): I received a reply that basically confirms my perception. I added the full text of the email to the edit linked above.

Some more context on the group: it is planned to have 24 members (at the end of this year already), and will use rotational units for music releases. Thus, each new album will likely be released with a different set of members. It’s not impossible a certain unit will release multiple albums/singles, but so far, it seems like it’ll be a rare occasion (read more – this article also has this interesting quote: “AAA will continue to perform under the tripleS name so that’s why we are continuously releasing content”).
With how the project is promoted so far, with exactly one set of socials (Twitter, Instagram, and a very active YouTube channel), I, personally, think it makes sense to keep everything under one MusicBrainz artist entity.
Next week, the second subunit will debut, and the decision here would need to be applied to that group as well.

cc @wtfislibrious


I need some help on edit

In short, time ago a beginner changed main artist name with a secondary alias sourced from artist socials and now I’m trying to reverse that edit, but I found a user downvoting it and I’m not really able to understand their reasoning!


can i get some votes/thoughts on these?

edits to change artist credit to what’s printed on the coverart

1 Like


It seems this release Release “FLIP” by Lomepal - MusicBrainz is in fact the CD2 of the deluxe version

Problem are:

  • I cannot merge the two, could someone make the required edits directly? (Append media then deleting the duplicate one).
  • The tracklisting is wrong on target (was created based on the Digital version) After finding the TOC I can confirm the back cover is right based on timings. So all following edits need to be done before the merge

When done will be able to review the wrong recording merge that were done due to this tracklisting error

Thanks for your help.

Are any and all torrents now allowed?

1 Like

this specific torrent series has been being added for a while, it’s pretty long-running. if that makes a difference.

I just loose track as to what is and is not allowed to change guidelines. Look how the years in that series are set to the date in the title and not when the torrent was released.

Are you sure?




I was just asking the question as these are huge lists that seem more like series.

1 Like

Apparently from 2005-2007 these torrents were ‘officially created by SXSW’.

They handily supply the original torrent creation dates on the fan/kinda-bootleg site here: 2005-2015 Torrents - The (UNOFFICIAL) SXSW Torrents

Info like that should be in the Series annotation. Interesting to see real use of Torrents for something official and worth noting then.

(I hope this question did not come over wrong… I was just checking on these huge things appearing in the edit queues)


Like @IvanDobsky, for me it’s much more a playlist than a legit MB release.

And which versions of the recordings was used can be tricky, especially if you need to check thousand tracks for thousand artists you don’t know.

I mean to me it looks like huge workload for almost no or very little benefit for the MB artist discography.


Lots of stuff that you and IvanDobsky add is of no benefit to me (and vice versa), and I wouldn’t be able to pick recordings for it. But not liking the look (or length) of something is no reason to remove it from MB.

These are obviously useful to people because some of these releases are added repeatedly by different users after being removed - the back and forth of adding and removing isn’t great.

If there’s a guideline that says they’re not allowed that’s different. If these annoy some of you maybe it’s worth talking to @reosarevok about narrowing down what’s allowed as a release in MB, in the guidelines? MB is very broad in what it allows. Which I personally like, but I can see the arguments against these :+1:


Your response is confusing @aerozol. No one is criticizing the music style here. My question was a fairly innocent one - are torrents now as legit as Spotify as a source.

I understand @jesus2099’s point, and is some of the reason I asked the question. Lists like these being added with no links to works, acoustIDs or hints at which recordings they are end up getting kinda isolated.

I am not voting on this one - certainly not removing them. Just asking. If this was the wrong question to ask, then please just ignore me.


Very controversial edit over here. What do you guys think?

1 Like

Torrents have always been as legit as any other way of distributing a bootleg AFAIK - be it on a CD-R, a pro-pressed CD/cassette/vinyl, or a download file. The question is notability/how publically available or widespread it is.

Without a guideline saying that music ‘releases’ (collections of tracks) distributed by torrent aren’t legitimate, I have to assume they are just as legitimate as other bootlegs.

The validity discussion seems to come up when a torrent (and sometimes other bootlegs) has the word ‘playlist’ in the title, or there’s some other grey area where it overlaps with something that could be considered a collection or series in MB, like this one. Especially with large compilations that turn up in a lot of subscriptions.

If ‘we’ want to disallow these we should make a new thread and see if some guidelines can be laid down that tries to excludes these, without excluding anything everyone finds helpful - I lean towards wanting to allow them, so I’m obviously not going to make the thread :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


So a short answer is “Yes”.

Thank you for the confirmation. (no one is deleting anything… :smile:)


A Bootleg that is new recordings from concert, OK, or a pirate version of albums, well ok also, I think.

But here is like a home made compilation of random existing studio tracks.
It still sounds as playlist (series or collection?) to me.

I didn’t add my homemade compilations to MB. Even if I shared some of them with friends and family.

I made an online payable best playlist also, long time ago (with a tool called
My playlist content almost never changed (which is main problem of digital compilations), but I would not add it as a MusicBrainz release. I would feel like adding unnecessary noise.

I didn’t think in terms of difference in what I add to MB compared to… you or to that release adder?
I don’t know if there is a difference.
The only difference I could imagine maybe is that I mostly edit physical release, is that what you meant?

I was not trying to judge the style in any way, I didn’t really have a look at the content, yet.

I know understood it is about a festival setlist.
So rather than release, series or collection, it could have been just an MB event.

But far from me the idea of removing that release!

If nobody stops me, the following edit will be applied in 3 days. It is about the merging of a later instrumental arrangement with the original song: Edit #99692784 - MusicBrainz

(In fact, I will cancel the edit if I don’t get some approval)

1 Like