What do you think about this? First of all, I don’t know if music videos are even releases. Is every YouTube video that contains music a release? Should they all be added to MB? I don’t think so. Secondly, Broadcast does not seem appropriate at all. In the guidelines, Broadcast secondary type is described as:
An episodic release that was originally broadcast via radio, television, or the Internet, including podcasts.
Music videos aren’t broadcast, they’re streaming videos stored on a server that can be watched anytime. What should I do about these releases? Thinking about removing them.
I’ve been adding YouTube videos as a release, as a standalone recording doesn’t capture the video’s release date. however, I typically add them as singles, but I have also seen them added as “other” releases.
I also think a distinct release for music videos is appropriate, because it is in a way an (official) musical release usually coinciding with an album release.
But, reading this topic, I do understand that my previous practice of adding them as broadcast release groups wasn’t correct. It, however, isn’t really a single either. Right now, other seems to be the most appropriate, if there are no plans to add another release group type for such releases.
Alternatively, it could of course be added to the album/single release group where the song was originally published in, but this doesn’t always apply.
I think singles make the most sense since it can be grouped with other non-video releases of the same track. I don’t like the idea of adding music videos or even lyric videos as a release under the RG of an album, I’ve seen it frequently lately and I find it inappropriate, it’s not a version of the album, it’s just a music video for one song. When artists release DVDs containing all music videos from an album, they don’t get added under the RG of the album, they get their own release group, so should a single music video.
However, and that’s just a personal thing, I don’t like the idea of having so many RGs for singles, especially for K-pop artists. Look at ROSÉ’s page. She only has one single album, which is -R-, but here in MB, she has 5 singles, wih 2 being music videos and the other 2 YouTube covers. At some point, it’s going to get messy. Maybe Other is the best choice?
If the video release is just being added in order to store the release date, note that it could be saved as the “stream video for free” relationship’s begin date instead.
Yeah, I agree, I don’t think it’s necessary to add those, but I won’t go out of my way to delete them. However, there are real music video releases, they even have their own barcodes.
I put in a ticket a while back to add “video” as a secondary release group type, as you can have video singles, video albums, and video broadcasts. I feel that makes the most sense, at least in the long term.
I do think music videos should likely have their own release groups, seperate from the audio single for the same song(s), both for the above ticket and partly because some other databases like RYM split them out already. that said, I haven’t been actively splitting release groups yet, since we don’t have a type or a relationship to connect them yet™
I don’t really like this being the solution. there’s (currently) no way to use that to tag a date in Picard, and it doesn’t do anything with the recording’s first release date. since this video has a release attached, it has a first release date in the sidebar, whereas this video doesn’t have any release information on the sidebar
that said, I do quite enjoy adding start dates to URL relationships… I just don’t think that should be the solution
linking a couple related threads, because I just remembered similar previous discussions:
I wouldn’t add them myself, and broadcast isn’t correct imo, but hopefully nobody is going to remove these without there being a strong consensus or a call by the style lead/@reosarevok
This is something I’ve been deliberating about. That video has its own barcode on Mora and you can buy it, just like any audio single there. Apple Music and Tidal presumably have barcodes for their music videos too. It was also possible to buy music videos from 7digital, years ago. So I’d consider these valid releases, but I’ve been wary of opening a big can of worms by adding them to MB. Since that’s already happening anyway, I’d add them to the same release group as the single. I also like @UltimateRiff 's separate single + video release group idea, like how we have a separate single + remix group.
I don’t think that’s a good idea, technically the recording for a music video and the recording of the song on the album are different - one is a video recording, one isn’t.
I think having distinct recordings is the right approach here, and I usually remove or vote against (YouTube) music video streaming links on song recordings when I see them.
I love this suggestion, this would be the best solution in my view. Hopefully, the current discussion can get some progress on this ticket.
For now, I changed a few “Broadcast” music video RGs to “Other” already, until there is a final decision on this matter.
It depends… back in the day, we’d watch music videos on TOTP etc which was broadcast…on terrestrial TV.
Another Brick in the Wall and Bohemian Rhapsody are examples…. yes they are now on streaming media and dvd and blueray…doesn’t take away from the fact that there were first broadcast… its’s just like The Beatles on LPs, then cassettes, CDs etc… probably need a release group structure to handle all the variants
Not really. Those videos were released as part of the promotion of the single. They were released before being broadcast. This is the same as the Singles for these were released to the shops but you heard them broadcast on the radio.
The broadcast is just about getting it to the public. TOTP, etc needed something visual, so would get a video version to play.
The point of the Broadcast type in MB is to specifically categorise shows that were made directly for broadcast - Audio Dramas, speeches, podcasts.
Don’t take the dictionary meaning of “broadcast” too literally here. Otherwise every album, every single would need to go into “broadcast” type 'cos that how we used to hear them. Words in MB get a very defined meaning and use.
Are you saying for all music videos, or just ones that are actually unique? Cause if you mean for all, wouldn’t that render the existing option to add a video streaming link completely useless? I thought that was what the option was for, I was mistaken? Seems like it is a helpful option for ListenBrainz player especially so it can know the proper videos to pull instead of (I think?) searching and grabbing the first result?
I have a few links to remove if I was wrong… sorry!
The documentation for recording-URL relationships states that it “is used to link a track to a site where the track can be legally streamed for free, such as Spotify for audio tracks or YouTube for videos” and the video attribute “indicates that the streamable content is not audio but video”.
I’d personally interpret this as the recording being a video itself. This especially makes sense if you use the recording-recording relationship has music video. Then, there’s one recording entity for the album/single recording, and one video recording for the music video, and those two are linked.
However, recordings also have a video attribute that can be set, further complicating this matter. With my interpretation, these two video attributes would always have to be in sync.
The only exception I can personally see is if you link an auto-generated YouTube Music “video” that simply shows the cover art. It’s a recording-URL with the video attribute set (because you stream a video), applied to a non-video recording (published for YouTube Music in the same way it is for, e.g., Spotify).
Lastly, the recording docs depict that a recording is a specific mix of a recorded audio. Technically, the mixing for a digital release and a music video are usually (but not always, see MVs with special effects, breaks, etc.) the same. That would warrant a single recording again. I don’t really support that argument because the delivery is vastly different with a video, but I wanted to include it anyway for this discussion.
this is kinda how I’ve been entering stuff whenever I add YouTube links for audio recordings
that said, (at least for still-image videos posted by artists) I haven’t quite figured out where to draw the line, as I’ve seen everything from still images, subtly animated video, bar-type visualizers, and many more video types on the not-traditional music video side of videos in the DB…
I’ll second what @Maxr1998 said above, as you can have multiple videos for the same track, there’s video credits that can be attached to the recordings (though currently not many), and, in my opinion, a music video is a very different experience than an audio-only track, so should be treated differently.
actually, the example linked in the previous paragraph is an example of a still-image YouTube video which I treated as an audio track with cover art. not sure if that’s the right way to handle it, but it felt right to me when I added it…
I understand that. I was not arguing that Music Videos should be of type Broadcast. I was pointing out that some music videos were broadcasted (verb) to viewers and that not all music videos are streamed.
Why not have a release for the video for a single in the single’s release group and have it as another media type - video. Some singles such as Ah-Ha’s Take on Me had music videos that were strongly linked in peoples’ minds to the music. why split them? The various vinyl and CD mediums are all together in one release group. Why split out the video(s)? All the existing functionality of release date, country etc would work.
