Split "Withdrawn" into "Withdrawn" and "Expunged" [STYLE-2555]

MusicBrainz Style
, ,
1

After having the Withdrawn status for a while, it has become clear that there’s two reasonably different kinds of things people want to represent with it.

There’s releases (especially but not only digital) that the artist or label just took down, often to replace them with a new version with different cover art, a new artist name, an extra track / one less track, fixed mastering, etc.

There’s also releases (often entire release groups really) that the artist or label has grown to despise for whatever reason, does not consider part of their discography at all anymore and wants to expunge entirely from their release list.

The current Withdrawn status covers all of the second type of releases, and (depending on interpretation) some but not all of the first type. This has led to interesting issues, such as conflicting requests to show and not show Withdrawn releases as part of an artist’s official discography (which makes sense for the first type, but not for the second).

After some discussion in chat, I’m fairly convinced of the usefulness of just splitting Withdrawn into two. The easiest way to do this is probably (as suggested in STYLE-2555) to reword the current Withdrawn to be a bit more inclusive and cover the first type of releases entirely, and add a second Expunged type that covers the much more rare and much stronger second type of release. Expunged releases would need to be moved to the new type by hand but since they’re relatively rare, this probably would not be a huge problem.

The potential definitions:

Withdrawn
An official release that was actively withdrawn from circulation by the artist and/or their record company after being released, whether to replace it with a new version with some changes or to just retire it altogether (because of legal issues, for example). This does not include releases that have reached the end of their “natural” lifecycle, such as being sold out and out of print.

Expunged
A previously official release that was actively expunged from an artist or records company’s discography. This should be used only for cases where the release wasn’t just withdrawn, but the artist or label did not want to be associated with the release in any way anymore.

And the potential style page explanations and examples:

Withdrawn
Withdrawn is to be used for official releases that were actively withdrawn from circulation, be it because the artist or label replaced it with an updated version (with new cover art, a different artist name, a fixed tracklist, etc.) or because it had to be retired (often because of legal issues). Do not use this for releases that were not actively withdrawn, such as an album that was sold out, a store exclusive which stopped being available after the store closed, or a timed release which stopped being sold after the originally intended selling time ran out. Similarly, don’t use this for digital releases which were removed from a specific platform but are still available on others; in that case, just set an end date or “Ended” on the appropriate URL relationship.

Use the initial release date, before they were withdrawn, for these releases. For any updated versions, use the date of the update, if known, or leave the date blank.

Examples:

  • The original pressing of 逆転裁判＋逆転裁判２ オリジナル・サウンドトラック was recalled due to a mastering error.
  • U2 by Negativland was withdrawn due to a trademark infringement lawsuit.
  • Sony BMG recalled all CDs with the ‘XCP’ copyright protection software, after pressure from consumer advocacy groups.
  • After an artist name change, rapper Anike (formerly Wande) re-released her album Exit under the new name with new cover art.

Expunged
Expunged is to be used for previously official releases that were expunged from an artist or records company’s discography. This is not for releases that just were withdrawn from circulation (for that, use Withdrawn). It should only be used for releases where there is known artist (or label) intent to disown the release and no longer consider it part of their discography.

Use the initial release date, before they were expunged, for these releases.

Examples:

  • An attempt was made to cancel Play Date (100 gecs remix), but it was available briefly in at least one time zone before being removed.
  • MORE EXPUNGED EXAMPLES GO HERE, PLEASE HELP PROVIDE SOME

Any reasons why this seems like a terrible idea? Any small adjustments that seem needed? Any good examples of expunged releases?

8 Likes
3

At first reading I didn’t understand yet.
But I already didn’t understand Cancelled vs Withdrawn, either. :sweat:
I will come back and read it again, and Cancelled, in some time. :sweat_smile:

4

Cancelled: it was never released.
Expunged: it was released, then taken down, and the artist/label hates it and doesn’t consider it part of the discography anymore.
Withdrawn: it was released, then taken down, but without such hard feelings.

6 Likes
5

It seems to me that it would be very hard to judge from the outside which of Withdrawn or Expunged applies, given that the end result of actively deleting things from platforms and just letting e.g. distribution contracts expire is the same.

4 Likes
6

Actively deleting from a platform would still be withdrawn generally, but I would not even use that if you’re not sure if it was active or not (if you just let a contract expire, that’s no different from a release being out of print to me). In general, these seem like something that should only be used if certain; if not, just leave Official as you usually would (and set ended on the purchase/stream links).

Expunged should be a lot more clear, since it requires a lot more obvious artist/label intent where they’d either not list it in an otherwise full discography or (ideally and) publicly denounce it.

2 Likes
7

I talked about this on a previous thread, but Relapse Records pulled all of Tau Cross’ music off streaming services after the band’s frontman submitted a “special thanks” thank-you to a Holocaust denier for the liner notes of what would have been their third album with the label. Their first two albums, therefore, might be considered Expunged since the label wanted nothing to do with the band after that incident, going so far as to scrub their social media of any mention of the band. However, at least one of the albums has been reissued on the band’s own label, so I’m not sure if they count.

2 Likes
8

That sounds like the old releases would be expunged, but not the new one :slight_smile:

1 Like
9

I think the lack of “Expunged” examples reinforces the idea that people are going to have a hard time with this status.

Spotify doesn’t delete anything by the way - if an artist/label “takes down” a release, the Spotify page remains up with the following differences:

  1. The play buttons are disable / text is greyed out.
  2. The API shows that the available markets is an empty array (instead of an array with at least one market in it… usually ~190 markets).

I would suggest that an “expunged” flag on the release group might make more sense. Because even if an artist/label doesn’t want to be associated with a release group anymore, but they failed to recall/withdraw it, that possibly shouldn’t retroactively make an officially-sold release no longer Official (“Most releases will fit into this category.”).

4 Likes
10

As an aside, there are ways to remove the metadata too: (via)

https://open.spotify.com/album/2woHv2ctRwzvcLobtaF1GD
https://open.spotify.com/album/0WKzKOTryDzWzArh3XF5JA
2 Likes
11

I think I mentioned this in a previous thread, but I think I’ve got a great example for expunged releases in Vylet Pony.

starting about a year ago, she started retconning/removing releases from publicly available streaming services. this could be for any of the reasons below (screenshot from an update video with more info). while many are available to download for free in “a small, rancid corner” of their website (not even linked to there, only from the update video), since they’re not publicly available on their usual music platforms (Bandcamp, YouTube, and SoundCloud), I believe these should fall under the definition of withdrawn (reason #1) or expunged (reasons #2-#4)

1000223760
10002237601774×1080 114 KB

if we need more example releases, I’ll try and find one or two on that list

edit: another similar example is SOUND BANDIT. her case is different tho, as she regularly unlists* videos on her YouTube page, but she maintain a public playlist of all her music, including many unlisted videos. I believe all of these should probably fall under withdrawn

*this hides them from their YouTube channel, but they’re still watchable with a link or in a playlist

1 Like
12

To help clarify a little: The current Withdrawn status was created to address quite specific cases - releases that were never quite public, or accidental, or “illegal” (whatever that means to you), or a label or a artist has tried to expunge them from their discography.

Now we have the situation that the vast majority of editors, including experienced editors/staff/auto editors, have been using it for any releases literally “withdrawn” from digital platforms. Rather than fight the tide I think this shows that the “Withdrawn” status is actually more widely useful to editors than the initial intent, and it’s more practical to edit the guidelines to match the usage. A special case indeed.

That would leave us with the more extreme cases to differentiate, however. Particularly if we want to do things like hide releases that aren’t “canonically” part of a discography, or deadnamed, etc:

For the above ticket we would have to differentiate between “no longer available” (what editors are using “withdrawn” for), and the more extreme expunged/recalled (what withdrawn was initially meant to represent).

One thing that I think is confusing here @reosarevok is your mixing of the original withdrawn examples with the ‘new’ withdrawn description. The community (and you) had already agreed and discussed that those examples fit the “expunged” description. The examples for the re-drafted “withdrawn” status should be simpler, e.g.

  • A release that has been removed from all platforms
  • A digital release that has been updated with new cover art
  • Artist name change

All the others should stay with expunged.

PS. There is also a nice “let’s find examples” thread for the original definition, here: What is "Withdrawn": a discussion thread + examples

3 Likes
13

i would be in favor of this change. my only comment is i think it should be made very clear what to do in ‘grey-areas’ or situations where it’s unknown why it was taken out of circulation. the answer is probably “use ‘withdrawn’ if youre not sure and ‘official’ if you’re even less sure” but it’d be nice to make it really clear, haha.

this business casual practice (MB) of leaving something listed but calling it “discontinued” always comes to mind.

5 Likes
14

I agreed these fit in the existing one-size-fits-all option, but except the 100 gecs one, none of these seem to really fit a strict reading of “not considered part of the discography”. That’s why I moved them.

The “No longer available” reasons and “recalled for a technical defect / a bad copy protection mechanism” are basically the same thing. It makes no sense to have any of those mixed with the real “expunged” level, since the only clear limit between the two would seem to be “should this be in the discography at all” (and for those, the answer is AFAICT fairly clearly yes).

Unless you can be sure it was actively taken down, use official, if you can be sure but have no more info, use withdrawn.

15

That would be nice :slight_smile:

16

here’s two. no reasons specifically given from what I can tell, but it’s probably one of the latter three above, as these aren’t otherwise available (i.e. on an album or whatnot)

I expected I might have to add a release, didn’t expect I already had at least two, lol

17

The examples given are not all clearly yes - whether the band themselves wanted to completely remove it from the discography, or were forced to completely remove it from the discography for legal reasons, does not fully change the end result: those releases would not be findable in an official discography or storefront, and it would be illegal to buy and sell them afaik. The band or label might not even be allowed to mention them. I agree that we don’t want to just parrot some legal department, but I think the initial “withdrawn” ticket reached consensus (including from you :stuck_out_tongue:) on these situation being included because the community considered them a “big deal”.

That said, upon self reflection, I don’t want to be too attached to the old definition. All the recalled ‘XCP’ CD’s, for instance, does seem like they are certainly still canonical releases. I think simplifying it to “should it be in included in the official discography” is an excellent way to look at it. Comparatively, in the U2 example the release was not just withdrawn, it was deleted from the label catalogue (deleted = destroyed, under supervision, afaik).

I made some edits, see what you think. I also simplified some language/did some shortening. As always, take or leave as you please, Lord Style :slight_smile:

Also - thanks for picking this up!!

And the potential style page explanations and examples:

1 Like
18

This one is a fun example in that someone mentioned it was still listed on the band’s discography page, but the label clearly disowned it. So the RG should ideally still be on the artist page - but given I guess they didn’t re-release it, that’s on them maybe :sweat_smile:

2 Likes
19

We are thinking along the same lines re. the band always being able to reissue something “expunged” by the label, if they intend to keep it in their discography.

There is an example in particular that I am thinking of, that I won’t link here, where a NZ label put out a tape of an artist who very shortly after had a large number of abuse accusations come to light. They only shipped a few of the tapes, but they requested it be removed from MusicBrainz (not possible of course)/not associated with them.

In that case I think the release put out by the label should be “expunged”, but the digital version that is still on the artists Bandcamp keeps the “official” status - and the release group will still show in that artists default discography view. If the artist “expunged” their digital copy as well, or never issued it outside of the label, then I think it’s correct that the whole RG should be hidden.

P.S. This scenario is also why I don’t agree with “expunged” being a release group status. Just like promotional, cancelled and bootleg, it does not necessarily apply to every version of a release, especially if a release was “expunged” on the basis of album art rather than the recordings themselves.

6 Likes
20

Thanks everyone! I made the change, with the wording suggested by @aerozol. Feel free to change any “Withdrawn” releases that are more specifically “Expunged” to the new status! :slight_smile:

5 Likes