[STYLE-2035/2433] [polls closed] for video releases…should we split release groups?

related to these tickets

I’d like to propose (and get some input on) a couple tickets related to music video releases. I think we should have a new secondary release group type (similar to Live, Compilation, Soundtrack, etc.) for video and split them into their own release groups.

the benefits I can see would be:

  • more visibility for music videos in the database
    currently, there’s no guidelines for video releases, but common practices I’ve seen thrown around are to enter videos as standalone recordings, as releases grouped under the audio single, and the use of the “Other” primary release group type. the first two options are pretty terrible in my opinion, as it makes music videos (and other video releases) harder to find, as they’re either hidden under the Recordings tab or stashed in with audio releases. using “Other” does pull these releases to the overview page, but I don’t feel that that’s a good place for these, along with other miscellaneous releases (karaoke and instrumental releases, official documentaries, etc.). creating releases for music videos also allows us to store data that can’t be stored on a standalone recording, such as release dates and cover art
    if we give videos a more prominent (and categorized) spot, I feel that will help to show editors that music videos are welcome in MusicBrainz
    • examples: Nanashi Mumei (and other hololive talents; currently mostly using the Other type)
  • we can add specific URL relationships to these release groups
    there isn’t any clear guidance on how to link external music video databases to videos (save for on the recording level? maybe?), databases such as IMVDB, Rate Your Music, IMDB, and others, as well as reviews, fan pages (wikis), and standalone websites specifically for music videos.
    (also note, this would also involve changing how we handle IMDB URLs on release groups, as currently the only relationship type is for relating soundtrack releases to the movie they’re from)
    • examples: Take On Me (music video, 1985 version)
  • it would potentially clear up some confusions from data consumers
    I think especially having video releases mixed with audio releases might muddy the data on how music has been released (this could also apply to video as standalone recordings). a particular example might help…
    say Jellyfin wants to add support for getting MusicBrainz metadata for music videos. currently, since there’s no consensus on how to enter music videos in the database, they’d have to handle three different cases:
    • music videos as standalone recordings. as such they wouldn’t be able to get cover art or release dates for these videos
    • music videos as releases under the audio release group. while easier than the above, it still involves sorting out video releases from audio releases to get a release date for the video (which could be different from the single’s original release date)
    • music videos as releases with the “Other” primary type. this could involve filtering out any non-video release groups, and likely wouldn’t be 100% accurate all the time, due to some Other releases also including video, but not music videos (such as the official documentaries The Rise and Fall of Five Iron Frenzy or the DVD release of The Beatles Anthology, not yet in MusicBrainz)

potential issues with splitting these releases out (and possible solutions for them) (also, to those tagged, let me know if I’ve misrepresented your argument, as that’s not my intention)

  • the inclusion of products outside the scope of MusicBrainz (i.e. VideoBrainz) (raised by @yindesu here)
    this would likely be easy enough to prevent (or at least write guidelines around) in my opinion. the example given is a soundtrack release which was bundled with the movie as a bonus. in cases like these, I’d propose that the type of the primary disc (in this case, the movie) should be disregarded, and it should only have the types “Album + Soundtrack” (and any other applicable types)
  • a (concert) album released as both video and audio, sometimes both individually and together (raised by @IvanDobsky and @outsidecontext here)
    I believe this can be solved quite nicely by the second ticket, creating a release group relationship between video and audio versions of the same basic material. both release groups would have the “Album + Live” release group types, and the video version would also have the “Video” secondary type. as for how to split these, I think we should go by the primary medium (disc 1), or possibly form factor? for example, when DVDs come bundled with a CD in a jewel case instead of a typical DVD keep case
    I think this can even be extended to video releases where not all tracks got a music video, like relating Bad Hair Day: The Videos to Bad Hair Day

if you can think of other issues, feel free to raise them in this thread~

finally (hopefully having read my case above), a poll to gauge the community’s opinion. answer any that apply to your view on how these should work

(these polls should close at midnight on January 1st, UTC, and I might add another poll in the next day or two, depending on feedback)

should music videos be entered as releases?
  • yes
  • no
  • other (reply below)
0 voters
should video releases be split into their own release group, or added to the audio release group?
  • seperate release groups for video
  • combined release group for video and audio
  • other (reply below)
0 voters
if not in a seperate “Video” release group, how would you propose videos be entered? (or rather, which current solution do you prefer?)
  • just a standalone recording
  • a release under the same release group as equivalent audio releases
  • in a seperate release group categorized as “Other”
  • other (reply below)
0 voters

(I’m one of the other votes, most recently I’ve been leaving the type blank in most cases)

longer term, how should videos be displayed?
  • a seperate section, along with all other releases (similar to current behavior of secondary types)
  • a seperate tab, apart from other releases, i.e. a seperate Discography and Videography
  • no preference
  • other (reply below)
0 voters

polls below added December 21, including options from here.

outside of concert video releases (as mentioned below), should video releases be split into their own release group, or added to the audio release group?
  • seperate release groups for video
  • combined release group for video and audio
  • other (reply below)
0 voters
when adding these concert releases, how should they be entered? (multiple choices accepted)
  • apply the video type only to release groups that exclusively consist of video releases
  • apply the video type if the primary focus is the video release, but accept that there can be audio-only releases inside the same release group
  • split the video-only and audio-only releases into two seperate release groups, then have a third release group which is a compilation of the other two
  • other (reply below)
0 voters

I realize now in the edit that I should have made some polls multiple choice, but oh well… lol

thank you for reading~


i don’t have a ton of clear opinions on this. just wanted to say thank you Mr. Riff for all your hard work! i see you making polls like this from time to time and it’s very interesting and helpful to see the results!

1 Like

I’ve lightened up a little on my stance with music videos in the database since the last time I commented on it here, and generally ignore them when browsing, but I still would love separation in the form of a videography tab. I’d probably feel some motivation to add them myself if they had a clear spot in MusicBrainz. Implementation-wise, I’m not sure whether it should mirror current release group/release entities, but starting there wouldn’t be worse than what we have now. I could also imagine different release types specific to video-based releases being a good feature, so a videography tab would be split into music videos, live performances/concerts, interviews/documentaries/behind-the-scenes, etc.

Somewhat related, but since you used Nanashi Mumei as an example, the release groups/releases/recordings/events that are for some of her karaoke-based streams currently really feel like data that’s been shoehorned to fit the current schema, and the redundancy is a clear indicator that something could be done better IMO. If new entities could be created for videography entries, I think designing something that accommodates those kinds of streaming events would be leagues better than the current state they’re in.

Also, since video recordings can already be related to standard music recordings, I question how redundant relationships on the release or release group level would be for any music video entities, whether they’re a new entity type or just a release with a new secondary type selected.

I don’t think we can have a consistent rule over how we enter music videos on the release/release group level. The answers to those questions should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If there is a separate UPC for standalone music videos (for example, on Apple Music), then to me it points to having a separate release with only one recording/track that represents the music video.

It goes back to artist intent: the presence of a UPC or cover art for the music video that is different from the UPC of the audio single shows intent that the artist wished to release the music video as a separate release. If not, we should not force the music video recording into a (pseudo-)release or (pseudo-)release group just to increase visibility of music videos in general.

URLs can be added to the music video recordings, not a music video release. We already add video-related relationships to recordings, such as linking the music video director with the video itself.

I have no preference on whether the video release should be linked to the same or different release group as releases containing only the audio-only recording. But I don’t see the need to create a new release group type in any case, since it’s a single if there’s only one music video published and it’s an album if there are many music videos published in one batch. Currently, the database structure indicates whether a recording is a video or not, not whether a release is of a video or not. We don’t mark DVDs and Blu-rays with a special release-group secondary type either


I expect we would, if we had a Video type :slight_smile:


For me the problem with setting this on the RG level is that there are many cases where there are both video and audio releases with all kinds of variations. So there might be a live show that gets video recorded, and it is marketed as such and several releases are made. There might be a DVD and/or Bluray release, a set containing the DVD plus the audio only on CD, the audio only as CD and Vinyl, a box set with all of the above etc. All these releases get released on the same day, are marketed together as different variations of the same thing, share cover design etc.

Does this now get the “video” type on RG group level?

One such example is

1 Like

which is why I proposed this as a secondary type, that way you can have ‘Single + Video’, ‘Single + Live + Video’ (or ‘Album + Live + Video’ for concert albums), and ‘Other + Interview + Video’, respectively

yeah, I added those because I wanted to document those live events, and that seemed to be the best way to add them, mirroring TV broadcasts of live events (maybe? idk, I read it somewhere). if we find a better home for livestreamed content, I’d be 100% down with it~

I don’t know that the presence (or absence) of a UPC can reasonably be a cause to not add a release, since many releases don’t have UPCs (see most Bandcamp releases, possibly all YouTube releases, many SoundCloud releases, etc.). in fact, I’ve previously split Bandcamp releases from a streaming release (Spoofy and co.) because the Bandcamp release has no UPC, even though there’s a field for it. (that said, often there’s more than that, like track artwork, bonus tracks, etc.)

this is the one area where there might not be a clear solution. my thought is this could be split into two release groups with the “Video version of” relationship between them. I don’t know if that’s a good solution, but it might be a solution


I would happily welcome improvements. I have a large collection of music videos and hardly any of them are on MB yet. The main reason is that these have so far been hidden as stand-alone recordings. A “Videography” tab on the artist page would be really great.
And I would also like to see the video releases/recordings in the directors’ videography tabs, although I realize that this breaks the usual logic of release/recording artists on MB.



I have some ripped.

No, I don’t think that would be a good solution. It would add a separation into something that belongs together. And there are then still releases that sit in between, as they would be both.

I think we could in this case only do one of:

  1. Apply the video type only to RGs that exclusively exist of video releases. This might be difficult to achieve, not always is everything about a RG known
  2. Apply the video flag, if the primary focus is the video release, but accept that there can be audio-only releases inside the same RG

I’m in favor of 2. But it will need to be discussed for many edge cases.

This applies only if the audio releases are currently already the same release group. There can be also separate RGs for the recording of the same concert.


Usually I have tried to add all my concert videos to MB (but I still have some that I didn’t have time to add).
I have usually used no primary type or Other for the video release group.

I would say yes.
When there are both concert video and audio, for me, the video is the main part of the release, even if the audio part has some bonus tracks, compared the video part.


If there is also the audio only release (without video), it could be that we would have 3 release groups, with one (video+audio) being the compilation of the two others… :thinking:


I think either of these options could work, since adding video to a concert release seems similar enough, in my opinion… that said, I still think that for items like music videos, they should still have a seperate release group from the single

on the other side, I don’t think special edition releases of a previous album should be split into a seperate release group. some examples from my library:


sorry for the double-post, but I added a couple polls to the original post about handling concert releases~

also, thinking about it, I’m not sure if the three-RG solution is actually desirable… that feels like a bit too much splitting even for me, Mr. Release Group Splitter :wink:

edit: another reason for this secondary type has to do with ListenBrainz and the new artist pages over there. I feel like seperating videos there would make the most sense, instead of mixing everything into one stream, and a secondary type would make this work easy. I made a ticket for this already: [LB-1408] show videos seperate from other releases on artist pages - MetaBrainz JIRA

1 Like

Krautrock Nacht

I find this question too vague to answer. I agree on Blu-rays, DVDs, VHS, anything that’s sold as a physical product or even sold as a download.

I voted no because there’s no real guidelines proposed for handling single videos uploaded to Youtube or other platforms as release entities (generally lacks any identifying information other than date and maybe label) since we’re unsure what qualifies as a different release and in some cases don’t have genuine cover art (thumbnail automatically chosen from a video frame). For physical media, this isn’t an issue, but I can think of many cases that haven’t been addressed:

  • If the same video is uploaded to say, Vimeo, but another frame is chosen as thumbnail by the system, is that a new release like new cover art for a music-only release would be?

  • Even if the same frame is used, there can be watermarks (ex. VEVO) on YouTube thumbnails that aren’t on other platforms like mora or Apple Music. Would that justify a new release?

  • The mora release appears to have an UPC (00600406724465), I’m not sure if other platforms have that for videos or how to check it. If they don’t have one, is that also a reason for a new release (similar to how digital releases are handled)?

watermark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25kQyBF6mz4
no watermark:
‎サママ・フェスティバル! - Mrs. GREEN APPLEのミュージックビデオ - Apple Music

I don’t oppose having these as releases since release date, label information and cover art can’t be on standalone recordings at the moment. There’s a lot of music videos and I don’t want to open the floodgates for mass-adding if there’s nothing as clearly defined as the updated digital guidelines to deal with them.

  • I don’t want to deal with live videos from the 80s uploaded on the internet by a label years later having the recording date as the release date.

  • I want to know if I should group live performance recordings from the same show where every song has a separate video upload as one release or add ones for every new one. What if the first part of a show is uploaded one day and then more videos uploaded the day after that? If I added a release the first day, and then more was added, should I update the release or make a new one?

So right now, my vote is no. I don’t want to deal with the mess that the current proposal is. The tickets are just throwing out an idea without thinking about different interpretations of this idea by editors. I’d love to have a good way of dealing with videos, but I’m voting on what’s proposed and not what I wish was proposed.


Apple Music videos usually have barcodes. Typically they are the same as the ones found on Mora, so they could be considered the same release. I agree about YouTube. The links there can be added to a standalone recording. Not sure if many realize you can double check barcodes on YouTube by going to YouTube Music and doing a search of UPC to find releases. Doesn’t work on regular YouTube, but it does on YouTube Music. However, it’s still not 100% because I’ve had returns before of the deluxe release barcode pulling up the standard release and vice versa, but an editor should be able to verify by analyzing the track count. I have no problem with adding new video RGs or sub-types, but I agree, that we shouldn’t just add every music video found on YouTube. Too many lyric videos, fan made videos, etc. IMO, a link on a release to YouTube really should be reserved if it matches releases from other sources that have barcodes, etc.


I answered (some of) these polls with physical releases (concert videos, mostly) in mind, so of course they are releases.

I did not realise they were mostly polls for online videos.
So I think I might cancel my votes.

1 Like

It looks like everyone was thinking of something different. :smile:

For me, physical releases were out of the question - they are separate releases (I would think in the same RG).

I had mainly promo music videos in mind, made to be be streamed for free on YouTube/Vimeo etc., in earlier days to be played on MTV, most often to promote a single release. But I still think, they could be releases as long as they are somehow separated from other official releases. But they should not be separate release groups, and that’s mainly how I voted.

But my favourite is the idea of ​​a videography tab, whether it lists releases or recordings.


the “are they releases?” question was specifically for digital releases, but I feel the rest of the questions apply to both digital and physical releases. apart from one poll, it’s less a question of “are they releases?” and more a question of “are they the same release group?”

1 Like

Ah ok then I replied they are release groups, as well. Good, thanks. :wink: