I’m starting to see a lot of editors ignoring altogether what digital sites show and instead using physical medium to edit existing digital medium releases.
For example, join phrases, changing “feat.” to “featuring”, or when a release has mix information, i.e. “remix” on digital, but because the physical doesn’t show remix on the tracklist on the physical medium (usually because the album itself has the mix info, but not each individual track).
I can understand if every single track has the same ETI on digital and none do on the physical. But what about when all but one track have the ETI because the one track isn’t remixed like the rest of the release. I always try to follow the digital as closely as possible except for when every single track has the same ETI. But if one doesn’t I usually leave the ETI on the digital even when the physical release doesn’t because it’s not the physical release.
Is it ok to just change all digital medium to fit the physical release? I really don’t care either way, I just want things to be consistent.
3 Likes
Digital music stores can be really inconsistent with their listings, especially with extra title information. I can understand that people look at available physical releases for reference. I don’t really see a problem with that.
10 Likes
Maybe link to such kind of worrying examples?
It’s hard to imagine. 
1 Like
I’ve had a few show up in my reviews in the past few days, but I’ll point to the latest in which I can kind of understand the removal of the ETI on this, but I’m also talking about the join phrases.
1 Like
I think for the digital release, follow how it’s credited on the digital release (unless it is inconsistent, in which case I think referring to a physical release makes sense). Users can always select or check the CD release themselves, if they want the CD credits.
6 Likes
A common problem with that is that join phrases don’t really exist for many digital releases. For example, Spotify seems to just always separate things with commas? And I’m not sure they support artist credits properly. In those cases, it’s not surprising to see people using the link phrases and credits from a source that seems closer to intent.
10 Likes
Yeah, for things that are dictated by platform limitations, I would go with whatever source aligns more with artist intent.
I guess in this case it is hard to tell if the usage of “&” vs “feat” is on purpose: example album on 7digital. But there is a chance it is more accurate than what the label/designer did on the CD.
edit: Looking at it again, even the track titles have the “feat” artists specifically included. It seems unlikely that this was by accident - I’ve put in a vote and note
3 Likes
For the above The End Is Where We Begin: Reignited release, with (Reignited) in all track titles (instead of just recording comments).
And for Freaks (2012 Remastered), with (2012 Remastered) in half of the track titles and with (Bonus) (2012 Remastered) in the other half.
For such releases, it looks completely like a huge step back to the early ages of CDDB text-only (no relationship) tracklists for MB release tracklists, to me.
I assume @aerozol’s No vote was the artist credits, not the (remastered) bit. Think it is still generally accepted that (remastered) and (bonus) are stripped out of ETI.
3 Likes