So I’ve been adding reviews of songs to release pages, however these are reviews that exist in the format of a video review.
Example:
The review:
The release:
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release-group/c9aeb1f5-61ca-4e98-86e5-c130ac0c339a/edit
However an editor mentioned that this shouldn’t exist because the review is not a “web page” - which I understand as meaning “written”.
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/relationship/c3ac9c3b-f546-4d15-873f-b294d2c1b708
Now I could be pedantic and say “well the link is to a web page it just so happens to be the review content exists within a multimedia file on that page” - but wanna play nice and see if either:
a) the wording of the guidelines need updating
b) a new URL relationship type needs to be developed
As we move into a more “multi-media” focused world with YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, TikTok, Instagram reel’s and who knows what else round the corner it is becomming more and more frequent for critics to move from writing their opinions to giving them as audio-visual presentations. Although the method in which the critique is given has changed, the content in my opinion is still a valid review and thus should still qualify as a url relationship.
Now I don’t see myself personally adding people’s TikTok reviews at this moment in time, but at least YouTube has a few critical personalities who have built their entire careers on audiovisual reviews; some even venturing into also reviewing an item of music (be it a song, an artists career or an album) via a podcast series.
So what’s the thoughts, happy to raise things in JIRA if it helps get things officially into the pipeline but would like to know the communities general “feel” beforehand.
Examples of YouTube review content:
3 Likes
I think we should be able to link to reviews like this somehow. I think using the existing relationship is good (could even add a “Video” checkbox like we do for “Stream for free”), but I’m also okay with a new relationship for this~
7 Likes
As long as it is marked as “review” and not “video” then I don’t see a problem. Personally I tend to ignore reviews, and a video review will be worse as it is even more of a Social Media style thing. While linked to a “review” it is easy to block/ignore.
I do see a downside that MB could end up with dozens of “review” videos on some releases arguing with each other. Something I’d see as pretty pointless, but if “Social Media” is a thing that people want I don’t see the harm when it is properly categorised.
3 Likes
A video checkbox for review would make sense to me if that’s something people feel is useful 
4 Likes
I added it since I can’t see a downside and it seems useful to know something is a video review. For now it’s not part of the relationship text (it will show up as ‘(video)’ after the URL, as in Release group “Ghetto Supastar (That Is What You Are)” by Pras Michel feat. ODB & introducing Mýa - MusicBrainz) but we could make it say video reviews: separately if people feel the two should have different entries…
8 Likes
Could this be done for the “interview relationship” as well?
There are interviews that exist only in the video format exactly like reviews.
3 Likes
Of course I’m talking about professional interviews, done by online magazines for examples, not about fan-made improvised stuff…
I’d like to see this for interviews as well, but I don’t think we should limit it to “professional” interviews, as with many artists, the “unprofessional” interviews might be all we’ve got
3 Likes
I think it was more not to have made-up fictional interviews
2 Likes
Thank you! But unlike RGs where videos can be added as reviews, it looks like the site doesn’t recognise single YouTube videos added to artist pages as correctly formatted relationships, so it doesn’t let me select the interview type!
3 Likes
Ooooh, that would be true, since we do YouTube cleanup for artists We even have an old ticket for it: [MBS-7520] YouTube URL cleanup overrides correct relationship types - MetaBrainz JIRA (I should look into it)
3 Likes
