You are not logged in. Please login or register.
MusicBrainz Forums → Style Discussion → Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases
I've came across the user mxm_susan. She is adding a lot of "Digital Media" type releases from iTunes.
I think she need to be contacted, because "Digital Media" is supposed to hold the releases like "USB Flash Drives", not the iTunes download links.
Those links supposed to be entered as "can be purchased for download at" relationship.
I think she is mass entering completely bogus info to database...
What do you guys think about this?
an example: Metamorfoz Remixes is a complete bogus entry because Metamorfoz Remixes was only released as the second CD of Metamorfoz.
It's true that second cd can be bought seperately from iTunes, but this doesn't make it a release.
A URL Relationship can handle that easily. We don't need a Release or worse a Release Group for that....
Where does it say that digital media only represents physical objects like USB sticks? I've been entering Amazon mp3 albums for years and no-one's ever complained. After all, if we don't capture the dowloadable digital albums how would we store releases like this: http://musicbrainz.org/release/1b3cfb79 … 8ab2f9a971
As to your second post, your claim that Metamorfoz Remixes wasn't released separately is demonstrably false. Amazon sells it as a digital download and as a standalone CD.
http://www.amazon.com/Metamorfoz-Remixe … p;sr=301-1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004QO … p;sr=301-1
If it doesn't say, it should...
A release is by definition has some elements, like label, publisher etc...
Online digital media sellers just rip that release and sells them seperately...
by your logic we should have separate album group for each recording because they can be bought separately from online shops...
and for your amazon link, please read the editorial review there, it says:
This product is manufactured on demand using CD-R recordable media. Amazon.com's standard return policy will apply.
I really don't think this is even a debatable issue...
oh and btw that album you linked. As I looked up on google, it seems to be an official promotion album, that can be freely downloaded from a lot of sources, including their facebook page... That's definitely not a digital release....
edit: wait I am a little confused here. That album is only available at online download. so it might be entered such I guess...
Also from the Amazon link:
Original Release Date: July 28, 2008
Label: H?TT MÜZ?K PRD.
Copyright: (c) 2008 Mu-Yap
Looks like a Label and publisher to me.
Also, some labels, like X5 http://www.x5musicgroup.com/ , are digital only. By your way of thinking, this company doesn't actually produce any releases. We're seeing more and more music that's available only as download, and others that include bonus tracks and other content exclusively on the downloaded versions. I don't see why we should ignore these releases and pretend they don't exist.
Digital media sellers don't rip the releases, they're provided by the labels/publishers who release the digital media to the sellers. In the case of that remix CD, the label/publisher has contracted with Amazon to also provide the manufacturing of the physical CD.
And as to your claim about my logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29
Another thing I thought of after I hit send. On the mailing list, when the "None" packaging type and the "No Barcode" checkbox were proposed, part of the reasoning was that they were needed to handle digital downloads. No-one objected to this. You'd think that if the Style Council and PTB here had wanted to exclude digital downloads, someone would have said something.
you are missing a point here. I am not talking about releases that are released "only" online. That might have a different handling. Maybe a sub-group like "online" or "internet" can be added to Digital Media group. If it is only available online that is really something different.
If an album is manufactured (in some kind of medium edit: or online) and some online seller is selling it with another form (like cdr, or digital file, or even as USB stick) that is not a release IMO. that may be a distribution. not a production or release.
so, amazon or iTunes (or whatever firm is doing what you described above) can be a distributor only. and that is also can be linked with a "publisher" relationship. No need to enter another release for them... In fact doing so is wrong IMO!
No barcode is really nothing to do with this argument. Old releases generally never have barcodes on them. That's to solve that issue.
No packaging may be accepted to handle "only" online releases... Not to enter the whole iTunes database as a release...
Billy Yank: I know a store just down the street of my home, which duplicates albums to cdrs and sells them and as you can imagine he also separates dual cd albums and sells separately. Do you want me to add them to db too? because what you want to do is exactly that....
You're absolutely 100% wrong that Digital Media implies USB stick or that this was ever the policy. It never implied this. Digital media has always been allowed for download releases and this is perfectly acceptable and correct editing.
So in MB there is no "Album" concept, but only release mediums that can either be downloaded or purchased, either as bootleg or official and if anyone splits a 2xCD album and sells it in any kind of media it should be included in the db?
If this statement is true I really don't understand, other than style issues, why we need voting?
Sorry I won't be supporting this idea. This is completely wrong IMO...
If a 2xCD release is split and officially released as 2x digital releases that can be purchased separately; then yes; of course it should get two more releases in MB; sharing the recordings/tracklists with the CD release in MB. This has been the practice for years; so I'm not sure why you're surprised.
It is useful information to know that a release was split for download.
What this should not extend to is adding single-track "releases" for every single song on an album just because iTunes allows you to buy individual tracks. If the track alone is packaged as a single "release" in iTunes with its own release date etc however, then that's probably OK. "Homebrews" and arbitrary torrents/bootlegs shouldn't be added unless particularly notable/widespread (and making the judgment call on this is why we have voting).
Anyway, it seems you're mistakenly conflating several different concerns:
1) Digital media for download releases - absolutely OK, and always the practice. Perhaps we should have better subcategories and distinctions between audio format and physical media; but this is an extremely messy/complicated area for non-physical media which is why it has never been expanded upon and resolved.
2) Adding potentially "bogus" digital media releases for things never officially released as an "album" entity - still not normally OK and should be viewed with great suspicion. There is a grey area where bootleg downloadable "albums" are in the DB; and in my experience these are usually judged with a vague "notability" test which tends to evolve over time depending on whether the download has a known source; edit notes; and can still be downloaded from somewhere.
So clarify on your more specific question:
if anyone splits a 2xCD album and sells it in any kind of media it should be included in the db?
Definitely not anyone. :) If the album is split by an official or licensed source (the artist themselves; an authorised music retailer like iTunes for example) then sure, it should be listed in split format. If it's split by some pirate group; web forum or dodgy russian bootleg download store or some dude selling individual discs on eBay - then no, probably not!
I must say this is not a good approach to this problem. This might lead MB to a place where lazy editors just importing everything from iTunes and just setting the medium type to "Digital Media". By "importing everything", I mean, they wont make a search, they won't care if the information is true or not, they just want their mp3 files tagged and as voter you don't have much choice, you have to say yes, because apparently it became a policy in MB.
I have to accept that these sites became a source for people to obtain music and it seems that they are (not sure about this) manufacturing a release or even making another album from it (by splitting multi-disc releases). So, if this is the case, then I have to ask people to define which source was the recording(s) (yes it has to be done at recording level) had copied and by whom and what was the date (like for example "added to site" date). That date might be used for release date.
In current MB database I only see a "Digital File" medium attribute which says me that this album is available as digital file(s). Doesn't say if it's an online source, if it's manufactured from source recordings or just plain rip of cd.
And for bootlegs, I don't think its a gray area, I see fans trying to locate all different recordings, works and such and they don't care if it's bootleg or an unprofessional work. They won't care if it is pirated or freely available through internet. That's a fact that no one can change. Hopefully, the pirated music would be caught and stopped by someone, but this should not be MB's concern. The fact is that they exist in real world, so should also exist in the database, but of course not as official. Also, if a fan want to make a remix of something why wouldn't we have it in MB? As long as it is listed as bootleg I see no problem there. Maybe, if that fan just want to make a compilation (like an mp3 list) without changing anything, that would be a nonsense and shouldn't be included in database, besides we now have "collections" feature and I think this might be used for those situations in the future.
My concerns are about "official" releases. Those would be definitely handled delicately. If you tell me that an album is released as "digital file" officially, I have to ask you who released it and how? was the same recordings used? was that a simple rip of another release? who published it? what was the date? etc. etc....
The lazy editor problem has been about since the dawn of musicbrainz. Changing rules does nothing to dissuade these editors - these editors are either not aware of the guidelines or don't care. With this in mind, what is a better "approach to the problem"?
It's why we have a voting system. If there's no evidence, it looks suspicious and/or you don't think it's a "proper" iTunes release, vote against it? These are questions that are worth asking on such edits. But the edits themselves are not wrong.
And it's called "Digital Media" not "Digital File" - this is the generic catch all if it has no physical manifestation such as "USB Flash drive" or slotMusic.
My concerns are about "official" releases. Those would be definitely handled delicately. If you tell me that an album is released as "digital file" officially, I have to ask you who released it and how? was the same recordings used? was that a simple rip of another release? who published it? what was the date? etc. etc....
I don't know what you mean by this. Digital media releases are handled by labels in roughly the same way as physical ones; except for an extra step to encode the recording in MP3/WMA/M4A/FLAC/OFM/whatever and separate license details with various websites; or possibly even artists individually. Websites and iTunes have published released dates; often more reliable than release dates on websites for CD releases. This level of paranoia about recording equality is silly. If you wanted to go this far, you should be equally suspicious about different presses of the same CD (many CDs are repressed under same packaging and catalog number) which might have glitches - are you going to enforce creating new recordings for every press of a CD? Overall, I've no idea why you seem to think digital media releases from official/reputable online music vendors are somehow more dodgy than a physical release...
Given that "digital music–mostly sold through iTunes–will make an estimated $2.8 billion" (in 2012) according to http://techland.time.com/2011/03/31/jus … -cd-sales/ one would suspect if those shops were not entirely as legit as any other music retailer, labels would have queued to sue them all a long time ago ;) Actually, I'd argue the newest generations consider digital releases "the" release, since a lot of them don't care at all about CDs. So yeah, they definitely can and should be added. Which doesn't mean any CD or vinyl or cassette or you-name-it release shouldn't be added too, obviously.
mxm_susan's adds do have some problems sometimes, but them being iTunes imports is definitely not one of them.
The lazy editor problem has been about since the dawn of musicbrainz. Changing rules does nothing to dissuade these editors - these editors are either not aware of the guidelines or don't care.
This is true, but lazy editors never was officially supported by Musicbrainz. When you tell people that importing "any" release from iTunes or Amazon is a legit edit, you will feed the beast. After sometimes people will realize that using Musicbrainz = import from iTunes (with a bot or script maybe) and tag with Picard. And this would make Musicbrainz full of releases like: Artist X- Digital Release A,B,C and no other release type... Why? because they can... and its easier. who cares if Musicbrainz doesn't have an album that Artist X released on CD... I accept that it will be better than having no release at all, but IMO encouraging people entering online versions as a release on Musicbrainz may also discourage them not entering other medium versions.
With this in mind, what is a better "approach to the problem"?
this is how I see the process:
An album (idea, concept) is prepared by artists, recorded and then mastered by engineers at studios.
Master recording of an album is then prepared to be distributed (pressing to CDs etc.) by the distributor companies (or publishers?).
Also artists (or their corresponding labels) makes agreements with the licensing companies (most of the times labels but can be different too).
At the end, the prepared mediums are distributed to the public by distributor companies via music shops.
in other words:
Works performed, recorded and mastered as Recordings manufactured as Mediums distributed as a Release
In current MB terminology I think a Release is Medium(s) here and a Release here is Release Group in MB.
If iTunes and Amazon (or any other online shop) is getting the master from the Label company (or License holder entity) and then preparing their own mediums (like CD-R or Digital Files), then that process is called manufacturing and those companies should be called Distributor or Publisher.
My approach would be to handle them by entering as "Distributed (Published?) by" relationship at recording and release level.
ie:
[Release|Medium|Recording] is Distributed (or Published?) by [Label(s)] in [date] as [[online]medium type]
Label should be one of the distributors.
Medium type is the current medium types with some additions like "Digital File".
Online is for saying that it is distributed on the Internet, in either medium type...
Also, the direct download link, which we currently can add to a lot of entities, may be used for further direct links.
This way we don't need to enter separate bogus releases just to show that it is available from iTunes or store X...
If you wanted to go this far, you should be equally suspicious about different presses of the same CD (many CDs are repressed under same packaging and catalog number) which might have glitches - are you going to enforce creating new recordings for every press of a CD?
Hmm yummy ;) I thought the same things before. It would be really yummy, but also painful... The world is not "yet" ready for this :PP
edit: added the [online] section...
mxm_susan's adds do have some problems sometimes, but them being iTunes imports is definitely not one of them.
sorry about the topic. it's nothing to do with that user anymore. the post became some kind of style discussion. So, anyone, please, feel free to change topic and move to Style discussion forum.
thanks
PS: I guess I need to apologize from mxm_susan for using her nickname in a forum. Sorry.
I've edited the topic and moved it to Style. :) Will possibly respond a bit later :)
And this would make Musicbrainz full of releases like: Artist X- Digital Release A,B,C and no other release type... Why? because they can... and its easier. who cares if Musicbrainz doesn't have an album that Artist X released on CD...
I hate to break it to you, but someday soon Artist X is going to have all digital releases because he thinks CD's are as archaic as wax cylinders.
I really don't understand why you've decided that digital releases are somehow illegitimate. To me, it's a data integrity issue. When I tag my music, I don't want to have to try to decide which physical release best approximates my digital download release, I want my digital releases to match up to accurate representations in the database, just like I want my CD and vinyl releases to match up.
When I add a digital media release, I don't do it because it's easier, I add it because that's the source material I have. It isn't actually any easier than any other type of release. I just added the digital release version of Paul McCartney's latest album. So far no-one's added the US CD or vinyl releases. I'm not worried about it. Either someone will add them, or no-one needs them, that's how crowd sourcing works.
but someday soon Artist X is going to have all digital releases because he thinks CD's are as archaic as wax cylinders.
and is that why people are trying to bring back the vinyls (ie: VinylDisc)? Besides, even the whole world would someday be completely on digital media, this doesn't mean that we wouldn't enter currently released records to database...
I really don't understand why you've decided that digital releases are somehow illegitimate. To me, it's a data integrity issue. When I tag my music, I don't want to have to try to decide which physical release best approximates my digital download release, I want my digital releases to match up to accurate representations in the database, just like I want my CD and vinyl releases to match up.
The problem is exactly that, you want it for tagging purposes, which a database shouldn't concern about...
It isn't actually any easier than any other type of release.
Unfortunately, it becomes easy as pie, by writing an iTunes import bot and giving reason that it is already listed on iTunes.
I'm not worried about it. Either someone will add them, or no-one needs them, that's how crowd sourcing works.
Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. Maybe not the whole community but surely most people will think like this too... and at the end we will have less participation, more bots...
ym, to clarify some of our terminology for you:
A "Release Group" is the abstract concept of an album, as created by the artist & label.
A "Release" is a particular distribution of an album as published in a particular format, time, and possibly location, with a particular list of tracks.
I honestly don't see a problem here. I don't have any issue with e.g. semi-automatic imports from itunes into musicbrainz as long as they go through our regular review process. (I already use tools to do similar imports from e.g. bandcamp - where most releases are digital-only, or from label web pages, for digital and physical releases.) It's not like this will reduce the number of people adding physical releases and going through back catalogs - and it even makes it easier to add other versions of the release, since the tracklists and recordings will already be present.
The database shouldn't solely be concerned with tagging, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it either. At least for me, being able to tag my collection is a powerful motivator to enter all the info I've got into the database (~34,000 edits and I'm only up to the J's). I intend to enter it accurately. I'm not going to pretend a digital download is really a CD.
I don't know why you're so hot about a bot that doesn't exist yet, there's already freedb import and a discogs script. What does it matter where someone pulls a tracklist from as long as the release data is accurate?
I hope most people think like I do, that way the fella that buys the CD will enter the CD release and the guy that buys the vinyl will enter the vinyl. I've already taken care of the digital release. You're welcome.
Mr. McCartney and his label released his latest album in 3 different formats, I still don't understand why you think it's a good idea to pretend one of those releases doesn't exist.
A "Release Group" is the abstract concept of an album, as created by the artist & label.
A "Release" is a particular distribution of an album as published in a particular format, time, and possibly location, with a particular list of tracks.
I guess we are seeing things differently, but that doesn't matter, as I said before, a problem can be solved by a lot of approaches and my approach wouldn't be the current model, because in the current model production and publishing processes are not well specified and not separated from each other. That's why you have to have n Releases with same TrackList and Recordings.
I honestly don't see a problem here. I don't have any issue with e.g. semi-automatic imports from itunes into musicbrainz as long as they go through our regular review process. (I already use tools to do similar imports from e.g. bandcamp - where most releases are digital-only, or from label web pages, for digital and physical releases.)
I am talking about a fully automated bot. Since semi-automatic bots needs human interaction of some kind, that will most probably less of an issue and since you are also using a semi-automated bot, that means you have issues with them too.
It's not like this will reduce the number of people adding physical releases and going through back catalogs
IMO, it's like giving a gun to a 5 year old and saying not to shoot himself... well you can never predict such a result...
and it even makes it easier to add other versions of the release, since the tracklists and recordings will already be present.
I aggree that in current database model of MB it does ease the later entries, but if we already have the same TrackList on the db why are we adding it again to the list? Tho, if the TrackList is different or if it's an online only release I'm completely fine with it.
I don't know why you're so hot about a bot that doesn't exist yet, there's already freedb import and a discogs script. What does it matter where someone pulls a tracklist from as long as the release data is accurate?
how do you know these bots doesn't exist yet?
for freedb import script, people will always ask for proof. For discogs script they maybe not because probably discogs has better reliability then freedb and also everyone would check the discogs release page I'm sure... As you say the accurate data means, at the first place, if that release exists or not and then if its bootleg or official etc. etc... These are all evaluated by people, but when you import from iTunes and set the media to "Digital Media", noone can even object to that, even since you will be using a complete new TrackList you can completely have same titles from iTunes site. The only people can object to is the recordings. Because Releases should share Recordings if they are same... Well I can see how this can be abused, but if the general user population of MB won't mind, I guess I shouldn't too...
Mr. McCartney and his label released his latest album in 3 different formats, I still don't understand why you think it's a good idea to pretend one of those releases doesn't exist.
Please... I never said anything, even similar to, "ignore". In fact:
I have to accept that these sites became a source for people to obtain music
meaning I am completely OK with entering that info to MB, furthermore I also advised to store the online shops as distributor entities. That definitely doesn't mean "ignore"...
Where can I get the discogs script? Sound useful.
This is true, but lazy editors never was officially supported by Musicbrainz. When you tell people that importing "any" release from iTunes or Amazon is a legit edit, you will feed the beast. After sometimes people will realize that using Musicbrainz = import from iTunes (with a bot or script maybe) and tag with Picard. And this would make Musicbrainz full of releases like: Artist X- Digital Release A,B,C and no other release type... Why? because they can... and its easier. who cares if Musicbrainz doesn't have an album that Artist X released on CD... I accept that it will be better than having no release at all, but IMO encouraging people entering online versions as a release on Musicbrainz may also discourage them not entering other medium versions.
By the same logic people would not enter digital versions where a CD version with correct track list was already entered. Would that be any less of a problem? Is the CD version somehow superior? Also, I don't see how using a bot is lazy provided that the information is correctly sourced and linked. If users only wish to contribute the release they own (and I see nothing wrong with that) then so be it, and all the better if the process is made more simple.
In all likelihood, the balance of digital to CD releases will change in the future, but this simply reflects changes in the way people purchase music. If CD releases become more rare, would you still label it as 'lazy' to only add the digital release, despite the fact that it would be far more useful to the majority of users to have that release rather than the CD one? If you are so keen to add CD releases then it is your responsibility to do so.
What is this 'beast' you refer to? Are you suggesting that making it easier to enter releases is somehow detrimental in itself?
this is how I see the process:
An album (idea, concept) is prepared by artists, recorded and then mastered by engineers at studios.
Master recording of an album is then prepared to be distributed (pressing to CDs etc.) by the distributor companies (or publishers?).
Also artists (or their corresponding labels) makes agreements with the licensing companies (most of the times labels but can be different too).
At the end, the prepared mediums are distributed to the public by distributor companies via music shops.in other words:
Works performed, recorded and mastered as Recordings manufactured as Mediums distributed as a Release
In current MB terminology I think a Release is Medium(s) here and a Release here is Release Group in MB.If iTunes and Amazon (or any other online shop) is getting the master from the Label company (or License holder entity) and then preparing their own mediums (like CD-R or Digital Files), then that process is called manufacturing and those companies should be called Distributor or Publisher.
My approach would be to handle them by entering as "Distributed (Published?) by" relationship at recording and release level.
ie:
[Release|Medium|Recording] is Distributed (or Published?) by [Label(s)] in [date] as [[online]medium type]
Label should be one of the distributors.
Medium type is the current medium types with some additions like "Digital File".
Online is for saying that it is distributed on the Internet, in either medium type...
Also, the direct download link, which we currently can add to a lot of entities, may be used for further direct links.This way we don't need to enter separate bogus releases just to show that it is available from iTunes or store X...
You're confusing several different terms here.
The album concept (release group in MB, AFIK) refers to the the collection of recordings that have been released in any number of permutations under the same name and with substantially the same track list. You refer to a 'master' recording, but this is hard to pin down as there are a number of masters made at different points: Different master mixes of all the individual tracks are made for lossless digital, lossy digital and vinyl at studios. A 'Redbook' CD, containing lossless digital audio and a cue sheet may also be made at this point, but only for a CD with a particular track list. These different masters are then given to the label, or a number of labels.
What the label then does with these masters is what appears to be confusing you. First, a label does not generally 'publish' the recording. Publishing refers to the rights in songwriting and arrangement, which are handled by different companies (note the "Songs published by [name]" usually found in CD liner notes). The label only owns the rights to the actual recording, not the music that is recorded. I don't see how publishing is relevant, except perhaps in relation to 'works'.
The label then generally prepares several different release templates, which are sent off to the manufacturing plants to mass produce. This includes using different CD Redbooks for normal and 'limited' or 'deluxe' editions and the separate vinyl master, often on magnetic tape. However, the digital only releases require no more manufacturing as they are not packaged in a physical form. These will in all likelihood be sent as they are to digital distributors such as Itunes and Amazon, as well as uploaded directly to the labels own site. I doubt any CD version of these releases is ever made, as this would add an unnecessary layer of potential data degradation.
In this case, the digital media is 'released' as soon as it is uploaded. It is not ripped from a CD at any point: It is its own master. That is why it deserve its own release in the database. Although people can pick and chose individual tracks to purchase, digital media is still an album in that it represents a body of the artist's work. And in this framework, Amazon and Itunes are acting just like physical record shops, distributing rather than releasing.
voiceinsideyou wrote:If you wanted to go this far, you should be equally suspicious about different presses of the same CD (many CDs are repressed under same packaging and catalog number) which might have glitches - are you going to enforce creating new recordings for every press of a CD?
Hmm yummy ;) I thought the same things before. It would be really yummy, but also painful... The world is not "yet" ready for this :PP
This could be done, providing you could distinguish between pressings. But even if you could, could you prove that all of a particular pressing have a particular glitch/distinguishing feature? This can be important with vinyl, but is it with CD? In theory, if each individual 'unit' is numbered you could document any discrepancies, but I don't see how this could warrant a separate release if there is no discrepancy in the design of the package. Perhaps an annotation to the affected release noting any discrepancies would be valid, but with the exception of certain know pressings there is hardly going to be enough available information to justify adding a whole new subcategory to the database structure.
MusicBrainz Forums → Style Discussion → Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Generated in 0.076 seconds (76% PHP - 24% DB) with 8 queries