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.
[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.
ym wrote: 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.