is there a good search method for looking up releases by catalog numbers?
it doesnt /seem/ like the release and release group searches will take that into account
MRiddickW joined the channel
Darkloke joined the channel
hendursaga has quit
hendursaga joined the channel
flamingspinach_ joined the channel
flamingspinach has quit
Glassjoe has quit
djinni` has quit
djinni` joined the channel
flamingspinach_ has quit
flamingspinach joined the channel
Darkloke
hi2all. Can someone check our (longtime) dispute with aerozol regarding digital releases? I think we need more editor opinions here since so far it mostly his vision vs mine. https://musicbrainz.org/edit/77366354 On last week i did a lot of corrections to old digital releases by adding barcodes and updating cover art using a-tisket tool. He voted "no" for some edits motivating that "they are different releases". I suppose we couldnt agree with him
about what to count as "difference" for digital releases.
Darkloke has quit
JoeLlama joined the channel
JoeLlama has quit
flamingspinach_ joined the channel
flamingspinach has quit
darwin
hrm, that that darkloke edit is an interesting one.
there is no new cover art, from what I can tell, and adding a barcode to a release which didn't previously have one does not, in my mind, create a new release where the only difference is the barcode.
I think this is actually the compelling argument that it's a different release.
not Cover art or barcode.
reosarevok
An additional logo on art is a new release in any case
darwin
is it???
reosarevok
Yes, any cover art differences make a new release
Unless it's some handmade stuff which is meant to be different
darwin
wacky, I guess I'm just totally wrong.
atj
darwin: I'm in agreement with you tbh
reosarevok
"Any difference in artwork requires a different release. This includes differences in the legal text on the back cover, even if everything else is the same. An exception should be made for releases where every cover will necessarily be different (like hand-printed, hand-made or even knit covers): in this case, it can be assumed that all the different versions are equivalent and qualify as just copies of the same release, unless
a difference is explicitly made by the artist or label."
darwin
deezer has 2012 release date/copyright, but EA logo
itunes has 2019 release date/copyright, but EA logo
it's obviously the same files
2019 date is just wrong.
atj
The dates on the digital platforms are often wrong.
darwin
I guess the itunes release date is potentially when it was released to itunes?
eFfeM has quit
so if a digital service watermarked its cover art by putting its logo on it
every release on it would be a new release?
this seems perverse. I understand the purpose of the rule for physical objects.
atj
let's not get into hypotheticals :P
reosarevok has pulled the trump card here with a rule from the style guidelines
darwin
yep
if OP had just linked to that, would have saved me misunderstanding
reosarevok
darwin: in that case you'd probably just say the shop is doing bullshit, in the same way we wouldn't say if beatport adds "original mix" to everything, that's the intent of the labe or anything
darwin
god I hate that shit
reosarevok
So we might just put it up as "cover, watermarked"
atj
look, this was released in 1979, before digital music existed:
But if the label changed the cover... dunno. I mean, I don't personally feel strongly either way tbh, but I can see why some want to leave it separate and IMO doesn't hurt to do so
As long as the recordings are the same and whatnot
darwin
it used to be available via itunes, probably without the EA logo
then it was re-distributed via itunes, with the logo and the bogus 2019 (P)
reosarevok
I mean, maybe it's not bogus, can they re-register it for (P) if the sound hasn't changed? Dunno how the law works for that
darwin
" The (P) section tells us and partners who owns the copyright for the collection of sound recording(s) on this specific release. "
so if it's not new recordings, my interpretation is "no"
for my next please shoot me topic.. are distrokid ids "labels" ?
atj
no, distributors
darwin
isn't the ditributor "distrokid"?
also, why, if they leave the default and get assigned an ID, is it a distributor, but if they put their nonsense non-legal entity label name in there, is it suddenly a label?
"Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release."
"Note that different matrix numbers or barcodes may not necessarily mean that a separate release should be entered, please ask in the forum if in doubt."
darwin
it also says " Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, colored vinyl, different manufacturers, etc. "
atj
You cYes, but the reissue has to be materially different to the original
darwin
is a different pressing plant not a different manufacturer?
atj
s/You c//g
The rule I've been given is that represses with different runouts shouldn't be different releases.
reosarevok: that's why I mostly added his releases as "Jaja Life Music"
I think one I added as [no label]
reosarevok
I mean, sometimes a label will give their artist a "personal label" which is basically just a name, I doubt they're financially independent as a sub-company either :)
darwin
but... to me a label is something that exists. Jaja Life Music doesn't exist
if there were a legal entity called Jaja Life Music, I would consider it to exist
but /shrug it's all very abstract
what's the difference between that and a netlabel that doesn't have an associated legal entity
reosarevok
What if there were a legal entity called "Label Whatever" that puts all this artist's music under their imprint "Jaja Life Music"? :)
The release label for MB would still be JLM
But it might literally just exist as a logo
darwin
sure, I suppose that legal entity is called "Distrokid" in this case
reosarevok
Labels are annoying :D
darwin
it's just lol, if it says DK 12312313 I put "no label"
reosarevok
Yeah, me too - that shows no intention of having an imprint or anything
evelyn
the thing that annoys me about Discogs is that they treat all sorts of things as labels, e.g. series
darwin
but the only difference between that and JLM is putting something in the field
atj
evelyn: it's just a hack because their database schema sucks
reosarevok
darwin: true :) But that's a bit like saying "if they leave the title empty I enter [untitled], but the only difference between that and a title is putting something on the field" :p
Or, I guess a more direct comparison, printing no artist vs printing "fdfdfidhghhgf"
If they print the latter, well, that's an artist now :D Even if it's just "I don't want to give a name and my cat walked on the keyboard so I left it"
darwin
lol, like when tracks get called "A1" because there's side A and B printed
reosarevok
Music! It's fun!
darwin
and it's the first track on side A
god, I just had a flashback to the italojohnson fiasco
atj
the world is messy and defies categorisation, part ten billion and fourty two
darwin
where the vinyls were released as [untitled] ... so my DJ collection had a bunch of tracks identically named [untitled]