#musicbrainz

indeed

(and i wasn't blaming anyone)

if anything it's lack of guidleiens/directions

oh, also we could say that the release thing is the current availability (with the original release date) to make the big lists 'correct' according to the current definition of release date. but i think that would be the worst of all possibilities because that would jjust wreck all the CDs e.g. released in 1986 but repressed with the same packaging in multiple countries up to e.g. 2012

ie it would completely change the understanding of what a release date means

I think that would make the current data much less useful

that was derwin's point earlier too i think, that if dates chnage if we follow the regular way of doing it, that's a new release

(wich is ridiclous in the other way because on digital releases this chnages at the drop of a hat)

yes that is a long-standing problem. i think we need to think about digital releases completely differently. but i'm not sure of the best way to do that

i can only apologise because the above is not that useful either in this respect.

nope, this is a good conversation tbh

the "digital releases problem" has been an issue for ages. I remember back in.. whas it 2007 or something where people argued that we need to look at this

people say "this is only going to be a more and more common thing (digital releases) we need to think completely differntly"

you are echoing a sentiment that peopel ahd ages ago. and i agree with that

the issue is *what*

I'm also not convinced that lumping releases on differnt services together as "he same release" is always a good thing

CatQuest: I’ve been doing an astronomy course this term, and the final class in in 7 minutes.

soon, Freso will be red shifting from our point of view

CatQuest: the way atisket does it makes good sense I think. It says that releases with the same UPC (if available) and track listing are the same release.

;)

this makes sense because a tonne of them are uploaded by the same contractors hired by the labels, or the labels themselves

we used to do this with releases that had the same tracklist. but if a release had, like a bouns track or 2 then it was another release altogether

after ngs we thnakfully went away for mthat

today we lump all digital stores's releases together (unless the tracklsit/artwork/barcode/whatever is differnt)

you see where i'm going with that

Freso: it was more the "soak up some nuclear fusion radiation" bit

oh, do you mean that we used to put them as the same release ,not the same release group? so a deezer release same upc same track list is distinct from a spotify release?

well if the upc is the same thatm ight be the same release. but

but if the only thing is *tracklist* being the same...

Yes, OK , I see where this is going and I agree

so if that they *are* uploaded by the same contractor to severla palces. sure

like that one where availability was differnt in dezer and spotify

to me that means not the same release

treating each download store / streaming service as a distinct thing might help us to differentiate between a given release being removed. maybe.

yes

FWIW, I usually add a Bandcamp thing as a separate release, but it's on a case-by-case basis and actually it's something that's not explicitly stated in the documentation. It just 'feels' correct.

you see it with bandcamp not to uncommonly. the one on bc is differnt in osme way from other stores

lol you said the smae thing i was jsut thinking

the other thing is that Bandcamp releases are almost certainly never attached to a label. and they almost nevver have a UPC [although the bandcamp userscript does expose this which is SUPER handy]

exactly this. i add it, based on case by case, if it "feels" right, shoudl be documented

yes i love that

most of the ones i've seen with a UPC are random (most other releases by the artiste not having one) or they're using bandcamp's label functionality

yes

btw, ev are you "evelyn" from the old network?

or did i spell it wrong

ack i need to shower anyway. it's so hot and muggy here :(

we can discuss more later

:)

CatQuest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

well, I think we should try and reconsider digital releases generally rather than just in response to issues with atisket's country list output.

so i shall try to write a wiki page up sometime soon to get a hang of it.

freso, I did 3 semesters in physics at the uni... had an astrophysics course... fun stuff :)

[14:48] <CatQuest> Freso: explain

...

[14:48] <CatQuest> . sunlight?

nuclear fusion is happening in stars, yes

I feel like im being trolled here.

freso first said he was going to soak up some nuclear fusion rays. this sounded propostreous (especially since he was having an astronomy class (wondering if there was soem sort of experiment they where doing))

but thne irealised, "this is freso" he was talking aobut.. ah of course sunlight

fyi i did phys 1 and 2 a few years ago. got a 5 in phys 1 and woudl ahve in phys2 too if it hadn't been for a disastreous final test (won't go int othat but)

also also my teacher was very strickt (but knowledgable)

my point is thati know physics to :P

too*

:D

molybdenum.libera.chat

:D

Updating the server

Done

hi reo

Oh no

Hi!

ev: Most digital releases do not report the phonographic copyright as the release label. That hasn't been the case for several years. The Spotify APIs report a release label in addition to the phonographic copyright and copyright labels. Sometimes they are the same, but I'd say most of the time they are not.

ev: Tatsumo's ISRC site & a-tisket both show labels for Spotify & a-tisket does for Deezer. Apple Music now even does on every link. You just have to "view-source" the page.

ev: But yes, you are correct that many times it shows a label that MB doesn't want as a release label, so we do still have to "figure it out"

ev: I'd vote you down on any list removal. We wouldn't remove release dates and countries on any physical media release just because it's not sold there any more. Why treat digital releases any differently.

I'm saying i would remove them in the context that they are current availibility, not the availibility at the date they are attached to

I wouldn't remove just any list

for example, if the list of countries included countries where it wasn't released at that date.

ev: a-tisket is enough to prove country availability. The dates might not be accurate, but it IS in that country and looking at Jaxsta the distributor shows countries sometimes that aren't on the iTunes, etc. list. It PROVES without a doubt that that release is available in that country. Only time to remove this is if the release turns out to be a

true worldwide release.

Nobody looks at jaxta though, this is the problem. They are adding these lists purely from the output of atisket without checking that it was true on the date

Nobody is checking these

ev: I do agree that unfortunately, many, many, editors just blindly add what-ever a-tisket returns without any futher editing or research. While it annoys me, I'd still rather have the release than not add it at all.

Well, I concede that you may be checking these ,but this is the first I have heard of it

And the annotation is pointless with the possible exception of "excluded" list to show why there are 230 countries on a release. Say worldwide, except China. Which would be a cool add. Have a Worldwide, except country option instead of listing every country.

Oh. and remove any annotation you want. I agree, that is duplication.

I post those annotations when I add in the edit notes instead of the annotation for those that want to see exactly what countries were available at the date of the edit.

Saw some of your other questions. Yes, If a release has the same barcode, labels (release & copyrights), track listing & artwork, than it's the same release. Doesn't matter if it's on iTunes, Spotify, Deezer, HD Tracks, Qobuz, etc. Unless you can spot a difference, they are the same.

And most Bandcamp releases are even the same now, especially if they appear to be the same as the iTunes, etc releases that are also worldwide.

"view-source" on Bandcamp and a search for UPC or Identifier, etc. will often times reveal the barcode.

Most Bandcamp releases actually do have labels. Just look at the upper left corner and it'll say more releases by such and such label. That's usually the label of the release you are looking at.

I like the "[worldwide] except" idea

CatQuest: One wrinkle with that is how to decide if something is actually an exception, e.g. somehow I doubt someone intentionally excludes a random tiny pacific island nations from a release

I would think that most releases fall into two categories: "Available in this country (or maybe a very short list of countries, e.g. DACH states)" and "available as worldwide as technically possible" (e.g. saying a release in unavailable in North Korea doesn't seem too useful)