Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
~Guest 290927
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:13 am
Posts: 185
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:28 pm 
 

While the moderators take great heed of digital releases when reviewing if a submitted band should be included into MA, for those who are already in MA, it appears that rules of digital releases are much loose. Anyone can enter into the database a promotional single, a sampler, or a preview without a cover art, or with a cheaply photoshopped cover, from god-knows-where music portal. If you go to the list of coverless releases, and sort by release year, you will see a swathe of singles and demos without cover art released in 2021. Most of these, I believe, should be purged.

Let's review the Rules. Site Rules --> Valid Albums Only --> Released and Distributed Albums Only --> Valid Digital Releases:
Official Distribution: You must show us where this album is hosted; acceptable distribution methods include any legitimate music portals that offer full downloads, be they global or more local (most prominently iTunes, Amazon, CDBaby, Bandcamp, Jamendo, etc.) or simply a link on the band's official website, Facebook or any other official and public channel.
Quality Download: the digital album must be available as a full high-quality download, preferably in lossless format.
Length of material: This requirement was later removed.
Fixed tracklist, Final mix, Cover art

In Oct 2020, policy on digital releases was updated. Now it allows certain stream-only albums on a reputable distributor. It again stressed that unfinished work, teasers, samples are not acceptable.

I believe these rules SHOULD NOT only apply to singles when checking a band for entry, it should be the rule for all digital releases on this website.

Let me collect the keywords for the rules: (1) Official distribution; (2) a legitimate music portal, full download or stream-only; (3) quality download (4) Fix tracklist, final fix; (5) (dedicated) cover art (not just two-min photoshop shit).

Any digital release entry on MA that does not meet these requirements should be deleted.

But let us ask some more questions:
1. What is a legitimate music portal? Bandcamp, iTunes, no problem. But I really believe we should keep a list for all music portals that we deem legitimate. For a digital release to be included in MA, it must be on one of the legitimate portals in our list. If not, then don't add it, or one can submit the music portal into the list, to be determined by mods.

2. Stream-only sites: This is more delicate and definitely should be restricted. Azmodes' 2020-10-26 post mentioned that following sites: Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Tidal and Deezer. I think temporarily we should just stay with these five. Adding a stream-only portal should be carefully examined by the mods.

3. Quality download - What if a digital album is only available as lossy mp3, not in lossless format? Should we add such release to MA? My opinion is "No". Example: Salvaje > Yosemite-Abanic and Mariposa War, the album was uploaded to NetEase Cloud Music on 2021-08-20, it has two problems: First, if you are a member of NetEase (which requires a fee), you can download the music, which are a bunch of mp3s; Second, the tracks were obviously abridged. They serve just like promotional samplers, that's why they call them the Internet Version. This digital release should be deleted by all means. But the question is: Is Netease Cloud Music a legitimate portal? My opinion: Music portals that don't require bands to provide lossless files should not be deemed legitimate.

4. A dedicated cover art is a must. A single accompanied by the full-length cover is not accepted. A digital release without a cover art, or with a "random" cover (e.g. put band logo as cover) is not accepted.

I also have some propositions for verifying digital releases. Currently, if one randomly adds a digital single, without further info, it might become quite difficult to actually locate it. Considering that we are living in 2021, with internet exploding, this is quite unacceptable. So I propose that the version description for digital releases to be like this:

Music portal | Hyperlink for the release | Verified?
Bandcamp | http://bandcamp/......... |
iTunes | http://iTunes/.............. |

When one submits a digital album, he needs to provide at least one source for that release, so that anyone interested can just click the link. If the info is correct, an experienced user can give a tick under "Verified?" column. Say, we can let the Metal Veterans and above (pts>=1000) do the verification job. Not challenging.

Doing this can also track the modification of some bandcamp pages. A band could release some individual singles, and then delete them all and combine them into an EP. If we keep the verification process well, we'll know for sure that the individual singles were indeed once there, that history cannot be simply deleted.

Please give me your opinions on this issue.

Also, if the rules are finally set, it seems we are going to have some sourceless, coverless digital releases nuked.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:09 am 
 

I'm working within this issue currently and still not sure which side of the line this case falls. I am talking about a band already existing on the Archives releasing a single on Bandcamp, which is claimed to be a rough version of a track from the forthcoming album. Now, is that a single in its own right? It's released publicly, with cover art, with download option (https://unclewoe.bandcamp.com/track/nin ... -of-time-3) but is already declared to be technically an "unfinished" song from another release. I also confirmed with the band, and they said that the preceding single is the same, although there was no mention of that on the Bandcamp page. I had already added that single to MA.

My options:
- Delete the first single and not add the second
- Let the first single stand as it isn't officially stated to be "unfinished" material
- Add both, because they are standalone releases with (at the time) complete material
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
Dr_Zed
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:24 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:45 pm 
 

Is this rule still in effect?

You must show us where ANY album is hosted; acceptable distribution methods include any legitimate music portals that offer full downloads, be they global or more local (most prominently iTunes, Amazon, CDBaby, Bandcamp...).

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=132973&hilit=You+must+show+us+album+is+hosted

I am finding way too many cases where a digital version has no host. The tracks differ from another digital version already on MA, or on another downloading site. I cannot check to see if the MA listed version is correct without any host, yet MODS are telling me to use CTRL U, which is not possible unless there is a host to check.

Dembo needs a "Friendly reminder" since I have had to deal with several of their non-hosted releases they posted this week alone, on submitted reports by others, like this one where their non-hosted digital release was missing most of tracks. So how do I know if it should be deleted or revised? https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Ra ... 3540499686
Another one with no host and diferent track lengths:
https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/L ... A9/1010197

I saw on the forum that Hellblazer mentioned last Fall 2021 that no host is needed if the release appeared on many downloading sites. This needs to be qualified IMHO with the version field saying somthing like Most Download Services, or we cannot determine if the release is accurate or has errors for release dates, track lengths, etc. When we get a report, how do we know it was released on several downloading sites if the version field is blank? My reports have so many contradictions from several MODs that I cannot fix errors on reports without the host field filled in.

I am swimming in cans of worms everyday with many of the above issues on several reports so can only X them out and leave them unassigned, unfixed, etc. Perhaps it is because I fix around 50% of the unassigned MA reports every day that I am the only one with this problem but I need to know what to do and somehow see version fields filled in with hosts more than I see them.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group