digital releases

[geist]

Hi, I have a few questions. Basically I've collected records for years and years, but now that not only "both vinyl and digital download" releases are rampant, but exclusively dd releases as well, I've been paying attention more to them. I also have traktor scratch now for playing all my archived/recorded vinyl, but this also gives me a way to mix digital-only releases so now I am more interested.

 

I did a look through for threads or a faq on this, but did not see it (maybe I overlooked it).

 

However, there are a lot of new issues with dd and cataloging them in a way that makes sense. These issues include:

 

1. DD Tracks with no catalog #.

 

How do we deal with this? For example, I recently made an addition with a barcode records free dd (link). This is an official release, but does not have a digital cat#. Do we just create one for organizational purposes? What is the protocol for this? I anticipate a lot of labels will be doing things like the free giveaway of a track to promote future official releases, so there's sure to be more of this in the future.

 

 

2. DD Tracks with conflicting cat#'s.

 

In other words, tracks where the dd shares the same cat as a vinyl or cd release, but there is something different about the dd release (it's a remix, some extra tracks are added, etc)

 

3. DD Tracks with a very unofficial kind of distribution.

 

On one end of the spectrum you have labels, with some kind of logo/trademark/website, who release tracks under their banner. The traditional 'vinyl distrubutor' model of 'it's tangible, it shipped to a record store, it's a real release' model doesn't apply anymore. The 'only available on our website' releases are as 'real' as any other song out there...but then on the other end of the spectrum you have tracks that are released just through messageboards or maybe blogs. Some of these releases are the finalized versions of a diy effort - the dogs on acid website for example has regular instances of people giving away tracks that they self-produced. The reason this gets tricky here is because I don't think rdb wants to add tracks to the database that are unfinished works in progress, or songs that have yet to be 'signed' (or never will be signed). But these tunes, to the extent that they are downloaded by others and presumably played out somewhere, are legitimate public 'released' tracks - just not in the old-school sense of the term. It's tricky though, because what if someone gives away a tune, but then later someone decides with some work it could get picked up and released? Basically I think these dd internet giveaways are legitimate released tunes, but it is trickier to catalog them for reasons like

- if the tune later gets picked up, it is 'reborn' with a cat#

- if the tune is refined/changed later on by the artist

- the tune won't have cat#, etc information

- often there won't be artist information either - just the alias of the person posting the tune

- how to distinguish 'final version - released' mp3 giveaways from the countless 'works in progress' shared files?

 

4. The duration of DD availabilty

Some tracks are only briefly available for dd. It could be for the duration of some kind of official promotion, or it can be as short as the duration of when a torrent file is up for a couple of weeks. If some background information is known about the context of a dd release, how long it was around, etc, should this be posted?

 

5. The quality of a DD at release.

 

Is it enough to say something is a dd? I mean some DD's are full .wav's and others are flac or a certain bitrate mp3. It would be interesting if we had a history of this as well. I'd be interested in this, for example, because some labels are forward thinking and offer high quality dd, whereas other 'digital only' labels are frankly a bit of a joke/hodgepodge string of releases, and the fact they don't release in such high quality could be reflected in the whole string of their releases and tell browsers something about that label.

 

 

so what are your thoughts?

[haste]

Don't have time to answer all points in full at the mo but will try to do a couple

 

When there are no cat nos then we'll have to invent one. The database relies on having a cat no for each release which is obviously problematic here, but that's a limitation of the system

 

As far as tunes given away free on websites such as DOA, half finshed tunes played out by a bunch of random people, tunes on "labels" of questionable merit I think they have no place in a database like this. many, I'm sure, wouldn't agree but RDB should be for releases of a certain quality, or at least professional (I chuckled as I wrote that) distribution. We generally say that if something is available for sale on a trusted site (not just someone putting up hundreds of tunes on their site that hardly sell any copies) or are associated with a label releasing CD and/or vinyl releases then it goes in the db.

 

This is obviously a huge grey area for us and one that we find difficult to really make a decision on. Personally, as someone who likes to buy physical releases, I think we should enter far less than we actually do of all of this stuff into the database. As said above, though, many don't take the same view as me and that's not a problem at all, I'm happy to let others who are better informed decide on this one.

 

I think the bottom line is that updating this site has got to be more and more difficult to do with the advent of DD releases and it's fair to say that if anything suffers because of this it'll be this sort of stuff that goes first.

[Phokus]

With respect downloads with no cat numbers, I think we're forced to invent something for them (logically, of course!), but I'll add a comment to the comments field saying it's fictitious.

 

And yeah, I hate to say it, but digital releases from obscure producers/labels are the first thing I let slide if I'm up against it with vinyl, cd releases, and official digital releases from major labels.

[geist]

fair enough. I'm with you on haste for the physical copy. My basic rule is that if a hard copy of the release exists, I want that and will track it down.

 

and generally this concerns me because in my vinyl collection, and now my (just recently starting to grow) digital collection, I like to have a full grasp on what I actually own, how it sits in the history of dnb releases, etc. I basically match my vinyl shelves and my "recordings of my vinyl" hard drive to match rdb's structure. Without it I'd be lost. This is also part of why I get antsy about entries into rdb. For me if I have a mystery promo or a release not yet in the database, it sits in a crate and doesn't go on the 'proper' shelf until it exists as an entry in rdb.

 

But like Haste said there is grey area. And Phokus I understand the inclination to let the not-so-official digital releases slide a bit and for the official releases to take priority. However even then I don't even think a 'for sale on a reputable site' standard will quite capture everything we might want in the database. It's not just beginners but also established producers that sometimes give away tunes for free on messageboards. Plus the 'must be for sale' standard seems a bit capitalist-centric to me: in my mind the record of all drum and bass tunes should reflect the tunes that got played, circulated, were enthused about and were also available for others to play them: back in the day, 'released and for sale' vs 'dubplates' captured this well enough - now i'm not so sure.

 

Increasingly the one off and no catalog distribution will happen on the net (i'm talking about blogs and messageboards, not private backchannels like im). I'm obviously can't see into the future but with the way tunes get distributed and used these days, I don't think 'for sale in a store' is the sole model anymore, and even though most of this is amateurish, unmastered throwaway crap, a lot of it isn't. And even if some of the tunes are crap, this gets into a grey area of judging a tune's merit before we enter something into the database. I think this is a dangerous road to go down - one person's mindsaw digital is as good as freak recordings, one person's freely distributed and well-made no-label jill scott bootleg is as likely to get played out and responded to as a fully-released vinyl 'transformers' sampling bootleg.

 

Maybe the standard should be something like, if it's a finished copy, and it was made publically available (either by being for sale through a distributor, but also if it was given away over the net in some public forum or website)? I dunno - just thinking out loud here.

 

I understand the issues .... but it seems verrrry tricky. A very fine line.

 

ez

[Faulk7]

I agree with geist. Nevertheless, I know that nothing is probably ever gonna get done about it, but its a very good point.

[.lm.]

this is such a huge grey area imo

 

 

1. DD Tracks with no catalog #.

 

i think there could be one label for all of these.. kinda like what 'whitelabel' is for vinyls.

 

 

2. DD Tracks with conflicting cat#'s.

 

if there is a cd/vinyl release with a same catalog number than the digital one maybe that digital release could have 'dd' added to the end of the catalog number?

for example what horizons is now doing: http://www.rolldabeats.com/release/horizons_music/hzn001 & http://www.rolldabeats.com/release/horizons_music/hzn001dd

 

 

3. DD Tracks with a very unofficial kind of distribution.

 

this is the real problem imo!

 

And even if some of the tunes are crap, this gets into a grey area of judging a tune's merit before we enter something into the database. I think this is a dangerous road to go down - one person's mindsaw digital is as good as freak recordings, one person's freely distributed and well-made no-label jill scott bootleg is as likely to get played out and responded to as a fully-released vinyl 'transformers' sampling bootleg.

what if i release a tune with a 2-step beat looped for 5 mins.. and nothing else? yeah it's dnb but nobody wants to hear it i don't want that rdb turns into a myspace or facebook alike website for wannabe producers who distribute their tunes through message boards & blogs. "hey dude check out my rdb profile! i've got loads of tunes there man! -yeah that's wicked man i'm going to add mine too!! awesome!". my suggestion is that if you've already released a tune on vinyl/cd then you can have digital downloads added to your rdb profile. that would be kind of a small proof that you've somekind of talent as a producer..and that would cut down most of those amateur tunes being added to the database. i can't think of any 'major' (lol) dnb artists who have released only digital material.

 

Increasingly the one off and no catalog distribution will happen on the net (i'm talking about blogs and messageboards, not private backchannels like im). I'm obviously can't see into the future but with the way tunes get distributed and used these days, I don't think 'for sale in a store' is the sole model anymore, and even though most of this is amateurish, unmastered throwaway crap, a lot of it isn't.

what digital tunes should be added to the database?

 

well i still see that the labels have a big role in the scene. maybe it will change in the future but for now they still are the main channels that artists get their tunes available. so imo we should only add those tunes that have been for sale/giveaway for free on the label's official site. not just random tunes picked up from boards & blogs. i have about 20 of typecell (or another 20 from cartridge) tunes that he has given for free but i don't think rdb is the correct database for these (some free blogs like khal's could do it). BUT if a label had released his tunes as an official release that had a catalog# + date n shit, that would be a proper way to get his tunes on this site.

 

only by additing releases from official sites is a good way to avoid incorrect additions. i just saw these two 'lightless digital releases' LIGHTLESSDIGI001 & LIGHTLESSDIGI002 circling around the net. everything looks legit:

 

artist : Fanu

label : Lightless Recordings

cat.num : LIGHTLESSDIGI001

genre : Drum & Bass

year : 2008

playtime : 13:56 min

url : http://www.rawrip.com/fanu

rls.date : 10/10/2008

source : WEB

quality : 320kbps / Joint-Stereo

tracks : 02

size : 31,9 MBb

 

except for one thing.. lightless doesn't do digital releases :biggrin:

 

if we want to keep the quality of this site high -> this is a site consisting of dnb catalogs -> we have to keep the quality of dnb catalogs high.

 

 

4. The duration of DD availabilty

 

-- not important --

(that's kinda like for how long a vinyl was available on redeye before it sold out? isn't it?)

 

 

5. The quality of a DD at release.

 

the tunes that are listed in the database should be either 320 mp3s, wavs or flacs.

 

 

 

 

 

and of course all of these statements were imo imo imo :biggrin: