Soundcloud releases....

Are they valid ?

Like this one:
http://soundcloud.com/o-i-r-o/i-r-of-mater-suspiria-vision-zombie-rave-3-mixtape

http://discogs.versitio.com/Digitalbong-Come-On-Now/release/2342213

I just sat through the first five minutes of track 1 on your soundcloud link.
That's a remix? An original track painfully pitched down 30 bpms in Ableton Live Lite.
Scared to think what the other "remixes" sound like.
Wait, I just heard the start of track 2.
Oh please stop...

The mixtape? Definately not. Digital + unofficial + not original material = ineligible

As for the track - I'd get nik in on this one. Soundcloud like mega or mediafire but with a sexier interface - id be interested to see if the 'as long as its original material' rule sticks in that kind of instance.

I don't think that the website itself can make the release valid or invalid. It seems as long as it is original material, it is hard for us to say it isn't valid. It isn't as if there is a database problem caused by this release.

I wonder though if self-published file based releases should be forbidden to be added to Discogs by the releasing artist or s? I'm not sure about that, but that was one idea I have thought may keep database entries to releases other people are acknowledging.

nik
I wonder though if self-published file based releases should be forbidden to be added to Discogs by the releasing artist or s? I'm not sure about that, but that was one idea I have thought may keep database entries to releases other people are acknowledging.

It's a bit too late for that now, really...

Just to clear the air - I don't want to propose "Soundcloud" being the label, in case of that mixtape above - I was thinking of "Not On Label (XXX Self-Released)

zin
in case of that mixtape above - I was thinking of "Not On Label (XXX Self-Released)

The mixtape is completely ineligible - soundcloud or not. Digital + unofficial + not original material + 1 click host.

What about this: http://soundcloud.com/strictly/blech-20-1

Seems perfectly acceptable to me.

simfonik
What about this: http://soundcloud.com/strictly/blech-20-1

Seems perfectly acceptable to me.

Are you serious?
You know what would be the best addition to the new Dashboard?
Addition of filters for certain formats.
And I don't mean a simple mp3 filter. Tracks released on official labels and available through label websites (or even Beatport, for example, if they redirect you to it are OK with me.
Hmm, sounds too difficult. A simple mp3/ogg/wav (or just a simple digital) filter would be very nice for my purposes.
Other filters are welcome too I think. That all depends on the "needs" of the .

IMO this one is not valid for Discogs:
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2394446#latest

zin
IMO this one is not valid for Discogs:
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2394446#latest

Jayfive
Digital + unofficial + not original material + 1 click host.

Yep. I've submitted it for removal.

re: Soundcloud - some files can be ed for keeping and repeated playing at leisure. Others can only be streamed from the site. Would that be a criteria affecting the validity of entry to Discogs?

md
ed for keeping

= you can "own" that "release", then possibly submit.
a stream can not be subbed.

This might be a good place to start to find more items to remove:
http://discogs.versitio.com/search?q=mp3+unofficial+mixed&type=all&btn=Search

sorry for bumping this, but coming back to this release:
http://soundcloud.com/o-i-r-o/i-r-of-mater-suspiria-vision-zombie-rave-3-mixtape

and this comment:

Jayfive
The mixtape is completely ineligible - soundcloud or not. Digital + unofficial + not original material + 1 click host.

Jayfive
Digital

is eligible

Jayfive
unofficial + not original material

Unofficial tag can be applied here ? actually Partially Unofficial, since most of the tracks there are orignal recordings, the 'unofficial' ones are just a few remixes

Jayfive
1 click host

I can argue here, soundcloud can be like bandcamp - as far as I know you can store files there as long as you want/need

Nonononono. Noooooo. :P Youre looking at each element in isolation. Its the combination of these things that make it ineligible. Not just it being digital or being on a one-click host, its all these things together.

Again:
Digital PLUS unofficial PLUS not original material PLUS 1 click host = ineligible.

Ergo no mixes from soundcloud et al are eligible unless they are the artists own work or with permission (i.e. a showcase of a label that the artists in question runs or something)

Nik has stated that digital releases on one-click hosts must be original material (artists own tracks or remixes) to be eligible. Presumably to stop Billy Bedroom filling the database with his homemade mixes :P Im not sure what thread it was off by heart but it was i think brought up by LadyBlacktronica about a series of remix/re-edits that she or another were submitting. If you can find it, thats what im using as precedent :D

nik
I wonder though if self-published file based releases should be forbidden to be added to Discogs by the releasing artist or s? I'm not sure about that, but that was one idea I have thought may keep database entries to releases other people are acknowledging.

I do think it would make some existing releases ineligible but, going forward, I would see this as a positive change.

Jayfive
Nik has stated that digital releases on one-click hosts must be original material (artists own tracks or remixes) to be eligible. Presumably to stop Billy Bedroom filling the database with his homemade mixes

That is my understanding too.

Jayfive
Nik has stated that digital releases on one-click hosts must be original material (artists own tracks or remixes) to be eligible. Presumably to stop Billy Bedroom filling the database with his homemade mixes :P

it is original material (artist's songs + their friends' stuff) + their remixes of well known songs. I wouldn't call it bedroom mixes as well since Mater Suspiria Vision has quite a big fanbase + they've releases a lot of stuff on CDs, tapes and DVDs (they not in the database yet though)...
it's not like I wanna push this particular one, I'm just curious where is the border in this case. oh, and this mix was also available to buy on CD (in this case it is eligible for discogs, isn't it?)

zin
their remixes of well known songs

Remixes = slowing them down.

zin
Mater Suspiria Vision has quite a big fanbase + they've releases a lot of stuff on CDs, tapes and DVDs

Thats insane, this whole thing smacks of a great big piss-take. If that mix is typically representative of what they do, and by the looks of their myspace they are dressing this mixes up in trendy-looking 70 cult horror pastiches and charging 50 euros for these CD_r mixes they are really having a laugh at someone's gullibility. Christamighty even those techno remixes that follow any given internet meme show more imagination than this.

You cant claim youve remixed something just by changing the speed. Wouldnt surprise me if their 'original material' was other people's works slowed down to an unrecognisable state too.

But yes, now youve explained it, its a borderline case and not something I would fight tooth and nail to keep out. But the fact its almost all unofficial, non-original material means I have misgivings.

It sounds like it's slowed down, well it is, but it's also edited and chopped. New trend. Hate it or love it ;)

edit. and their original material is "theirs" :>

zin
Hate it or love it ;)

Unless someone puts it in discogs, Ill just ignore it thanks :D

zin
edit. and their original material is "theirs" :>

Well that something I suppose.

zin
It sounds like it's slowed down, well it is, but it's also edited and chopped.

That's not a remix, it's a re-edit (at best).

nik
I wonder though if self-published file based releases should be forbidden to be added to Discogs by the releasing artist or s? I'm not sure about that, but that was one idea I have thought may keep database entries to releases other people are acknowledging.

but how will anyone know if the submitter is the artist?

what about this guy's submissions then?
http://discogs.versitio.com/submissions?=djamsinclar

Soundcloud releases. Looks like bedroom stuff to me.

Removal x3 from me. Im calling them based on the soundcloud + unofficial + not original material + bedroom dj thing :)

If its a mix that is not material that is original and/or with permission, if its from things like soundcloud, mediafire, rapidshare, mega etc and its not eligible.

Which means some or all of these are ineligible:
http://discogs.versitio.com/search?q=dj+mix+soundcloud&type=all&btn=Search

Mercifully we're not exactly inundated with them :)

taalem
but how will anyone know if the submitter is the artist?

Usually the name, profile, submission notes etc will make it obvious. Such is the artistic ego :D

If not, we ask.

If no answer, someone will have to make a judgement call.

hi,

TechElec If you feel it was unfairly removed, joiun in the discussion in the forums, don't just re-submit straight away, nik has made it clear this kind of bedroom mix isn't acceptable.

http://discogs.versitio.com/help/fo...topic/195966#2456575

what is a bedroom mix? only done at home?? what if its recorded in a club?

A 'proper' remix means the remixer has got access to the original separate elements of a track in order to remix them. IMHO that is different from an edit / chop up.

Ultimately, this is one of those Sorites paradoxes. I'd say no to http://soundcloud.com/o-i-r-o/i-r-of-mater-suspiria-vision-zombie-rave-3-mixtape for the moment. We have to differentiate between unofficial mixes that, prior to the net, would have just been a cassette for your car or maybe some dupes for friends, and mixes that would be sold. I'd like Discogs to be able to accept all audio eventually, but we need to have a line at the moment to keep the artist pages viewable and clear of a deluge of personal type mixes (even when such mixes are distributed on the net).

bonsai
what is a bedroom mix? only done at home?? what if its recorded in a club?

Same rules apply. Live unofficial mixes on places like soundcloud dont get in either. 'Bedroom mix' is just a turn of phrase meaning a home-made, small-scale mix by usually by a non-notable artist. Its not an industry term or anything.

Why did you resubmit your removed releases? If it wasnt ok the first time its not going to be ok the second time.

Where was the explanation for resubbing and keeping it in?

Made In

Ok a release is made in and all info is clearly for a UK market ?, copyright and literature is all in English' So do you submit as UK and Europe, Europe or UK ?

nik
IMHO that is different from an edit / chop up.

So what about the "Edits" released on vinyl records... such as those from Soul Clap - R&B Edits)

whats with this mixed cdrs ?

like:

Diplo - Favela Strikes Back

thats only 8 out of 295...

bonsai
whats with this mixed cdrs ?

What about them?

Again: this is about DIGITAL releases.

All those cdrs are valid for the database and in any case are irrelevant to the submissions under discussion. This is SPECIFICALLY about file releases full of non-original material used without permission and hosted on places like soundcloud.

There are currently differing rules regarding physical release and file ones. This might change some time in the future, but as it stands this is the framework we've been given by nik - if its a file AND its on something like soundcloud AND its not the artists own original work AND the music used is without permission then its ineligible. If its only one of these things its fine.

ok, just for my understanding:

so i just burn it to a cdr and its valid?

bonsai
ok, so i just burn it to a cdr and its valid?

Well....no. You cant just take your mixes that are on soundcloud, put them on a cdr and submit them. Partly theres the whole 'distribution to the public' thing and partly because we've just seen you submit the file mixes so people will know youve just changed it to CD-r to get it in the db. And even if they dont the nature of the entry will mean a voter might start quizzing you on its distribution and so forth.

You can try, but pulling a stunt like that will just get you into trouble tbh.

Alternatively you could just save them has draft, you can still add them to your collection or link them on your profile and such.

ok, at what time starts "distribution to the public"

giving 10 to friends
giving 100 for free on a party?

...

isn't it the same via digital - its a stream or you can it for free some mixes have over 400 listeners, mostly more than the 295 "cdr, unofficial , mixed" listed here...

bonsai
ok, at what time starts "distribution to the public"

giving 10 to friends
giving 100 for free on a party?

Its not black and white like that. its based on each individual case usually. If people cant agree, nik makes a judgement call. But what I do know is a file release burned onto a cdr purely for the purposes of getting it into discogs isnt going to fly.

bonsai
isn't it the same via digital - its a stream or you can it for free some mixes have over 400 listeners, mostly more than the 295 "cdr, unofficial , mixed" listed here...

For file releases (note: FOR FILE RELEASES, there really is no point in trying to compare them with physical releases in of this) the number of people that might get to hear it just isnt relevant. Thats why that I should imagine that 'justin bieber slowed down 800%' thing isnt getting in here despite having 1 million+ plays on soundcloud. Digital, aint original work, aint with permission and so on.

Also related to this:
http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/216604#2684671

nik
Also, the eligibility goes on a kind of sliding scale, from file based releases, through CDrs, Cassettes, to vinyl and pressed CDs. By the time we get to the latter, anything is considered eligible.

The reasons for this deal with the desirability and how permanent a release seems, and also the conceptual nature of the release.

"Bedroom" mixes of other people's works that are unlicensed and released in file format on one click hosts are specifically ineligible for inclusion on Discogs. bonsai, that includes your stuff that is now being removed for the second time.

CDr and other recordable formats are subject to "closer scrutiny" under the Guidelines. Trust me, burning to CDr will not fly in this case either.

Do own files with 2 s since their "release" count for removal?
Typical of the subber/artist:

http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2270527#latest

Is this valid?
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2431588#latest

sure not :)

I guess this http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2408375#latest is perfectly valid, no?

Haze
Is this valid?
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2431588#latest

Is it original material / licensed material?

maxxyme
what about the "Edits" released on vinyl records

Anything on vinyl is eligible for the database.

This is due to a number of factors. One of them is the fact that producing vinyl, pressed CD, and other such media carries with it a significant cost, which means not everyone can / wants to do it.

File based releases, especially ones where the artist simply s a file onto the net, are different because it carries negligible cost, and therefore everyone and their dog can do it, and not have to worry about recouping costs via distribution / marketing etc.

This is compounded when the material is not original and not licensed. In essence, these types of items are the exact same as cassette tapes made for friends 'back in the day', only they can be distributed to unknown people due to the zero cost of doing so.

nik
Is it original material / licensed material?

Looks like a bedroom mix available for dl on soundcloud to me. I pointed the submitter to this thread though.

kwulf
I guess this http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2408375#latest is perfectly valid, no?

That is, the one haze linked isnt. First is all original material, the second is other people's stuff in a mix of some kind.

Don't mean to offend anyone, but I just get the impression there is too much time wasted on useless topics lately. Soundcloud and ringtones? Please! I'm still not happy with the APR...

KrissO
I just get the impression there is too much time wasted on useless topics lately. Soundcloud and ringtones?

You don't need to read / participate in the discussion if you are not interested in it. I don't think the topic is a waste of time, and even if it is, then it is other s prerogative to spend their time discussing what they want :-)

KrissO
I'm still not happy with the APR

The right topic to discuss that is at http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/215351 - I haven't seen any from you there, any constructive critique welcome.

nik
You don't need to read / participate in the discussion if you are not interested in it. I don't think the topic is a waste of time, and even if it is, then it is other s prerogative to spend their time discussing what they want :-)

Fair enough.

nik
The right topic to discuss that is at http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/215351 - I haven't seen any from you there, any constructive critique welcome.

Was on vacation for a month while the final stage launched, so there's a lot of discussion to catch up on. But I will.

KrissO
there is too much time wasted on useless topics lately. Soundcloud and ringtones?

what he said ^^

the ringtone bit, they see that as marketable with the possiblity of cashing in on it. but the soundcloud thing ... lol

and judging by the amount of people voicing concerns against those ideas in all the threads of late, it does appear to be a waste of time.