My question as well. When is it a web cover and when is it a real cover? I guess the web cover of Auld Lang Syne shouldn't be there...
I reckon 'web covers' appearing after the same artist's release of the song on a proper record are not applicable.
Indeed, I agree with the both of you. Created Ticket #2287 to avoid the creation of irrelevant web covers.
Read
On the promo and "general availability issue" -- 1500 copies is a good run; I have recordings that were released for sale that had a run of 300. Collectors are usually very well informed about promos out there by artists they follow, and are often much more readily available than recordings made in a small amount, but which were truly offered for sale. Unlike bootlegs, promos are actually official documents of the artist so I'm not really sure why SHS excludes them.
300 is the minimum run pressing plants will do these days. Some will insist on 500 copies, others on 1,000...
1,500 would have been the run in the 1970s/80s for a possible hit single by a main artist, serviced by a major record company to all kinds of radio stations across the entire US plus press. Often promos were just 'cut outs' of regular releases, though (cut-out = sleeves missing a corner or showing a deep cut and therefore looking like sell-out-copies.
Wayne, '(in)official' deadhead videos would still not be official Grateful Dead ones ;-). And deadheads have way better sources than SHS to find their stuff - HPs listing each gig every song was played (sometimes only from minute x to minute y seems to be missing)...
This portion of the guidelines is what I'm referring to:
"Releases must be officially and publicly released ... Not accepted: Bootlegs, promo copies sent to DJs and radios, demo's, V-discs, radio transcriptions...".
I comprehend and support this - with one exception: SHS being a cover versions database, I think official promo releases including covers not on according public releases should be entered and the versions added. Otherwise, as already stated, a comment should be added to the regular release of the version.
So your telling me if a band sings a cover song on TV or plays it live in a radio station, and that performance gets put up visually on youtube, it is an official and public release, like that Boyz II Men cover of the Billy Joel song?
If that is true, then wouldn't every song sung on American Idol, Pop Idol, or Whatever Country Idol there is, they would meet the SHS criteria?
My worst nightmare!!! 
______
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH - Haters Gonna Hate
No! No! No! That's exactly what I want to avoid and prevent! Luckily it's not the meaning of that paragraph of the guidelines. Official releases are only the ones by labels/record companies and to some extend also self-releases by artists.
But unfortunately that kind of performances you are taling about, if posted on YT (or similar channels), seems to fit as a 'web cover'...
In other words: There has to be a very strict line between 'web covers' performed and released by professional artists and the amateur ones. And each and every 'web cover' by a professional artist has to be scrutinized before being entered, also to avoid cases like the Billy Joel "Auld Lang Syne" one.
Since we are legitimizing these youtube covers, I still don't understand why we don't allow promotional copies of cover songs.
First of all, there is a major difference between "classic entries" and "web cover entries". The first category is well-documented, very detailed, regulated and moderated. The second category is much more loose on all these characteristics.
Second, promos are not allowed as classic covers because of their non-commercial and non-public behaviour. Of course, there is an exception to this rule for originals, but that would make hundreds of demos the "originals". This would be counterintuitive for the vast majority.
Lastly, wherever this discussion leads, right now nothing stops you from adding a demo as web cover.
All of this being said, I understand where the intuitive problem is. Would it be stupid to set the release date of demos as "unreleased", as to avoid them to be originals? It would be a way to integrate physical demos as "classic entries".
I think that's a great idea to set promo/demos as unreleased.
I know major artists sometimes put such songs out on box sets years later, when that happens, how would we change it in the base? And I don't see that happening to a lot of songs, not trying to scare you. Smaller artists, I don't think we have a problem about that, they would have the majority of demo/promo covers.
______
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH - Haters Gonna Hate
Read
read
Second, promos are not allowed as classic covers because of their non-commercial and non-public behaviour.
Lastly, wherever this discussion leads, right now nothing stops you from adding a demo as web cover.
All of this being said, I understand where the intuitive problem is. Would it be stupid to set the release date of demos as "unreleased", as to avoid them to be originals? It would be a way to integrate physical demos as "classic entries".
As for the 1st paragraph: That's a short version of what I've been trying to say ;-)
As for the second: We have to strictly distinct between demos and promos.
As for the 3rd: Demos, unless later being featured on proper releases, are never officially released. The 'solution' suggested therefore means cheating on the system to get tracks listed that don't fit the justified criteria.
I know major artists sometimes put such songs out on box sets years later, when that happens, how would we change it in the base?
That's the most easy scenario: If they are released later on, nothings stops us today to add them to the database. That wouldn't change in the event of a database update.
Since we are legitimizing these youtube covers, I still don't understand why we don't allow promotional copies of cover songs.
First of all, there is a major difference between "classic entries" and "web cover entries". The first category is well-documented, very detailed, regulated and moderated. The second category is much more loose on all these characteristics.
Second, promos are not allowed as classic covers because of their non-commercial and non-public behaviour. Of course, there is an exception to this rule for originals, but that would make hundreds of demos the "originals". This would be counterintuitive for the vast majority.
Lastly, wherever this discussion leads, right now nothing stops you from adding a demo as web cover.
All of this being said, I understand where the intuitive problem is. Would it be stupid to set the release date of demos as "unreleased", as to avoid them to be originals? It would be a way to integrate physical demos as "classic entries".
Demos are not promos. Demos are "recordings", promos are "releases".
In particular, a demo available on YouTube may (or may not) be "previously unreleased", a YT video of a song only available on a promo release cannot be unreleased.
The way I see it, a Promotional Video of a song, made available through YouTube, might very well qualify as an original (first release), as anyone can listen to it and, in theory, make a cover of the song before the song itself is released on CD, LP, MP3 or whatnot.
Same goes for songs that receive airplay before they are released on a physical medium. As long as it is legally available, it is officially and commercially available. Even though we may find no reasoning behind a certain "commercial strategy."
______
坐低飲啖茶，食個包
Manager
Posts: 7331
How do I attribute a web cover to two artists?
You'll need a to create a performer/alias for the combination of two artists, lets call them A and B.
Add an alias for A called "A and B". Move that alias to "A | B".
Sorry for mixing promos and demos, I guess I should also improve my reading skills 
Or drink stronger coffee in the morning
Imagine for a second we accept promos to the database. As Quentin pointed out, promos are indeed releases, not recordings. But should promos have release dates? If yes, that impacts the way we interpret release dates, and by consequence the first release of a performance, of even more drastically... the choice of the original!
