Talk:List of online music databases/Archive 1

Just a list?
Hmm, what purpose do this plain list serve over the category? -- Northgrove 10:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I proposed it for deletion some time ago, for this reason (diff).
 * The article prod was cancelled by Mcjorge with the edit message: "I took out the delete request. This information is not the same as the proposed deletion stated...slight differences and worth keeping seperate." (diff)


 * The only difference that I can see is the redlinks. Categories can't have redlinks, which implies that they can't include non-notable entries. I personally don't consider this good enough a reason to preserve it, but it doesn't bother me either. -- intgr 15:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

List expansion
I suggest expanding this list to be more detailed on what each site provides. From this list...it's a bunch of red links with the occasional blue one. Jasonauk 13:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It would quickly turn into a yellow papers article with each site trying to advertise itself as much as possible (or at least that tends to happen to most of such lists on Wikipedia). The alternative is removing redlinks altogether and requiring evidence of notability to introduce new redlinks. I would prefer the latter. -- intgr #%@! 12:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm doing that now &mdash; feel free to revert if you disagree. -- intgr #%@! 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracenote and CDDB
Why are there two entries for this? The CDDB IS the database for/by Gracenote! Lostinlodos (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Comparison of online music stores
I think this whole list should be merged with Comparison of online music stores, because online music stores are also databases. Yet, not all databases are online music stores, so perhaps that article should be merged to here as the main section, followed by a section with "other online music databases", and perhaps with a separate "online music streaming" section. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, there should be a separate article on Comparison of online music stores. I made it a fork from this one instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Pitchfork?
Pitchfork isn't a database. It's a news/reviews website. Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.71.148 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Shazam
Shazam should be included in this list, correct? -- Dan Leveille TALK 03:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

we7 - 6 million not 3.5
In the press release for we7's Android app, the company says it has 6 million tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.211.23 (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Last.fm database size?
Does anyone know the number of tracks in the last.fm database? It would be interesting to know, in comparison with the catalogue size of streaming services, for instance. --Norz (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I am one of the founders, I have emailed them and asked. when I was there unique tracks identified by audio fingerprint stood at about 23 million. ButtobaseUK (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Music
This article seems to be within the scope of WP:WikiProject Music, but I can't find any particularly fitting sub-project that actually does assessments. Should there be some WikiProject Music template here? —Mu Mind (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Internet Archive?
Should be added it to this list?
 * Mkouklis (talk) :) —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Done. --Ojdo (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Major revision
The current version of the Wikipedia « List of online music databases » (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_music_databases) is akind of mess and should be revised : One should be aware that there are more likely three categories of music databases. We should carefully allocate each database to the proper category. I suggest that the categories should now be the following : (1) “Online music databases” containing metadata and created strictly for documentation or management purposes, hosting no music files (ex. MusicBrainz); (2) Databases put together by agregators and/or permanent download services, hosting music files (ex. IODA and iTunes) (this category partially recoups the "Comparison of online music stores" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_music_stores); (3) On-demand streaming services hosting or not hosting music files (ex. Spotify). Any comments? Youyouca (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There should be a separation between music databases (1) and content providers (2). (3) probably should be split between on-demand streaming services (Spotify, MOG, Rdio, Rhapsody), where you can pick and play a particular full-length song, and non-interactive streaming services (Pandora, Jango) where you provide configuration for a radio channel but otherwise can not choose the exact song to play. Iksnatp (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Xbox Music Android/iOS support
Needs a cite. Reportedly clients are in development as of Oct 2012 but none have been announced yet. Jhansonxi (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Detailed list
Suggestion form neo.rocco:

I noticed that the # of tracks column for the music streaming services did not reorder the volume of tracks when you press the 'reorder ascending' and 'reorder descending' icons next to the column title.

I tried to remove the word million of each box and tried again. This still does not work so if anyone knows how to sort this bug feel free.

thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.94.238 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not an expert on sorting algorithms, but I tried adding {{hs (hidden sort key) and {{sort to each entry. Neither of these worked. All I can think of is that the commas and ~ symbols are somehow confusing the sorting. I left the {{hs's in in case anyone wants to take a look at it. MrZoolook (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. My method is ugly as hell since it's basically sorting alphabetically on strings of equal lengths representing the numbers, but at least the sort works now. -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No linkspamming please
This article is still part of the encyclopaedia. Therefore WP:SPAM rules and guidelines still apply. And that means there's no basis to clutter the body of the article (up and down the table) with direct external links to the matter being discussed as that implies commercial plug of a product in the form of a linkspam. --Loginnigol (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing biggest players in the field?
What's the deal with this crappy list? It's missing Spotify, Songza, Slacker, Rhapsody? When I clicked on the link that redirected me to this shitty page it said comparison of music streaming services, either that redirect should be changed or this list needs to be changed. 206.125.41.67 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the redirect of the music streaming services. At least until recently Spotify did not have it's own database, instead they bought their artist information from a 3rd party (Discogs? Allmusic?) Arved (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Acclaimed Music
http://acclaimedmusic.net/

Could this site be added to the article? It's a really good database of critics' lists, I'm surprised that it wasn't listed in the Wiki article. But I totally understand if it can't be added. I'm not here to promote it, I'm just a user at its forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.110.174 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Purge
The list was full of redlinks and external-only links. Purged. See:
 * What Wikipedia is NOT
 * WP:LINKFARM
 * WP:SPAM
 * WP:WTAF (Write the Article First...before adding it to a list).

--&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Surprised no one has mentioned youtube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.95.93 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Extra music databases to add
Following list has many services not yet mentioned in the article, add these


 * All radio (allreadio.nl)
 * 45cat (560,000+ 45rpm 7" singles)
 * 45worlds (New database for 78rpms, LPs, CD albums, CD singles, 12" singles, music [and other] periodicals) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.T.Buck (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazon Cloud Player
 * Beatport
 * Blip.fm
 * CCmixter
 * Free Music Archive
 * Google Music
 * I Heart Radio
 * Itunes Match (icloud.com)
 * Jamendo
 * Jango
 * MP3.com
 * Musicovery
 * Nederland.fm
 * Pandora
 * Radio.com
 * RDIO (rdio.com)
 * Shoutcast
 * Soundcloud
 * Spotifiy
 * Stereomood
 * Rara.com
 * Deezer
 * Simfy
 * MOG.com
 * Rhapsody

Perhaps Pulptones, Plex, Zumocast and Maestro can be mentioned in the see also section 109.130.138.192 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What is this page?
As we do not have an article Online music database or Music database (both redirect here), and because this page does an inadequate job of defining its subject, I don't know what the list is supposed to be except to take the meaning of database and limit it to music-related subjects. Given that almost every music-related site uses a database like MySQL to store its content, in my mind it only makes sense to list sites that primarily function as a database of music-related materials, like Discogs, MusicBrainz, and AllMusic. Note that database is not the same as repository/host/archive, so something like iMesh wouldn't qualify. Similarly an online music store does not function primarily as a database and wouldn't belong here (there's already Comparison of online music stores anyway). There will still be gray areas (AudioGalaxy comes to mind), but at least that gives us something to work with. Thoughts?

Once we define the subject, we can talk about the table columns, which currently don't make sense. "Number of tracks/releases/artists" doesn't make sense. Number of data items maybe? Something else? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * From the current list, here are the ones that clearly make sense to include to me: AllMusic, Archiwum Polskiego Rocka, Choral Public Domain Library, Decibel (company), Discogs, The Echo Nest, Encyclopaedia Metallum, freedb, Gracenote, LyricWiki, MusicBrainz, MusicMight, Musipedia, Rate Your Music, Rolldabeats, WhoSampled.
 * Here are the ones that don't make sense to me: Clowdy, a media sharing platform; Deezer, a music streaming service; Free Music Archive, an archive of downloadable music; Guvera, a music streaming service; Jamendo, downloads/streaming/promotion; Jango (website), music streaming; Megarock Radio, Internet radio station; Moozone, music storage; MuseScore, scorewriting software; MySpace, social networking; Ovation Press, publisher; Rainwave, interactive radio; ShareTheMusic, music sharing; Spotify, streaming music (they acquired The Echo Nest, which is on the list already). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Pianosociety
As one of the main sources of free piano music recordings of the internet, I feel Pianosociety.com should be listed here. It also is very integral to imslp.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.66 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A prerequisite for inclusion on a list like this is having a Wikipedia article. Unless I'm looking in the wrong place, I don't think Pianosociety.com has one. Perhaps you'd like to start it? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Should this page be dedicated to free services only? The headline is misleading
I propose if the headline of this page remains "List of online music databases" we open it up to legitimate paid for services as well (which provide online music databases). Any thoughts? Tho2009 (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a guide to the internet. The headline is misleading, as its qualifications are more specific than the title describes. 2601:198:C000:59:8846:A369:E608:8FE8 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. I suggest that the last column "Full free access" should be renamed. How about we rename it "Cost", then add all (Living and Dead)Internet music dB's. Then the "Cost" column could be used to sort by specific terms e.g.: Free, Semi-free, or Paid, with the details of those costs, if any, spelled out in the "License" column. That would make the page a much more valuable tool. In step with that change I also submit that the dialogue on this talk page under "Major revision" et. al. from 2012 is important to consider. I view the renaming of the "Full free access" column to "Cost" as a separate and first step. However, it sets some of the groundwork for inclusion of other types of dB's. Personally I prefer to see the non-metadata dB's on a separate page with links to them in the first paragraph of the main page. We must consider that some of the services that provide music as their main business model are valuable metadata sources as well, ergo, I have no strong objection to defining them as such and including them as well. Jess (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove non-databases
The music service providers here are simply not databases. Which is to say that Mikael Häggström's comment in 2009 was correct.

I will post this comment, wait a bit, then edit the list to remove music service providers such as Deezer and Spotify.

Lucas gonze (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

List of removals
I removed these:

Lucas gonze (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of online music databases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424104528/http://www.discogs.com/ to http://www.discogs.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

SecondHandSongs
We are trying to add a entry for https://secondhandsongs.com/ and it keeps getting reverted. We even pointed out that we do have a page here (in Italian), just to get a reverted again, and a message saying not to ignore warnings (which we didn't, hence the message about the Italian page). What gives?


 * This List of online music databases is a list of links to existing articles in the English Wikipedia. This is the most common requirement for standalone lists on Wikipedia: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". Generally, this is the default requirement for most stand-alone lists ("List of..." or "Comparison of..." articles) in the English Wikipedia. It does not matter that it has a page in Italian. English Wikipedia is not Italian Wikipedia, the reasons why it has a page in Italian are irrelevant here (the notability rules in the Italian Wikipedia may be less strict or just hardly anyone reads/reviewed that page, which is a very common case with more obscure articles, especially in less frequented national Wikipedias). This is where Write the article first applies. If someone writes the English article and the article stands (that is, it is reviewed by someone, not tagged for deletion etc.), the link can be added to the list.—J. M. (talk) 4:56 pm, 7 March 2019, Thursday (10 days ago) (UTC−5)
 * Meeting the notability requirement is much easier, and less volatile over time, than having an article. I suppose this thread should move to WTAF, as a counterexample :) The barrier to contribution involved in creating a new article is higher than that in adding something to the list, and if notability can be established in a single row of a table (as it could here, in terms of scope and longevity) -- as opposed to a contextless list of names -- that strikes me as more than enough. – SJ +  21:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

+ 	I will have no further involvement with this list, it's just too frustrating. J. M. and I were unable to reach a resolution to our dispute (part of which was personal (which I tried to discuss privately, I don't like airing dirty laundry in public)). I apologize for any offense I caused. −
 * I see. I kind of guessed that we would have to have an English article. Thank you for taking the time to explain, and I will bring it up with the SecondHandSongs management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David10001 (talk • contribs) 7:33 pm, 7 March 2019, Thursday (10 days ago) (UTC−5)

−
 * Please note that Wikipedia has a Conflict of interest guideline. If you are in any way connected to SecondHandSongs (when you say "we" instead of "I", it probably means you are—you should also understand that you always have to speak and act for yourself on Wikipedia, not for any company, website or product; referring to oneself in plural without even revealing who the "we" are is not a sign of credibility), you should refrain from editing anything related to SecondHandSongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion and all edits should be made with the aim of improving the encyclopedia. If you are here to promote SecondHandSongs, you and the SecondHandSongs management are in the wrong place.—J. M. (talk) 8:44 pm, 7 March 2019, Thursday (10 days ago) (UTC−5)

− 	I understand your position, and I thank you for taking the time to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David10001 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC) + 	Somehow some intermediate comments have disappeared, I'm not sure what happened.David10001 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC) − 		 − 	In accordance with the guidelines, I wish to disclose that I am an unpaid editor at SecondHandSongs, and will post further suggestions for edits here on the talk page. My apologies, I don't wish to violate any guidelines.David10001 (talk) 11:07 pm, 7 March 2019, Thursday (10 days ago) (UTC−5) − 		 − 	And I didn't mean to refer to myself in the plural, I just wasn't thinking about the implication, and the need for a disclosure (discovered after reading the appropriate guideline, which J.M. helpfully pointed to).David10001 (talk) 12:09 am, 8 March 2019, Friday (10 days ago) (UTC−5) − 		 − 	How can SecondHandSongs be non-notable to Wikipedia, and at the same time be a frequently used source on Wikipedia? 4310 referenes according to Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+secondhandsongs&oq=site%3Awikipedia.org+secondhandsongs&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.7776j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waereghem (talk • contribs) 12:52 am, 8 March 2019, Friday (10 days ago) (UTC−5) − 		 − 	I haven't received a reply yet to my email to J.M., so I'm going to post again. − 	Nobody at SHS had any intention of writing a full article, just a table entry. But the guidelines for this list won't allow that. If someone at SHS chose to write an article, they still could, as long as it is written from a neutral viewpoint and submitted to the proper channel for approval. I'm not sure an article will be written, at this point, however.71.214.27.118 (talk) 11:37 pm, 9 March 2019, Saturday (8 days ago) (UTC−5) − 	The above comment is from David10001 (talk) 11:16 am, Yesterday (UTC−4). I'm not sure why the signature changed. − 		 − 	I see now that warnings also show up on a user's talk page. Good to know.David10001 (talk) 12:24 am, 10 March 2019, Sunday (8 days ago) (UTC−5) − 		 − 	I edited my comment from 10 March, it wasn't fair.David10001 (talk) 11:11 am, Yesterday (UTC−4) I will have no further involvement with this list, it's just too frustrating. J. M. and I were unable to reach a resolution to our dispute (part of which was personal (which I tried to discuss privately, I don't like airing dirty laundry in public)). I apologize for any offense I caused.

Somehow some intermediate comments have disappeared, I'm not sure what happened.David10001 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I restored the missing comments the best I could, I'm not trying to hide anything. Sorry.David10001 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello I'm drafting an article on SecondHandSongs now, as it clearly merits one; take a look if you get a chance.  – SJ +  21:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)