🎶 Submitting music

I’d like we postpone this decision to stop accepting FLAC.


Sounds good to me.

@Uploaders, let’s keep accepting FLAC. I’ve updated the guide and email template.


My late two cents (sorry) -

I’m assuming this is related to eventually providing downloads in multiple formats, hence requiring an uncompressed source file from which other formats would be encoded/generated automatically (à la Bandcamp).

FLAC is a lossless format, so theoretically identical in terms of sound produced to an uncompressed WAV file, meaning there is no quality loss in producing WAV files from them “after the fact” if we want to provide the option for listeners to download WAV files for their music.

For me, it’s more of an ethcial question: is it okay to say: here, you can download this in uncompressed WAV, when in some cases the files would be converted from a FLAC source (even though again, theoretically, no quality loss occurs)?

Also, I realize this imposes some more work on the backend of things to support all the additional transcoding cases, so that might be a factor to consider as well.

And I’m re-reading what @remst8 wrote, and I pretty much wrote the exact same thing in a lot more words… Weee :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Uhhh, audio engineer chiming in here… Transcoding to MP3 for download does have an impact on sound quality. Thats why some people like FLAC. Lossless encoding matters for audio quality, and just incase anyone wasn’t clear, we should keep in mind that once something has been made to a lossy file, like an MP3 you cant go backwards to lossless. Once that cake is baked, its done. So you cant put the removed portions back.

Just wanted to make sure that this was clarified incase there was some understanding, but yes if the quote I posted meant there was no loss in quality from WAV AIFF to FLAC then for the most part no. To MP3 YES. Even AIFC is lossy, but to a lesser degree and is an Apple format. IF anyone has audio quandaries please feel free to hit me with them.


1 Like

To clarify, my quoted statement meant:

Transcoding from FLAC to MP3 should not result in a “worse” MP3 than transcoding from WAV to MP3 or AIFF to MP3.

No arguments from me that MP3 is lossy and should not be used as the source for transcoding to other formats (which is why we no longer accept MP3 files for submissions).

1 Like

hello! when we put our legal name on the metadata spreadsheet, is there any chance that people would see it i.e. when downloading the track?


This is a great question, I would love to know the answer as well, and need this information kept private.

1 Like

My understanding here is… not at present. Maybe in the future and that some kinds of privacy respecting opt-in/opt-out will likely be offered.

Where it gets complex is with our likely arrangements with PROs/collections agencies etc. for various royalty payments and how album/track credits might be displayed in the future. This doesn’t specifically address track downloads but I’ll return to that at the end.

Everything I’ve seen/heard so far btw shows that people at resonate recognise and value respecting privacy on this, but there are a couple of competing demands that will need addressing.

First, legal name for composers/performers is a requirement in relation to the PROs etc. It’s part of the metadata that connects various industry processes together to make sure people get credited and paid properly. However, if you’re registered with a PRO you can also register pseudonyms which help preserve a degree of anonymity. For example, Bono is credited as Bono and not his real name.

If you’re registered (e.g. you have a label/publisher, you’ve released stuff to streaming platforms via e.g. CD Baby, Amuse etc., or you’ve registered your works independently) then you will probably either be credited to your releases under your legal name or a registered pseudonym.

If you’re not registered (and have no plans to) then it doesn’t really make any difference to you and should be able to use any name/pseudonym you like. I think there’s an update to the uploader guidance happening to help clarify this too.

So… you may already know all of that… for resonate, where this matters, to the best of my knowledge, is when we connect to metadata services tied to collections agencies etc. This is entirely necessary to be able to provide music catalogues by more established labels/artists and attention to making sure metadata is accurate and works properly will be necessary.

In this future world I expect we will want to (and I personally would encourage) publicly crediting contributions to a recording (writers, performers, studio engineers, etc.) such as tidal is currently doing.

The names entered in metadata (especially writers and performers) would form part of this and I expect would therefore become public. It’s likely that some form of opt-out or opt-in may be offered. Again, everything I’ve heard points to people here understanding and respecting privacy.

So hopefully that’s a bit of background on if/where/why things like legal names might be (or not) required and how this metadata might be made public (presuming a reasonable opt-in/opt-out procedure is also in place) in the future.

What I don’t know (and haven’t seen any discussion of previously) is how metadata might be processed for track downloads.

Personally I’d encourage us to add as much metadata to track downloads as possible so that credits and details are preserved. I also recognise doing this in a privacy respecting way but whether we presume this is covered by artists providing names/pseudonyms they’re happy to be made public or by another opt-in/opt-out option I have no real thoughts or suggestions.

Audio files can have embedded metadata and I’m unsure how the upload process works in relation to this. I know it can pull metadata out as we sometimes see it when uploading in title/artist/etc fields but I don’t know if/how this is stripped or preserved in the files we store on our servers. e.g., does this get overwritten by the values entered on the upload forms etc?

As the download facility is currently being specified and we hope will be reimplemented soon it will be useful to think about if/how metadata will be handled for file downloads.

So… at present, there is no track download facility, but… in the future, privacy respecting metadata will need thinking about.

Certainly not a complete answer but hope that helps somewhat. Also, as some of this is work in progress, it’s very open to contribution and further thought/discussion.

There’s no reason a listener needs so much metadata. If a listener/user etc downloads my music they don’t need to know my PRO. Also PRO, will have two splits, for most self maintained artists, which I’m sure are in majority here. IE writer share and publisher share. I don’t recall giving Resonate that info. I haven’t given that info to any other streaming service that I have my music on, and that would seem incredibly strange to me- and stranger still if a user/fan got that info.
It’s strange enough that if I had seen that on the way in I would likely have bolted! It raises lots of alarm bells in my mind, for a variety of reasons. Reasons both privacy based and business related.

1 Like

Sorry, not sure I follow you here. I fear I’ve made something sound different to how I intended.

The original question was if legal name, on the metadata spreadsheet, would be revealed when downloading a track (which I also extended to e.g. track credits on the web player).

I never intended to suggest e.g. royalty splits are collected/shared. There’s a point where resonate might work with a label catalogue and I don’t have the industry experience or knowledge to know how such integrations would operate.

What I did feel like I had rough handle on was the legal name aspect. If you put your legal name on the metadata spreadsheet, under writer and/or performer credits, I suspect there’d be a process where that might be revealed in the future but… probably with some kind of opt-in/opt-out. If you’re with a PRO and the name doesn’t match then the royalties system breaks. If you’re not with a PRO then you could put anything without consequence.

I’m only talking about names on writer/performer credits.

Also, personally, I quite like the tidal system where e.g. studio engineer credits are also available. I think that crediting as many forms of labour that went into a musical work would align with coop values but obviously not if people didn’t want to share/be public. When I talked about embedding metadata in track downloads, it was this sort of stuff I was thinking of, again, not e.g. royalty splits.


I never intended to suggest e.g. royalty splits are collected/shared. I definitely didnt think thats what you meant. I am saying that why would a listener need to see my PRO info? Theres no reason, and no reason for them to see my legal name. No other streaming service has that info either. They dont have my PRO info either. That seems quite odd to share that info or my legal name with a listener when they download.
PRO names shouldn’t be part of this, and are not typically. Again, names and performer credits are also different things. Some one could perform on a track and not have a stake in the splits. I think you might be confusing a lot of things. My PRO info is not and should not be part of metadata and, and my legal name, PRO info etc should never be shared when a listener downloads material. That would be very odd and would raise lots of, again as I mentioned before, issues and concerns both in terms of digital dignity, but also for business reasons with the rise of NFTs just as one example, be seriously bad business circumstances for artists.

Again I understand that kind of info, but I must clear up that PRO is not typically part of metadata and should never be shared with people downloading.

Again, I’m still unsure what you mean by PRO info then?

On the metadata spreadsheet artists are required to put e.g. composer names.

Let’s say I’m comfortable with my name being out there and so I put my legal name - Murray Royston-Ward as the composer. And say, I’m also registered with a PRO and my legal name is used there too. Both systems match up and all the royalties stuff should work (obviously this is a very simplified account of royalties systems).

Now let’s say, I go by a pseudonym and my real name is a closely guarded secret. I put Anony-mouse as the composer credit. The PRO obviously knows my legal name but I’ve registered Anony-mouse as a pseudonym and so Anony-mouse still matches up with the PRO and royalties etc work. Murray Royston-Ward never appears anywhere and I preserve my privacy.

Now lets say at the PRO I’m Murray Royston-Ward but on Resonate I put Anony-mouse. I’m unsure what complications this might create. but the metadata doesn’t match up which risks problems. Also, I’m unsure what privacy/anonynymity gains there are in such a situation as I don’t think that public writing credits are hard to find via online e.g. ISRC search and so if a track is published with my real name elsewhere I can’t really hide that very easily.

Finally, I’m Anony-mouse on Resonate and not registered with any PRO. There’s no clash of data with royalty systems, my privacy is preserved, and Resonate would only share whatever data I gave them and there should be adequate opt-in/out systems anyway etc.

What do mean by PRO names? Do you mean the secret real name bit if you have a pseudonym? In which case you shouldn’t put your real name in the metadata anyway? Or what other PRO info? Again, I’ve only really talked about names and this is only really in the context of writing/performing credits?

I suspect we’re on the same page underneath my probably clumsy writing and various jargon.

“Now lets say at the PRO I’m Murray Royston-Ward but on Resonate I put Anony-mouse. I’m unsure what complications this might create. but the metadata doesn’t match up which risks problems. Also, I’m unsure what privacy/anonynymity gains there are in such a situation as I don’t think that public writing credits are hard to find via online e.g. ISRC search and so if a track is published with my real name elsewhere I can’t really hide that very easily.”

To the above I say: Its not that they wont match up, its that some one downloading the music, DOES NOT NEED THIS INFO. Theres no reason for a listener to have this meta data. That was my main point. There’s no reason for a listener to have this information.

To have which data? Composer credit - which in this example is ‘anony-mouse’?

Respectfully, I disagree, I think that the composer credit should be listed both on the web player and in any download metadata. I think that writers, performers, musicians, studio engineers etc should be credited. If these people want privacy/anonymity there are mechanism in place to use pseudonyms.

I can only speak for myself but I don’t see the problem here.

I mean none of this is down to me of course, whatever the community wants.

Slightly related - Tidal has a whole screen for everything producers and composers are involved in:

1 Like

Yeah, it’s this that I’m thinking of, and I think this is a good thing so long as there are mechanisms to preserve privacy/anonymity if/where needed.

Record sleeves, CD inserts etc all commonly contain e.g. writing credits, performing musicians, studio engineers etc.

I’m not a DJ but I thought there was an argument for good metadata included in audio files for better linking with royalty systems for DJ mixes etc. (plus podcasts, radio, numerous other ways music is used).

I still think there’s just crossed wires in all this, but I’m really unclear what the issue is. I can’t see anything that suggests private information at the PRO would be accessed/shared by resonate or anywhere else, only e.g. public pseudonyms - and these are given by the artist, rather than scraped from the PRO (I mean I wouldn’t have even thought it possible to scrape from the PRO), and this is the whole purpose of such pseudonyms, to credit publicly someone who wishes to remain private.

edit - I must also admit that this is stressing me out slightly as I think it’s run away from the original question/intent and inadvertently gives the impression that some bad future looms where resonate does some uncool stuff with data. This is the absolute farthest from my intention.

1 Like

:tada: :tada: Announcement: Uploads are back! :tada: :tada:

Special thanks to @remst8 for collaboration getting the form forwarding properly, and to @psi for documenting steps necessary for server deployment. Happy Thursday all!

Users will notice a link at the bottom of their profile to the New Release Submission form. Also, in the top right (on wide screens, bottom right on small screens), users will notice a new Profile option from the dropdown where they can get to this page.


this is great news @piper!! thanks so much to @remst8 and @psi and all the ppl involved for getting the uploads back up! 🫶🏾

definitely will be spreading the word to artists i know who’ve been on stand-by