Submitting music

Thank you so much for the quick reply! I actually just received my link right now! I’m excited to upload! :sunglasses:


Hello I already have a copy of the spreadsheet template from a previous submission
(resonate-metadata-template_2021-jun-15_v8-1.xlsx) - but the link in the post above to ‘spreadsheet template’ is failing for me - takes me to an Ooops page.

Not sure if it needs fixing,or if I’m in the wrong place etc - I came to this post via Artist Dashboard - Resonate

Hi, @theargentgrub - Thank you for reporting your problems with the metadata spreadsheet download link.

I just tried that link with Safari and Chrome, and they both downloaded the .xlsx file immediately. Maybe there was a temporary problem with the Resonate site? Which browser are you using?

1 Like

Hello @remst8

Got your message and just retried the link and it works fine now.
For reference I was/am using Firefox 96.0, on Ubunto 20.04 from the UK

At the time reported it I was seeing some but not all the images on the site - I thought that might just be bandwidth problems my end, so carried on. Might or might not be related (wp-content?)

Anyway, all good with the for, and I even think my submission has been published - fast, good work, people!


Weird question over here, and not sure if its come up yet. I have a separate music catalogue with a different name. I would like to put them up on Resonate, but I wanted to first find out, apart from setting up a whole separate profile, which I dont necessarily want to do cause (separate email?, double me in the forum etc) is there a way of linking all to one main account? (Bandcamp is set up this way so that I can have multiple projects, DistroKid too.) Just wondering if there is a way to do this, so that I dont have to pester everyone half way through the process. I have two EPs of music for my band Explosives For Her Majesty, that I would like to upload, and there will be a new EP in the future going up for that project.


Not yet, but serious progress has been made toward this. For now, here’s the process:

1 Like

Forgive me if I’m wrong… and @Hakanto is definitely correct above… but on upload you can enter a different artist name.

Such an upload would still be added to your Kallie Marie account, profile etc. (they’d show up here - Resonate) the album and track ownership would still be your existing account but they’d display the different artist name in the player etc.

If you needed account/profile separation this wouldn’t be any use. But if the other artist name was happy as a pseudonym under Kallie Marie, it should work.

Now there might be other reasons I’m not thinking of as to why we don’t want to encourage this though.

Yes absolutely. For an example, see how @CPacaud’s solo releases appear with his name, yet are on the artist page for Contemplator.

That’s one solution. But if folks want multiple artist profiles/pages, they should use the process linked above.

Ok, in that case I will just have to hold off on uploading more because its going to get insane having duplicate resonate emails and different accounts. Its too much. Please keep us updated when this feature roles out. Cant wait for it!


I wouldn’t encourage this because if there were splits on the royalties then that could be confusing. I assume the royalties would all go to one place? In my case it wouldn’t really matter for now, the last two EPs for my band are all credit back to me as I’ve worked out arrangements with my collaborators. However I cant speak to what the next EP would be like, and by doing so I would have painted myself into a corner for future releases. Aka prob bad look. This should definitely be high up there on the list, I would think, as I imagine its a similar infrastructure for say… labels? But I am not sure…

1 Like

@Uploaders Let’s no longer accept FLAC files in submissions, starting Feb 14.

I’ve updated:

  • the Submitting music guide
  • the Updated audio needed email template

After conversations with @auggod, it seems that accepting only WAV and AIFF will put us in a better position to offer downloads in the future. If anyone else has thoughts on this, feel free to jump in.


:ear: I hear this!!! I have 5 artist accounts, one label account, and an uploader account. It’s madness.

1 Like

I like uploading flac’s. They’re smaller files so upload quicker (nice when it’s a full album). They tend to come with embedded track metadata so track titles etc. are correct automatically. I can think of one specific example where they come from a label and so I wonder if metadata’d flacs are common within the industry or not? Might be worth thinking about in terms of working with more label catalogues in the future.

Having said all of that though, I think downloads are more important so if this helps it sounds good to me.

1 Like

Are there technical challenges with transcoding FLACs to other formats? The ‘L’ in FLAC stands for “Lossless”, so transcoding to MP3 for download should have no impact on sound quality versus using a WAV or AIFF file as a source.

If that isn’t the problem, I’d like to learn why WAV and AIFF have been determined to be better than FLAC for downloads in the future.

100% agree with all this.

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?