#musicbrainz

anyone else having trouble with musicbrainz? getting "bad gateway: 502" when I try to fix an edit I made yesterday ;/

looks like your edit is trying a add a medium in position 3, but one already exists there

s/a add/to add/

"trynuh" is also acceptable.

I prefer tryin'a

snoozebrainz: ^ can you describe what changes you were trying to do? there's a bug somewhere there

I entered an album yesterday based on discogs data, when I went over it today I realized that data was wrong (does not match any other information I can find on ther internet and the tracklist is broken)

so I used the information from allmusic instead and added two new dics to the release and removed the old two dics

thanks, I'll see if I can find the bug

From what I can tell from the interface, it manage to do the first steps (rename artist credits on the album) and it was able to enter the edits for the release group and enter the remove mediums edit but was not able to do the reorder thingy, but the "edit release group" and "remove medium" wasn't removed from the interface so I caused some duplicate edits

When I entered the edits separatly I was able to get them in

I still have the window open that got the bad gateway 502 if I can do anything there to help

hmm, an other question.. I would like to add: http://www.discogs.com/The-John-Coltrane-Quarte...

to musicbrainz

which would be the correct release group to place it, http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/5240747a-5... http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/19f70e2c-e... http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/992b5d63-7...

John Coltrane - The John Coltrane Quartet Plays, John Coltrane Quartet - Plays, John Coltrane Quartet - John Coltrane Quartet Plays

on the side of the cover it says: "John Coltrane" "The John Coltrane Quartet Plays" "IMP12142"

so I guess it would be the first one, but would like to check since it seems that album is listed all over

snoozebrainz: I would say all three of those should be merged into "The John Coltrane Quartet Plays"

also, I think discogs title is wrong, it should be "The John Coltrane Quartet Plays" not "The John Coltrane Quartet Plays John Coltrane"

so if I add the new album to John Coltrane - The John Coltrane Quartet Plays and merg the other two release groups into that release groups it should be fine?

and should I set the artist of the album and the songs to John Coltrane or John Coltrane Quartet?

the releases in John Coltrane - The John Coltrane Quartet Plays has John Coltrane Quartet as the artist so not sure which one I should use :)

I can see how somebody would get confused, thinking it's like "Zappa Plays Zappa". I guess.

snoozebrainz: hard to say which artist to use. Either seems acceptable.

snoozebrainz: spine and medium suggest "john coltrane"

the other one in the group used "The John Coltrane Quartet" so I went with that one

it kind of makes sense since the credited persons on the release are the members of the quartet

maybe the songs should be credited to to the quartet and the album to coltrane

created an edit to merge the different release groups, but won't start chaning artist credits on them since I know to little about what should be the correct credits :)

Credits are overrated, yay relationships

relationships are even more confusing :)

hawke1: everything is important. this is why I fail :-)

but yeah, it always comes back to "what's a label?"

I should so seriously not have to know the details of the history of occasions on which label X jerked off label Y and thus is allowed to use its logo, in order to put a label on a release.

The problem with that one is that we need decent community input on that, and I'm not very sure how to get it

I mean, from multiple users, not the same five people who always argue about it and whose opinions I know by heart by now :p

reosarevok: lol

reosarevok: I think the problem is that those 5 users are the only ones who care one way or the other.

I have no idea what reosarevok is talking about.

Not because those opinions aren't valid or anything, but because "label" is a very central part of our releases and it would be very good to know what people expect to see there

Maybe most people don't care at all, dunno

But I'd like to know even that :D

Judging by the way in which labels are arbitrarily slapped on releases, I think most people don't know, don't care, and don't care to know.

that's a good starting point. what do people want to know? it'd be pretty easy to come up with a list that answers that.

my personal preference for label is that as few as possible should be on any release in mbz, and the one(s) that are there should be the primary label(s) used on customer-visible packaging/branding

where "primary" is unfortunately hard to define

I mean, by how iTunes for example doesn't even bother to mention the label, maybe people just really don't care nowadays :p

I guess we shouldn't tell that to any labels who want to pay us, though :D

if a label is a logo on the cover, then most digital releases don't /have/ labels (do they?)

kepstin-laptop: IMO labels should be available as a method to distinguish releases and identify the ones that you have in hand.

kepstin-laptop: If I see logo XYZ on my physical copy and someone has decided that that label is not the "primary" one for whatever reason, resulting in not being able to find the proper release on MB...that's a problem.

hawke1: that's why I think we're approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

you (and others, I'm sure) want to know what branding appears on a release. that's a totally valid thing to want to know. does it matter whether we call that the "release label"? not so much IMO.

(excluding digital releases, of course) very little of the stuff I own has any sort of confusing "multiple branding"

helps that in the canadian/us market, at least for cds, it's very common to use completely separate printings and pressings for the two countries, so they can put different labels on each as needed.

CallerNo6: yeah, I would have no objection if people wanted to take one of the several logos and mark it as "the primary" label. That's just fine by me.

CallerNo6: It's when it comes down to the ridiculous "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE" [cue highlander theme] that it bothers me.

Heck, could even pretend to mark one as primary now by making the label order significant (though it would be a pain in the ass to actually reorder labels, it would kinda work)

hawke1: well, right. I think the problem is that we're trying to shoehorn information into these legacy fields.

CallerNo6: Oh?

CallerNo6: I don't think they're legacy fields, and I don't know in what we we'd be trying to shoehorn it in...

CallerNo6: I feel like some people have decided there can only be one label and are trying to enforce it on everything.

[20:17] <hawke1> Judging by the way in which labels are arbitrarily slapped on releases, I think most people don't know, don't care, and don't care to know.

^^this

basicallybasically :P

erh

Well, I feel "label" is as much a legacy field as "artist"

(so, not fully, but kinda)

reosarevok: I mostly care about reducing the pointless arguments about it, so even if the guideline is completely bonkers, as long as it clear and easy to follow, I'd be happy :)

It's "something or other label-ish that really should be more specific"

reosarevok: What would be the "current" field replacing it?

A set of relationships, which we mostly already have, plus an "imprint" one I guess

And better UI

reosarevok: Except that would just transfer the problem to the "imprint" relationship.

reosarevok: Someone, or some people, would just decide "there is only one imprint allowed" and we're back where we are now.

[20:46] <hawke1> CallerNo6: I feel like some people have decided there can only be one label and are trying to enforce it on everything.

yea, that bothers me too, why can't we like.. have al lthe things?

Would it? You could also have a generic "label" relationship above all others, I guess

Same as we have "performer" above more specific performance types

If you're not sure what a label is on the release, just use that

blup: excactly. there's no reason why we can't have all the things.

reosarevok: But when you can see that there are 3 logos on the release...

yea. I mean, that's basiclaly how I *use* label

reosarevok: and they are all valid "labels" in that they have label entities in the database.

hawke1: dunno. a lot of releases I see include the distributor's logo and I wouldn't call the imprint still

if there is the logo, use thingy

if there is no logo, go with.. uhh wahts on the spine

if thereisn't.. i guess soem rights thing

y

Of course there are also cases where there *are* multiple valid imprint logos

reosarevok: OK, but concrete example: https://ia601704.us.archive.org/35/items/mbid-7...

reosarevok: To me that is "EMI" and a localized variant of "His Master's Voice"

I've had people take a label i created, add lots of other crap to it, altered it ad 4 years later somone went along and removed the label i added from the original release *I* added as "not being the right label"

Hmm

There's an objection to that because the company EMI happens to have owned the imprint HMV at the time.

(different people doing all that)

To me that's "EMI Die Simme seines Herm" or something to that point, if anything

(it seems like one combined logo, not multiple)