#musicbrainz

lol

eil.com is great

would be cool to have UPC code for albums in MB

so you can tag your CD using a barcode reader

heh

id kind of like that too... i dont know why

it would make it useful for stores

but then again

at one point i had recorded all the little codes that every nintendo product has on it (systems, games, cords, everything)

the problem between no info and info that might not be accurate is trying to prove that the release date wasn't actually a correct one, whereas with no release date, you know it's "wrong"...

cikkolata: good point

cikkolata: I think the same principle applies to proving (or disproving) bootlegs

but if you want to hear music from the 90s, then being tagged with 1993 rather than 1994 is better than no tag at all

I don't really pay much attention to issues with bootlegs 'cause I stick to official stuff

I hate bootlegs

but, some things you just have to put up with. :)

yeah

Mostly I hate the obvious homebrews that can't be disproved

i prefer to stay with original stuff too

official rather

like an album which has a couple of remixes tacked on the end, and you know damn well that it was never an official release, but it's hard to prove it

but like, the beatles

is there any reason for not adding a 'Label' tag to Albums too ?

"3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge"

What is that from

Pi ?

yup

you get a prize

(yet to be determined)

more metadata fields added to MusicBrainz would be a great price

(disclaimer: there may be no prize)

like what enjayhch

out of curiosity?

Record Label, URLs to official sites, UPC code, Catalogue No, Country of Origin,

some being more important than others

Media Type, Language ...

Part of a Set

AR has an URL thing...

:)

I've been told to ask djce about the language stuff, but haven't done so yet... :X

would be fantastic to make MusicBrainz the music db of IMDB

and would encourage people to use it for tagging

without the stupid comments? :P

haha

"man this album blows, does anyone think the same?"

well reviews would be interesting

"nah man, it bites!!@#!"

but voting on quality of reviews would help :)

tma: your grammar is still too good ;)

sorry. it's a bad habit.

qualitative reviews rather than comments I guess

hehe

i disagree, reviews are to opinion based and non factual... who needs them

not specifically reviews, but a system that suggests music based on what other people like has been proposed

like audioscrobbler is supposed to do?

cikkolata: I think the aim was to merge/link Scrobbler and MB somehow

they plan to use mb for the data

I bet you'd probably get some good results just by comparing MB members artist subscriptions ...

not me :X

my subscriptions count is going to hit 300 soon

anomalies always get worked out with a large enough data-set

:)

have you subscribed to [unknown]? :)

and I still don't get many new mods on my subscribed artists :/

nope

Mostly I'm just a yes-man for unknown artist to known artist mods

mine are mostly turkish, thai, eastern european, japanese, korean, etc.

>.< audioscrobbler recomends me crap music

i listen to like 20 death metal songs and they think its my favorite? wtf.

the turkish ones especially. omgi will not fix the titles of the turkish stuff he imports >_<

the japanese stuff to help thwart the attempts of people to remove all non-ascii stuff from the database ;)

SenRepus: I've a feeling that scrobbler may only suit certain types of listeners. The more eclectic listeners (such as myself) don't quite fit any mold, and so suggestions from scrobbler probably aren't as suitable

I don't get very good suggestions 'cause my listening habits are all over the place.

so we have three eclectics here, then

did we ever decide what to do about CD single numbers?

My opinion was to allow numbers on CD singles. There was no consensus reached, even though I seemed to have the last word in that particular debate. I figure that if people support it, they'll enter mods following it.

Often the editing community makes those sorts of decisions...

a couple of people do, other people vote them down based on the style guidelines...

I'm not sure that most people even rememebr there being a discussion on it

hmm

well, I'm quite torn about it because there was some serious dissention about it. I feel quite strongly that we should allow them, but others also feel as strongly that they shouldn't.

Actually, sometimes I feel that people are very resistant to any change in the guidelines .. which makes things difficult.

and I'm just sat in the middle.

it's hard to propose changes when change is a scary thing.

people vote with their feet

I can't really decide what I think about it. I leave the album tags as the single names but put them in folders with "(CD x)".

there was also the problem that some people don't like using disc for CD single numbers as well as disc numbers

what do you guys mean single numbers?

here in the UK, at least, singles are often released as two versions

... go on?

like "1: single title 2: b side 3: something else" and "1: single title, 2: single title (remix 1), 3: single title (remix 2)"

where the first one is CD 1 and the second one is CD 2

so the single gets released twice?

they're not disc 1 and 2 of a set, so some people don't like (disc 1) and (disc 2)

pretty much

i see

i think SOME kind of distinction between same titled releases needs to be allowed

yea

we don't distinguish between releases with bonus tracks, rereleases, special editions, etc.

somnolent is now known as somniloquy

SenRepus: http://uk.sonymusic.co.uk/manics/music04/item.p... <- an example

the DVD cover doesn't work o_O

it's green and says DVD where the others say CD1 and CD2

just in case you wondered :P

i see

that doesn't have remixes though...

hmm

i still understand...

http://uk.sonymusic.co.uk/manics/music04/item.p... <- one with different versions

what's MC?

cassette?

no doubt has 4 different listings for the single "Simple Kind of Life"

im not sure

my issue with it is that (more often than not in my experience) the two singles will actually be numbered and mention a set. ie: "cd 1 of a 2 cd set"

but you seem to be the only person who's seen that

NIN and Radiohead singles are good examples ...

was that at me or tma

tma.

I gave links in the thread at the time

k.

all of the ones I have only say CD 1 or CD 2

my argument was that if the discs themselves define the two as a set, then we should allow for that

am i the only one who thinks it would be useful to have a way to lock MB entries for things that look wrong and get changed by people who dont know what they are doing

no.

that's been suggested before

I like it too

cikkolata: the fact they say "cd 1" and "cd 2" implies they are part of a set, no?

maybe...

I have a couple that don't say CD 1 and CD 2 on them

and another couple that only have a sticker on the case saying which number they are.

and they should probably be left without adding "(disc x)"

(the non stickered ones)

and another couple that don't say the numbers on them

whether the CDs say which number they are seems to be completely random

those manics ones I linked to are probably the only ones I have that blatantly say which is which

cikkolata: probably. But if they _do_, then it should be recorded... _particularly_ as a lot of people are going to want to tag those albums with the disc number intact

I've got the NIN's Closer and March of the Pigs pairs, and I had links to the cover images of the Radiohead ones

at any rate, it was acknowledged that a two part single was common in the UK. The argument was whether they should be considered a set.

I'm not really for or against it, I'd rather they all have the same style (and I'm sure I could find a two disc set which doesn't say which disc is which)

I was just saying that not everything explicitly says which one is which

(even though they're clearly the same as the ones that do)

I think the fact the some singles don't distinguish themselves like that was the core argument against applying a style at all. I think that if a single pair defines itself as a set, then we should label it just as we label volumes.

um. not "Volumes", I mean multi disc releases.