#musicbrainz

germany or france

uusally germany as they tend to have correct info

but I must sleep now

k

:(

luks: are you around?

yep

ruaok: pong?

will the proposal to split out the programming credit preserve all current programming credits?

ping!

hi

hi

whatup?

url for the minimoni video? :)

you pinged me yesterday

erh.. muz has it

I closed the windo

ah, yes. NM :-)

:(

ruaok: wasn't it something?

it resolved itself... :)

drsaunde: yes, as I said, I'd go and fix them

now*

does that include ones where programming is included with other instruments?

warp, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCTcKtowOgA

hey luks, where did you see that that release is an electric remix of the classical?

Muz: thanks.

BrianFreud: nowhere

hmm if it is electric mix, then it's not regular classical and shouldn't be under composers.. maybe

that's why I'm confused that just a change to VA is all it needs to fix it...

drsaunde: yes, everything would be changed to the new AR type

luks: cool..thanks for clarifying that...I am totally behind that proposal then (I just wanted to be sure :-)

BrianFreud: well, it's not perfect, but compilations like this never will be

I think at the current state (VA, somehow correct titles, label data) it's acceptable

ah, haven't seen this either.

if you say so luks :) (there's a reason I avoid classical... :P)

night all

catgroove is now known as nightgroove

natta!

nightgroove: bye!

hmm, I can't add an alias to VA?

trying to add the Japanese equiv?

yep

have to merge instead

nasty, but won't the merge auto-create an alias?

it will

:)

but merge needs votes :)

adding alias and removing the artist doesnt

maybe he entered it as a non-auto-edit

maybe

luks: can we vote yet?

:)

http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=6823292 :)

luks: thanks!

now off to bed, goodnight everyone!

night!

hmm, 560 programming ARs

I wonder how long it will take

luks: what happens to release annotations in a merge?

they will be merged :)

sweet

btw, i was just thinking...when TrackMerging gets implemented, i think that remastered track should be merged with their originals

umm

I think they shouldn'

t

remasters will most likely have different PUIDs, no?

well, the reason i think so is because there are already many, many tracks on mb that are technically a merge of a remaster/original. anytime there is an album that comes out in say, vinyl, and then is later remastered on a cd but both have identical tracklisting, they are represented by a single release on mb

hmm

so it would inconsistent to try to keep remastered tracks separate from their originals

while we are on it... there is a db limit, that one track can appear only once on an album. do you think that will need to be removed?

and one more question, should removing of an album also remove all tracks (if they are not used on another albums)?

hmm, i can't think of an album that contains an acoustically-identical track more than once on it...but that doesn't mean there aren't any!

yeah...i've been racking my brain as well and can't think of any

luks: yes. as long as the tracks aren't used on other album. but there should be a figged dialog, that says "some of these tracks are included on other albums, would you l ike to review?"

and for your second question: i'm not sure, what if some of the tracks are "non-album tracks"

the main reason why I'm asking is that tracks will basically become standalone entities in the database

yeah

they can have annotations, ARs, etc.

luks: nice

so deleting them feels wrong

yeah, that's a tricky situation

yes. but i make enough errors, that it would be okay

how about this...

most of the music i listen to requires "manual entry"

wait a minute...

how will non-album tracks be handled then? will we be able to do away with the dummy album called "non-album tracks" and just be able to have tracks exist under an artist outside of any release?

I think so

but it's more a style guideline question than a technical question

in that case, then when adding a new release, if any of the tracks on it are already listed but not bound to any release, that info should be retained so that when removing the release, those tracks -- which would technically no longer be bounder to any release -- should be retained and not deleted

but tracks that were added as new to the system when the release was add could be deleted when the release is deleted...i think

hmm

in this case it would help to have "non-album tracks" releases

yeah, or at least some sort of internal flag

the main thing i don't like about the "non-album tracks" releases as they currently are implemented is the fake track numbers that get assigned to each track :/

will track aliases be available as well?

yes

basically like discogs handles ANVs for artists

hmm...that's interesting... :-)

very nice!

it's essential for jazz

yeah...how many different ways can we punctuate a track

so one question will be what to call a track when referring to outside of any album...since technically each variation of a track's name is dependent on how it's listed on each album

Jugdish: we'll need the official title, and the known variations as listed by the publishing agencies

I was thinking about having a comment field like we have for artists

ascap, for instance publishes the variations for atrackname

go with original unless the original has been proven wrong..most misspellings and variations are due to reissue or compilation labels

because track titles itself really depend on context of the release

yeah...that might cause a little bit of problems with all the "all tracks untitled" house releases

luks, will this allow for a way to also track pre-gap tracks?

no

track listing problems are a big can of worms on it own :)

lol

pre-gap tracks, subtracks, medleys, ...

true enough...

tracks with multiple artists!

drsaunde: work back from the ascap/bmi records

and the physical copy should list all credits

Shepard` is now known as Shepard

actually, the ability for one track to be bound to more than one artist would be useful

...until we have artist name variation implemented ;)

I'm not sure if artist name variations would be really that good idea

they are useful at discogs, because they try to copy liner notes as much as possible

but I personally think is not one of MB goals

er, +this

good night

ditto

night all