#musicbrainz

(e.g. De Profundis: "And one of the Pharisees")

Down with DRM!

ding dong, DRM is dead!

get with the times, MBChatLogger

They are just moving it elsewhere.

moving drm?

Down with DRM!

Downloadable videos are still in infancy, so they can infest it with DRM right in the beginning.

8)

http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8140067 <- I'm curious what you guys think about the date in there... each track was released separately and that's the release date...

srotta: yes. the movie industry needs to be beat up a couple more years

Well, in the end they are the same industry.

yup.

nikki, the release date seems pointless to me, and extremeley confusing as to what the date actually refers to. when it was remixed? when it was released? when the original was released?

juhae: do you have Bavarian Drinking Songs on vinyl? http://musicbrainz.org/show/release/?releaseid=... the times & PUIDs on this are fecked up. from 13 to 18

unfortunately i don't have a physical copy at all (yet) :(

i'm going to correct it as it has only been released on vinyl, so the mess up in tracks is down to the ripper.militant strike is 35 seconds long, the 10 second track 18 is the last part of primeval

the mp3 for milatant strike is actually militant strike and elm park tramp

yes votes here, please: http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8152088 :)

1.

nikki, I'd say the same about the artist on 9. And yeah, I can confirm those are composers (recognize some of the song titles)

thanks for the votes!

mudcrow/nikki: I can discuss the inclusion of the date in the "is a remix of" relations for the Evil Morning release in here, if you prefer that to the MB comments system

sure

mudcrow: Did you get my latest comment?

one sec let me look

ok, as you said the date relates to the release of the remix, not when the remix was made, which would be the only date appropiate in my opinion for that.

but as i said it was a suggestion, i didnt feel that strongly enough to vote no

The problem I see with not having it, is that the date information is lost to MB, because each track is a different date, and the release date of the entire release is just the release date of the final track.

but if they all have been previously released, then why not add the individual releases as well

They haven't, as far as I know

It's a digital-only release

each track was released in a blog-style release over a period of several years.

the entire collection is named, hence it being a "release" in MB

(rather than non-album tracks)

that contains the dates for individual track releases

ah! one of those type of releases. Dunno, I think the inclusion of the date is confusing, but I'm not going to vote no on the edits.

I'd be happy to change it if there's a better/more appropriate way to record that information, I just don't see one. I guess I can't see any other use of the date field on that particular relationship though.

track annotations?

hmm, maybe. I forgot about the existence of those. :-D

look at this: http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8151995

i didn't even think the server would let you do that

Heh

nice

hawke: yeah, that's how I did date/location for all the iunuit tracks

a per-track release date would be the best method really, but that's a little harder to do obviously

ojnkpjg: its never allowed me when i do my usual mistype of 0 tracks

well, I seem to recall there's a field for it in the db, just not interface support for it

wonder how this person managed to pull it off

There's a 40 track version with the same release title - also wrong as it is actually a 2 disc set.

possibly deleting all the tracks after adding it with tracks

That would be my guest.

http://musicbrainz.org/release/60a2e6c1-075f-42... like that. add with tracks then delete them before completing add edit

his take on sortnames reminds me of a mis-translation I ran into the other week... Someone had double translated "sortname" to Korean or whatever they spoke, and got "Short Name" - so they were editing to shorten the band names in the sortname field

i wonder if there's any valid use of a 0 track album

seems like a server bug

i have a 0 track album, its called a blank cd-r

I wonder how many 0 track albums are in the DB...

10

bplatt: on the separated ARs... I'd be very hesitent to go down the route you seemed to be describing in your last email - having separated ARs which are otherwise identical but specific level sounds like it could get more confusing than what you're trying to avoid

release ids 674891 667557 644789 622827 639438 551827 618371 649517 663093 662166

brianfreud: I'm very much on the fence about that which is why I asked if there was a specific proposal for the release-level producer ARs that Chris B mentioned.

(I looked back through the -style archives, but couldn't find prior mention of that)

nor I

If there were only a few of them, and they were worded in such a way as their distinct meanings were clear, it could work.

ojnkpjg: think you got a dupe in there - http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8152661 and http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8152659

oh, one is mudcrow, one ojnkpjg

he must have beat me to it by a second

lol, all three of us seem to have had the same idea all at once

yeah, i started from the end

i think mudcrow started from the front

and we overlapped

hmm, I started in the middle :P

took a second for a track ticket too

hehe

bplatt: Oliver (panda) seemed the most concerned about there being such production ARs that needed the distinction - if you don't hear from him may want to email him

Ah yes - I was looking for his posts earlier but couldn't find them in the thread...

I'll give it a day or so to see if he expresses a viewpoint.

it sorts things really weirdly

MrQwerty` is now known as MrQwerty