#musicbrainz

Munger: So it's collection 32, not collection volume 32?

Like that?

Yes

I would imagine we'd use "The Blues Collection (disc 1: Delta Classics)" and "The Blues Collection (disc 2: Chicago Classics)"

Oh, I thought you meant that two disc album was clashing with the Blues Collection series.

It sounds like each collection is composed of multiple discs.

The Blues Collection 32: My Home in the Delta (disc 2)

The real problem is that there is no convention used by record labels. Trying to neatly categorise this stuff is always going to upset someone

Well, it's at least a step more sane than classical.

I alraedy pointed out that the series currently omits the word "Volume", presumably because it it's not on the cover.

Please don't go there. I have yet to address my classical collection :-/

:-)

Yes, but as I said, the volume number is only printed on the spine of the cover, and that does not match the convention used until now either

Hmm.

I don't think thats a "Volume Number", that's actually the catalog number.

I have the whole set right in front of me as we speak. I'm trying to see if there are any other clues apart from the 'BLU NC 026" printed on the disc

What's the volume number, specifically? How does it appear on the spin?

s/spin/spine/

Like this? http://www.freecovers.net/preview/6/598a662b746...

BLU NC 026 sounds definitely like catalog number.

"3" looks like some kind of disc number in a multi-disc set, or possibly volume number.

1 John Lee Hooker Boogie Man - 1 is turned sideways so that it appears right on the shelf, artist and title are different colour. 'The Blues Collection" does not appear on the spine

Is there ever more than one disc that has the same number in that position?

pbryan: Thats the third disc in the series, "The Blues Collection 3: Blues Berry"

navap: Right.

"3" is disc number in this case.

I think the way they are currently titled, ie without the use of the word "Volume", is the correct way.

navap: I'm not sure.

3 is the disc number?

Yeah.

Looks like it to me.

Its the catalog/volume number

"3"?

Yes

There's more than one disc with "3"?

At least, thats what I make of it.

No

The Blues Collection 3: Blues Berry

It is the third disc in the series, its catalog number is "BLU NC 003"

Is there a sample of the front cover?

Represented by the "3" in the spine.

Hang on, I'll get the directory listing and pastebin it

Here is the second release in the series, http://www.freecovers.net/preview/1/96f4930b999...

But those covers do not show the spine of the cd

Yeah, okay, I'd go with volume.

The actual title doesn't list a volume number (or even the word volume). http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/96f4930b999f3b...

Hmm.

The volume number *does* appear on the spine, granted, not with the word 'Volume'

Maybe only indicate numbering in annotations?

This is like Mosaic Select sets.

The *number* does, and as per VolumeNumberStyle we don't add the word Volume if it doesn't exist on the releaes.

Inconsistency there too.

Or http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series/NowThatsWhat...

First URL contains number.

Second does not.

This sounds like a question for the mb-style mailing list.

I'm not sure what the real question here is though.

http://rafb.net/p/iGYFVj16.html order is wrong simply because of the way I store them

I don't think there is anything wrong with how they are currently named, but hey, as I said that's just my $0.02. I really don't care either way as I don't have the series.

The fly in the ointment with that collection is "The Blues Collection : The Blues at Christmas" which has no volume number

WHat is the catalog number?

BLU NCC 093

It was released just after #34 however :-D

Technically, *none* of theem have a volume number, the catalog number has been used.

What is on the spine?

They all have the volume number on the sleeve. That's how you organise them on the shelf. They cycled through about 8 different sleeve colours so that the accompanying magazines look pretty on the shelf

1 John Lee Hooker Boogie Man etc...

So this one doesn't have anything on the sleeve?

2 B.B.King The King of the Blues

"The Blues At Christmas The Very Best Of The Blues"

Oh, so its not part of the series at all then?

Does not have "The Blues Collection" printed anywhere, but is very definately part of the same collection

What makes it part of the same collection?

It can be by the same label, it doesn't have to be a part of the same series thoudh.

http://www.freecovers.net/preview/0/ba5abff1aad... http://www.freecovers.net/preview/1/ba5abff1aad...

It was a 'Bonus' CD sent out with the collection. Several tracks on there were deliberately left out of other CDs to make a nicve christmas compilation

Evn the sleeve colouring matches the sequence when placed at the end of the rack

I think it should be titled as per what is on the cover. "The Blues at Christmas: The Very Best of the Blues"

The catalog number would be "BLU NCC 93", and the date would be whatever the date is.

I agree. My issue is with the others though. If we label them as they appear on the spine then they all begin with the volume number. If we label them as they appear on the front cover, then we lose the volume numbers. We are inserting the volume number into the middle of the title to give them some logical sequence. I just think inserting the word 'Volume' does no harm and clarifies that these are indeed part of a collection

The real issue is that we need a way to group collections (e.g. disk 5 of 20) and have Picard recognise that and allow the user to specify how they want to apply that to the file naming template

--- and also the album naming template when the tags are written, so that they appear the way they want in their music player

ya know, some days the internet sucks my will to live. and then there are days like these: http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-witness-wife...

I guess I'm a little sensitive about this because I have quite a few collections like this that are tagged the way I like them, and I can't tie that up with MB without it messing with that convention. It represents a considerable investment of time on my part and I don't want to mess it up

ruaok: Ya, I saw that :)

the music industry wishes they were half as cohesive.

MBChatLogger: off

is not logging

is logging

saw that. :)

Munger: As for your dillemma, mb is built to be just a database of information, it isn't supposed to match anyones prefrences about that information. For example, I have a sountrack that has different artists for disc one and disc two. Totaly stupid when it comes to finding the albums in my music collection, but thats how they are stored in mb.

Right, but when we match against the MB database, we get the tags written according to the way the editors have named stuff. I realise that everyone has their own idea of how stuff should be named. At least if the 'disc 1 of 20' information is somehow stored on MB and that information is available to Picard, then naming issues could be sorted out locally by the user

I see no way of grouping collections, which is a shame

The server is constantly updated, and something like that might be added in the future. Right now we do overload the title field by throwing everything in there because there is no where else to store that data. Classical stuff is a good example of that.

By colection are you referring to a series like that Blues collection, of just a two disc album?

The "Now That's What I Call Music" collection is another example. Clearly a set, but later they started calling them just "Now 50" etc

or*

No. Part of a 2 disk album is different. I was unclear there

Disk 1 of 2 is doable in the TPOS tag - 1/2

So then you want something to link one album to the next album in it the series its in? Something like that has already been proposed here. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/PartOfSeriesRelatio...

chefkoch_ is now known as chefkoch

chefkoch is now known as chefkoch_AW

Yes, but as pointed out in that document, what happens if some of the releases in the series are missing from MB?

Ah, you're talking about files again. Thats very different, mb isn't built around tagging audio files. Being able to tag files with the info in mb is just a by product.

That's why its a proposal ;)

Technically, every album is part of a series, albeit a series of 1

There is a level missing in the hierarchy

Yes, thats why we have the "mb definitions" on the wiki.

I would probably link series all to the first album...

series are much more likely to be incomplete and there's no reason why specials can't exist which don't fit with the ordering

id3 tags cover disk 1 of 2, track 1 or 20 , but do not cover volume 3 of 4

Yes, thats what is suggested, but what happens when volume 3 hasn't been entered into mb and you have volume 1, 2, 4, 5.

By defualt, all albums get created as volume 1 of 1

Then allow users to edit the 'Volume' set

By that, I mean the collection

Are we talking file tagging formats, or mb here?

Both really... or

How the user tags is up to them. Allow them to specify a template to format their tags and filenames. That has has nothing to do with MB. MB simply should keep volumes/albums/tracks in the proper hierachy of things

What I propose is an insertion in the hierachy to cover Volumes as pasrt of a set, assigning a set ID to each album that can be tied to other albums in the set. Attacjing everything to the first album in the set is logically wrong

I think eventually mb might be able to do that. Currently we do stuff a lot of info into the track and release titles because there isn't anywhere else to put that info. (yet)

Munger: it might be logically wrong, but that's the only way we currently have to link one entry to another

bo

boo*

I understand. I'm just expressing an opinion. No offence intended

We don't attach everything to the first album in the set.

Munger: if we have those links, when we *do* have the structure needed, they can be automatically converted

aCiD2: AH!

I know, but I saw that in that proposal as a possibility and think it makes no sense.

chefkoch is now known as chefkoch_AW

well, what would you suggest?