#musicbrainz

warp: Ack.

tschwinge: ofcourse if you remember what you did, please do describe the steps you've taken and the data you've entered.

tschwinge: tickets.musicbrainz.org :)

Found it. :-)

warp: MBS-2244 filed.

tschwinge: thank you!

wtf MBS-2237 ?

http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ac1f2ed7-8133-492... <- this band is present on few VA releases

seems that it was miss-credited, other D-Saster: http://www.discogs.com/artist/D-Saster

lidel: I expected them to be a nazi band that was afraid of being threatened or something

But I don't know. If that's not the case, paranoid Germans are ridiculous

Hehe. :-)

speaking of german :P

blurmany! (https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=blurmany)

:P

Haha!

Is there some kind of a release diff utility?

Trying to see the difference between http://musicbrainz.org/release/c41d1718-5897-3c... and http://musicbrainz.org/release/101748bc-2652-4e...

anyone knows why release web service v1 returns track arranger, producer, insts and vocals but not compo and lyrics ? I know compo and lyrics are works rels but so is arranger isn’t it ? (and I see arranger) example : http://musicbrainz.org/ws/1/release/277eeaaf-0d...

hawke__: try with classic.musicbrainz.org

oh it’s aklready down!?

:/

arranger is not a works rel

ah no, you have to add .html in the URL’s end but however one of the erleasees is new and is not present in old mb

oh arranger is not a work rel ? mmh yes that’s logical in fact....

so the release web service v1 doesn’t retrieve stuff from works then… ach is there a v2 ? :)

No idea.

hawke__: your 2 release have the same tracklist (same ID)

Hmm, one of the releases is new? Strange that there is no “Add release” edit though…

it’s a duplicate imo

I agree in theory, but I’m curious if there’s some difference I just don’t see.

Hence the question. ;-)

They are striclty equal now but there are pending edits, check out edit history

The pending edits are a merge of disc 1-3

but one of those releases is untouched by that

Wow, artist search is badly broken on classic.mb.org

In fact, all search appears to be broken.

direct search works, whew

Ah, I see where the dupe release came from…

classic has dupe release events.

hehe ... yes the same server is used for classic and ngs indexed searches I think it’s why we have to use direct searches in classic now

yes.

Maybe direct search should be made default on classic

it would be gr8 to keep classic instead of shutting it down so soon. we can see much more info in this

Oh?

hey

should I enter whole mixes into musicbrainz?

What is “whole mixes”?

tracks that are multiple hours long and contain multiple songs

Shisma: as they as they have been release in some fashion, yes.

I don’t see much value in it myself, but I would say “why not?”

s/as/as long/

warp: does "having been played on the radio" count as "released"?

there is certainly precedent

Eelis: not in itself. but if such radio shows are regularly recording and available as bootleg torrents for example, then yes.

wow, so torrent availability is a factor?

recorded*

that's crazy

Eelis: I'm just using it as an example.

is it possible that a lot of url relationship are gone since we are on ngs?

if you recording it yourself, for yourself, it hasn't been released.

(aaargh, grammar today).

do you mean my grammer?

Eelis: but if someone records it, and makes it available to hundreds of people, it has obviously been released.

Shisma: no, my own :)

Eelis: It is a factor though. No reason you can’t just self-publish a release on bittorrent. :-)

Even a compilation

If it weren’t such a pain, I’d add the SXSW torrents.

hawke__: but what warp now seems to be saying is that it depends on how many people then download the torrent

Eelis: no, “Makes available” is not dependent on number of downloads.

but every public torrent is in principle available to the whole planet

Yes.

which makes every public torrent a "release"

Yup.

Eelis: correct.

then my "so torrent availability is a factor" was correct after all

Yup.

ok, good

does it matter if the torrent is "legal"?

Nope.

excellent, thanks

Eelis: we do have a rule against chart torrents though.

what are those?

A torrent for a billboard top 100 for a given year, e.g.

the kind of bootleg releases which include all tracks for the Top 40 chart of a specific region for a specific timeframe (usually weekly).

but we don't have a similar rule against CDs of the same type?

Where the list itself is (questionably) copyrighted.

Eelis: I'm not sure what you mean with CDs of the same type.

warp: chart CDs

Eelis: can you give an example?

aren't record stores full of cd's like "Top 20 Trance Hits of 2010" ?

Eelis: It’s basically because no one claims copyright on tracklistings for normal CDs, where as a top 40 listing is the entire business of the company which tracks that crap and therefore they’re more likely to sue/care.

Eelis: ah. yes, those are allowed.

hmm

Eelis: see 5. at http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Social_Contract

Eelis: and http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Miscellaneous for the guideline which does not allow chart torrents.

ok

what's the difference between "published" and "released"?

I would say published involves a publisher.

ah, i see

I would say “nothing”

oh

haha

huh. adding an artist doesn't auto-subscribe you to that artist any more?

what's "non-human music"?

Eelis, vocaloid? :)

pesto: never heard of it. i'll look it up

music made by computer programs.

ah

note that vocaloid actually doesn't count for that, because it's a synthesizer instrument programmed by humans.

not completely computer-generated.

Eelis: or music made by animals or aliens, or....

warp: i can't think of any examples

:)

kepstin-laptop: what would be an example that /does/ count?

Here is a new userjs (opera, firefrox, greasemonkey) for fast Classic / NGS switching http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/103422 (most of my other MB userjs are currently ☠)

bird songs?