#musicbrainz

probable*

hawke_2 I think it means "make the date of death the day the relationship ended.

hah, which is what caller6 said

but like, upon death, john lennon was no longer a member of the plastic ono band?

Yeah, thinking on it a moment, it wouldn't work thanks to the convoluted legal messes involved.

e.g. a deceased artist may be credited on future albums for writing work performed prior to death, may be credited for use of samples or existing recordings, may be credited just so the estate retains rights, etcetera. :/

+1

huh, RootWyrm_ is a new nick in here :)

welcome?

Ohai. Thanks. :)

nice, what are you using eh hem bee dot oh ar gee for?

tagging, or?

E) all of the above (inclusive filing bugs and such)

can anyone here help me out I am trying to setup a slave but I am new to this

[1]red: #musicbrainz-devel is generally a better place for questions on server setup; I'm in and out for a bit but there's several folks there (me included) who can answer questions

ok thanks

When there's one of those grey help bubble opened in the RE, the fields below it can't be accessed by clicking them (no userscripts)

should I add the composer for tracks if they are the artist themself?

always add ARs if you know them; the artist field doesn't have type information

you mean for the works ?

i.e. if you just look at the artist field you can't know that's a composer vs. a performer or just something random they decided to credit :P

(notable, of course, that works don't actually have an artist credit anyway, so)

"Format: Digital Media"; "Packaging: Digipak" *facepalm*

ianmcorvidae: O.K.! How do I?

MasterBob: that part is less fun, heh -- you need to add a work, link it to the relevant recording with the 'recording of' relation, and then you can add a relationship to the work

xplt: I guess that can be true if you have a CDROM with a bunch of .mp3s/.flacs/etc..

(for composer specifically -- some things get added to the recording, like the people who performed on that particular performance)

xplt: but indeed usually it would be wrong, we could add a warning to the interface. feel free to submit an improvement request in the bug tracker :)

(but I assume you mostly know that)

I wonder if there isn't one already :P

No. I am just now (right this instant) getting into the fine tuned details

warp: there is no Disc ID, so I guess, it's a "digital only" release, just the editor was confused with the same 4 letters in words :P

hawke_, ping

Is there a greasemonkey script that creates musicbrainz template links for wikipedia from artist, releases etc?

Not that I know of. I mean, I'm not even sure what template links are

If so, still not that I know of but should be pretty simple

reosarevok: those links http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Link_Wikipedia_And_M...

would be nice if there was an easy way to add mb links to wikipedia. or is there one already?

sigh - opening most links in subscription emails at once takes a while to load :/

I'm trying to understand the MBz-Picard-AcoustID-System. I disabled the option "Ignore MBIDs when loading new files" in order to be able to scan all FLACs that I ripped. ...

... I guess when a song is moved to the right window, then it means that it already was known with a AcoustID in MBz.

the acoustid -> mb recording mapping is provided by acoustid, not musicbrainz, but yes

However the track might be sorted into a different release because the same song might appear on some compilation-CD.

you can control which releases to prefer in the options (somewhere under metadata -> preferred releases)

ok. but ...

With deactivated MBIDs, when a track was not found it stays in the left window and i get the option to submit the AcoustID as long as I managed to assign the track to a release by using "look up".

right?

right

Mineo, what happens If I have a track with a known AcousticID but for my collection it should be sorted into a different release for example not the compilation, but the original album.

When I only scan it will be assigned to the compilation

When i use look up or activated the use of MBIDs it will probably be assigned to my original album, but i can not submit the AcoustID to that.

well, you can still search for the album via picards search bar and use the "tagger" button to load the album and then (in picard) move the track from the compilation release to the album

if you're absolutely sure your track is ripped from the album and it still gets the same acoustid as the compilation one, you should also merge the recordings

Mineo, but there is not autmation for that? Would be MUCH nicer if I could send AcousticIDs to a release that I specified by "look up"

and if the database sees that both CDs have a song with the same AcousticID it then could automatically merge the recordings

you can send acoustids to a release you get by lookup

hmm, and how do i do that?

if you hit scan, then drag them back to the left from wherever they got put

well, you could also scan the tracks, move them back from the right window the the middle (or left one) and then use lookup to find the release you want

and then move them to the correct place manually

then the submit button will light up

you'll need to have an acoustid API key configured

I did that.

(you log in with your musicbrainz login/password and it gives you one, it's pretty easy :P)

ok. I will try the whole thing once I can. Right now I am waiting for some edits to be applied for new releases i submitted

hey ianmcorvidae, I see you're editing a lot of the jamendo releases - could you update the label annotation to actually describe the correct way to relate releases to jamendo?

Mineo: sure, I can do that

the way described there currently is apparently so wrong that even bots can do better

I'm just working through http://mbsandbox.org/~ianmcorvidae/jamendo.html at present

heh

but I have no idea what's the correct way :(

I'm editing it now :)

yeah, adding the licenses is kind of a huge pain in the ass

Something else I haven't fully understood yet is the automatic email-notification on edits i did. I would like to be notified about changes about submissions i made even ... say ... in some years. But for that all my edits would need to be stored for that long even after they have been accepted. Will they be stored that long and notifications be send out?

edits are stored forever, and if someone comments on one you'll always be sent email if that's configured

for edits to artist/releases/etc., it's all a matter of if you're subscribed, and those are sent as part of the subscriptions email

(though edits don't ever stop sending email, theoretically, you won't get emails for votes after they're closed, obviously, and usually people don't comment on old edits)

ianmcorvidae, as far as I understood there are no subscriptions to releases available. Only to artists and ...not sure... labels? That's why I was looking for a way to see if someone makes changes to the releases that i submitted/edited.

subscribing to the artist is the way to do that, usually

until we have a subscribe to collection feature, anyway

Oh, that's not good. If i submitted/edit one say Queen-CD, then I don't want to get notifications about all others of them. hmm....

yeah, it's not entirely optimal :)

just as life ;)

The only method I thought of was to use picard frequently to uplook everything. Once it tries to make changes, I do know that someone changed something. But then I can't comment on his changes.

And it does not track all changes, I guess.

Mineo: duly updated, hopefully not too obsessively long-winded :P

hm there is still some confusion for me about the release-country. For example this release says it was released in 192 in US: http://musicbrainz.org/release/7eac87cf-ddfc-43...

But I am holding the CD in my hand with the same catalogue-number and it reads: (P) 1981 (that's 11 years earlier) and "Manufactured and Marketed in Europe"

that suggests that's a different release then

ianmcorvidae, with the same catalogue-number? I thought that it would be uniq to a release

though the linked release does mention recording dates in the 80's

assuming that record labels will be particularly consistent is not usually a good assumption :)

by their metric it may count as the "same release", but in MB terminology they're different

ianmcorvidae, the discID fits two, though there are two assigned to the release. So in theory I would have to make a new release even artist,title, tracks, cover, and assign the discID to the new release?

two=too*

I need to slow down again. I am writing faster than I am thinking.

haha

but i guess you got the point

the first step I'd take is to make sure it's really a separate release -- see if you can find sources that talk about a european release of that album, etc.

a differing date and country means a new release, but it can share the tracklist and you can use the existing release as a starting point, which should speed things substantially

in general, the best way to edit is to find sources, cross-reference them with other sources (if there's any in the editing history for the existing release, maybe look there to start)

and when in doubt, find more sources! ;D

or I'll try to suppress my longing for perfection and skip it as another 1600 CDs waiting for me and I am mostly interested in the aspect of correct tagging of rips while sharing the data with others. A 100% correct database is nice, but if I spend so much time on one CD, I will have to leave out other CDs. My choice...

heh, fair enough

definitely done that with some of mine

if you'd like to get this one done, what I'd say is when in doubt make a new release

it's easy to merge, it's a lot harder to split, so :)

Lomaxx: indeed, there's always more releases to add :(

(which is why I rarely get around to relationships)

the fact our interface is pretty non-optimal for it doesn't help

one classical release can take hours (if you're anyone but reosarevok :P)

hah, I've spent slightly over two hears on a single release without adding any relationships

(fsck eurobeat compilations)