#musicbrainz

opinions? http://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/23788370

Hmm

Picard-geeks, if I wanted to tag tracks based on their relationships, could I do that with tagger script stuff?

(some guy is complaining about us not having performers on artist for classical)

reosarevok: as a german my answer is "jein", a mixture of "ja" and "nein" - you *can* use tags like %performer:violin% (or any other instrument) in the file naming script, but you have to know the instrument or whatever beforehand

hehehe

german is so much more fun for answering questions

God, that's horrible

There's no way to select all performer tags? :/

(in theory, one could write a plugin to merge all performer:whatever tags into one multi-valued %allperformers% tag though)

I guess the guy is right then in that there's no good way to tag classical with Picard, meh :(

I was hoping to prove him wrong!

Heh

Yeah, having composers *and* performers on tracks would probably make more sense

But well

(composers still make no sense on recordings though)

Of course the ideal thing would be not to have any arbitrary artists and just use relationships for all, but

reosarevok: So... what other tagger does he know of that does this well and easily since he's complaining that Picard can't?

None, that's what he's complaining about :p

(that not even Picard can do it well, so the only choice is doing it by hand)

Wait, is he complaining that there's no tagger in general or that Picard can't specifically?

Well, he was complaining not even MB does it well enough

Because the first is definitely a valid issue, but the 2nd is moot if there are no other taggers that can do it, IMHO.

So, both?

It was basically "meh, all taggers suck for classical, even Picard which is good for the rest"

Which seemingly is true :(

And I mean, that no other taggers can do it shouldn't be a reason we can't do better, we're supposed to be better than them anyway ;)

Is there something missing from the AR extra tags picard gives you?

Yes, any player that can use them :p

Isn't that a player issue, and not a picard issue?

snartal: You didn't say the missing thing had to be a Picard issue.

Technically yes, it's a player issue

In practice, us having no clear way of letting users put the performers somewhere their player can see is kinda both :/

the point of tagging your files is to add information to the files that you can use :P

we could start stripping all tags except for mbids and claiming it's a player issue if they can't fetch the data from mb, but that wouldn't go down well

since that's not much use :P

reosarevok: heh, turns out I was wrong: there's https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Picard... which, if invoked like $performer() will give you a comma-separated list of all performers

Oooh, nice!

So, with that info, does Picard go back to being the most super awesomeus tagger in the universe?

Well it still was, other taggers aren't better :p

Hi all...

Short question: is there any way to tell the database that a release is part of a series (like "Now! Thats what I call music" in US/UK or "Bravo Hits" in Germany)?

no, not yet

but as you can probably guess from the number of votes on http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-2714 it's quite a popular idea :)

oh.. ok.. going to upvote the idea :)

thanks nikki

the "next disc in series" AR got removed somewhen?

Did it ever exist?

hm, not sure if I remember it existing or not finishing with a proposal.. but I remember it..

There was a wiki page somewhere

My guess would be it existed pre-NGS

So it was probably proposed

But I don't think it ever existed

nikki would know though :p

there is this, yes: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series

No, no

I meant a wiki page for such a rel

it was proposed but never passed

Good, neither of us was going crazy then :)

"Series are also a candidate for the entity to implement first in the currently unofficial new MusicBrainz server plan."

Ok, somebody does something about that...

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Of_Series_Rela... possibly

larsduesing: yeah, we were planning to add them last May - now we'd like to add them next May :p

Hopefully this time it'll work out :)

JonnyJD_: heh, that's a confusing redirect. I'll remove it ( http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Part_of_Se... will still work, for people who want to check it)

larsduesing: Obviously, you're welcome to take a shot at coding/implementing it yourself. That should increase the chances of something happening drastically.

heh

that redirect is used int the above mentioned series wiki page

Meh :p

I'll fix that then

thx, I'll be off soon. Shouldn't start new stuff now

well "off"... afk (I should go off more often)

Freso, reosarevok_: If I could be of any help tell me..

Freso: But implementing something which is in discussion is a little bit foolish :)

larsduesing: It'll be in discussion until long after it's been implemented.

right again...

We're still discussing Areas (added in May) and Places (added in October).

Not to mentioned Recordings and about everything else...

I should have a look at the database...

reosarevok: In the context of making a Series entity or some such, would it rather more benefit from some series entries already linked together or more detract to have relationship to deprecate and ultimately remove?

If they were easy to just import, probably benefit? But dunno if enough for it to be worth it to make the user effort

if we were going to do it now, I'd be more in favour of having series as types of works (which has the advantage of having url relationships available)

(and also the advantage of not needing to add all the parts of the series to link them all to the same thing)

No ordering, but yeah

Of course, it helps that works are the more "thing"-like entities we have

I think pre-Series-as-entity, ordering is less important than just getting the series entries grouped together.

we could just order them by release date by default when migrating, I bet that would give pretty reasonable results

or try to parse titles :P

Heh.

It would

It's just it would also give some cases of wrong ordering, so it'd be moving from not-there to wrong

eh, we're gonna get wrong stuff anyway, since apparently we're not going to implement unordered stuff until we've done ordered stuff

So a Release Group <-> Work relationship "is part of the series" or something?

Not so easy :p

Sometimes we share RGs for stuff in different series

Or only a reissue is part of the series

yeah, I have several release series :/