#musicbrainz

tlhingan'hol I believe is the “native” klingon word

(I probably butchered the spelling)

tlhIngan Hol

are those language codes documented somewhere?

ISO 639

oh, got it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639-3

er, yeah, what he said ^

“translated version of: Gummi Bears Theme”

so Schisma______ , the answer to your question is http://beta.musicbrainz.org/search?query=lang%3...

I hate the fact that you can’t just do a proper advanced search by default

really, really, really hate it.

clearly the best workflow is to type in your query, then click a radio button, then search again.

could make a custom search for the mozilla search bar I guess

you mean 16 custom searches

right, was just thinking that through

it was a puny plan

Or we could make our search engine sane, but that’s not happening any time soon. But I’ve bitched about that many times before.

is it solveable with a userscript?

search sanity? no. advanced default? I think so, but I seem to recall there’s some problem with the way advanced works.

namely that it doesn’t do all the smart dismax stuff that the default does

well, no, but it seems like it should be possible to add an advanced radio button next to the search field in the header

sure, but that’s still two searches to hopefully find what you want

it's a half-measure

yes.

I seem to recall we used to have an 'advanced search' checkbox up there.

there is/was such a userscript, dunno if it was maintained and obviously userscripts.org is dead now

we should probably mention that somewhere (other than here)

I think we do.

but maybe not

Oh, we do.

oh, cool.

New post: blog: Server update, 2014-06-09 <http://blog.musicbrainz.org/2014/06/10/server-u...;

If a studio moves (changes address), does that make it two MB-Places, or just one with no specific address?

But only because it's easier to merge than separate.

I’m inclined to keep them as one, because recording dates can be kind of vague.

e.g. if you know that the studio moved in 1972, and a recording was made between 1971 and 1973…

Plus, smaller studios are probably more likely to move around a lot. So either way seems fine.

yep.

Whoa,'merge $ENTITY' is now just 'merge' eh?

Aaaaaaand another server update has rendered jesus2099's script temporarily unusable.

This time there's a new bug: in the Attributes menu on a work, it automatically gives the red text "This attribute type is only used for grouping, please select a subtype"

pop quiz: what is the "video" flag for in the [recording]<canBeStreamedAt>[url] relationship?

I mean, what is it for?

I didn't understand that edit either

CallerNo6: It's meant to distinguish video recordings from audio, e.g. music videos bundled with an audio release.

It's extremely common in Japan for CD singles to come bundled with a DVD or Blu-ray containing a music video, dance lesson video or short interview

HibiscusKazeneko: not the flag on the recording itself (type = video). the flag on the relationship.

That's meant to sort websites where you can stream an official video rather than just audio. YouTube for example, offers both video and audio-only (i.e. no real video, just pictures or text), while SoundCloud only streams audio content

hmm. that raises a different question (since the audio + image things on youtube are generally not official, so I don't link to them)

Oh fuck. I tried to add multiple attributes to a work and it dragged me to the Internal Server Error page without me even entering the edit

The edit in question is http://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/28049149 . At least, I'm still questioning it.

CallerNo6: I know what you mean, but sometimes artists will put up such videos on their own channels, especially in cases where the video has been blocked or banned in certain countries

the music video, I mean

HibiscusKazeneko: ah. Haven't seen that but it seems reasonable.

Lemme go dig one up

This is on Cee Lo Green's channel

Well, it's kind of a tangent. My point is, if kaik is right in the above-linked edit, then I don't know when one would use the "video" flag on the relationship.

Kaik's argument is (iiuc) that if the video is there/not-there/different, then those are different recordings so you wouldn't link e.g. a youtube video to an audio recording.

If that's true, then the flag on the relationship should never be used. Unless I'm missing something.

I added a note to that edit with an explanation. It's really not fair to use the same audio track for a music video because often times it'll be different from what's on the actual release (e.g. added sound effects, bleeps, etc.)

compare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Q3mHyzn78 with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oUuu_bUxtU

I have the single, but my turntable is out of commission

wait, your argument is that they are different recordings because the silence at the end is copyrighted?

(or might be?)

No, I was demonstrating that that was what the silence was for

Then I guess I didn't understand your note.

My explanation is that the audio found on music videos is often different from that of the released music the video is promoting. In other words, it sounds different from what is on the actual release.

Oh. Sure. That can happen.

If it's just a snippet of silence at the end, that's one thing, but altered lyrics/added sound effects/whatever is something else.

Okay. Opinion on this specific case? Identical audio (except for some silence at the end).

Might be linkable

I'd still toggle "video" for a URL relationship

If it /shouldn't/ be linked, then I don't know when one would use the "video" flag on the link.

If there's no use case for it, then it should be removed.

If only I knew an irc channel where opinionated MB users hung out.

Normally I reserve links to music videos for released versions of that video or when the audio is identical

HibiscusKazeneko: yes, that's what I would expect.

I've been wanting to expand the release and release group types to include music video releases (e.g. VHS, Laserdisc, CD Video) but from some stuff left in the documentation I can predict it will not go over well

why would the video medium be a different release group?

The release group is for releases that contain just video

if the same video is released in 2 different formats that would be the same release group

It would

just video sure...but not the individual video formats

What I'm trying to say is we don't have a release group for strictly video releases, such as recordings of live shows

i wouldn't opposed that...i read it say you wanted one for each of the formats listed..then i was ready to disagree

an example of a video release group: http://beta.musicbrainz.org/release-group/bea3d...

It has no audio tie-in

So what would happen to a concert-movie that's also released as audio-only? Same RG?

I doubt it

The album might contain different source material from the video release

e.g. it was shot on a different day at a different location

or the audio release only has select segments

I tend to not add video releases at all, but when I do I always keep them separate (unless they're bundled together)

well, right. I'm thinking of cases where it would be the same audio. e.g. Song Remains the Same is, I'm pretty sure, same source.

LOL

funny example

Even if the source audio was the same, I'd keep a standalone music video release separate from the release it's connected to

CallerNo6: if a concert recording is released both as DVD (video) and CD (audio), I would put them in the same release group.

warp, yeah, that's what I'd expect too.

so would i

(but I'm sure I could get used to it either way)

I'm thinking of releases like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything,_Every...

looks like I may have backslid: http://beta.musicbrainz.org/release-group/b099e...

that's not a VCD, btw; it's CD Video, which we don't currently have as a format

warp, another good example! Because of course everything goes in the everything group.

Unless there is no "everything" group

I can name dozens of live DVDs that have no audio equivalent

HibiscusKazeneko: are they still considered "albums"?

I wouldn't

Nikki certainly didn't

CallerNo6 :)

hah

The alternative being, I guess, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqxnm6t3QMw

I don't doubt that it's to appease *somebody*

when I have changes to my still opened edits (http://musicbrainz.org/user/ceplm/edits/open) would it be possible to somehow merge those changes into another open edit, so it would be easier on reviewers?