#musicbrainz

Nobody looking at the release cares about the 100 mashups of Gangnam Style.

MBS-7859

Only for recording-recording right now.

KRS-Cuan: yeah, the relationship cardinality setting is supposed to be used for stuff like that, I think

looks like the mashup cardinality is set wrong, but I dunno if the release page would use it if it was set right

https://musicbrainz.org/relationship/579d0b4c-b... should probably have the entity1 cardinality set to 1

Most of those mashups are from http://musicbrainz.org/release/0905740e-1c97-42...

Which does show the ARs as well.

(similar for remixes)

And it makes sense there, as it's a mashup album.

Why anyone would do a five hour Gangnam Style mashup album two years later is beyond me.

KRS-Cuan: what about my third case, [release (box)]<contains>[release (individual disc, same catno, barcode etc)] ?

but yeah, imo the solution would be to set the cardinality on the rels, and make sure the release page uses the cardinality to determine whether to show the rel in the tracklist

Do we use cardinality anywhere to hide some relationships, but not all, of the same type?

CallerNo6: I think that's too detailed and also more error-prone.

KRS-Cuan: right now, in the 'edit' pages on various entities, yes

And editors are human, so they make errors and would use it incorrectly.

I dunno. It seems pretty clear to me. This exact thing contains this other exact thing.

For The Fame Monster, you have CD 2s that are equivalent to the old US/German/UK/Japan releases of The Fame.

But they are packaged differently.

It could be misused for that.

on the other hand, you could think that being placed inside a box set is sufficent that something is no longer "the same release", so linking to an exact release would be wrong.

Yes, that would be a misuse.

kepstin: I don't understand

For the Eminem The Singles boxset: http://musicbrainz.org/release/00177379-be81-45...

How useful is it to know that the box contains http://musicbrainz.org/release/9612da7e-149c-46...

Vs. having a link to the Without Me RG basically saying "it has some version of the single in it"

(I don't have the boxset, so I don't actually know if the packaging is the exact same)

The album box sets I know well are even more confusing.

I think it's useful to know "you can get this exact same product as a bundle".

I don't think like that.

But that's a different use case, I guess.

er, "as part of a bundle" I should have said

Whether you use MBz to make buying decisions.

Or to identify what you have.

And if something is identical to another version, it isn't very interesting for my buying decision.

I'd want the one with the best extras that I don't have to import for 40€ shipping.

I can imagine two use cases for me (as a consumer).

1. "hey, if you're interested in this remastered edition, did you know you could also get a box containing the artist's full discography remastered?"

2. "hey, if you're looking at this box, but really aren't interested in the whole thing, did you know the parts are also available a la carte?"

The same things could be indicated with the box set entity proposed in http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-4450 I guess.

for 2, the release group level is appropriate, imo.

I wonder if we should just have both levels

which two?

the rg-rg level linking the abstract box set to the abstract releases it contains, and the release-release level linking a particular box set to the exact releases it contains, if they're available separately without e.g. packaging changes

kepstin: Neither works for The Fame Monster.

right

Or that other release I had as an example.

that puts us back at 3 ARs

er, "that would"

Where the vinyl singles/EPs were tacked onto the album tracks.

I don't see how R-R can be confused for anything else. It's the most clearly defined case, and uses a different join phrase.

well, okay, anything can be confused I guess

Just like people randomly pick a recording for some rec-rec ARs.

Or randomly pick wrong artists.

KRS-Cuan: okay, but that's just bad editing. Should we delete artists with similar names to avoid confusion?

We don't have three different ways to enter artists.

Well, actually we have four…

Again, it's a different AR. Different link phrase, different semantic meaning, clearly defined (same barcode, catno, packaging, etc)

But I think I'll drop the idea anyway, in favor of MBS-4450

... or something similar. A container entity.

But honestly, if [box]<literally contains a copy of>[disc] is too confusing, then I'm not sure what isn't confusing :-)

My first concern is that it doesn't work for relatively common use cases.

that's why it's a different AR

Confusion would be a problem with having more than one AR to do very similar things.

It's not there yet, of course you can't see it. :P

aha. then it's a failure of imagination.

I meain, we have [unknown], [anon] and [trad]. Sure, it's confusing if you don't read the docs. So are a lot of things.

It'd be awesome if MB could be made more, I dunno, Mac like? Pythonic?

more design-of-everyday-thing-y

Pythonic would be good.

I don't like the Perl way of doing things.

it was 2001 or whatever

Hi!

What should I do if a track list includes sub-list? How to name the tracks?

http://sonicpicnic.bandcamp.com/album/awesomenauts - track 46 and 47

*sd

xplt: separate them by slashes

An example, please?

if a track consists of several pieces, separate their titles by slashes. However, your example looks different. Looks like track 46 is part 1 and track 47 is part 2

you could copy the exact track title from the back cover / booklet.

Not by slashes, but by space+slash+space: “A / B”

yes, space+slash+space

Or maybe use the subtitle style:

Fin Send - Roflnauts: 01 Prematchmusic

Fin Send - Roflnauts: 02 get ready to rofl

CSG demands that the recording artist consists only of performers, but not the composer. How is this done efficiently in practice? In my case: How do I change the recording artist of the >200 recordings of https://musicbrainz.org/release/542ca3db-b1dd-4... at once?

mki: Ok, thanks :)

mki: I think the usual workaround is to change the credit in the release editor (for tracks and releases), then cancel the “Edit medium” edit.

(Auto-editors must be careful not to use auto-editor privileges, or otherwise the medium edit will be applied and not cancellable.)

s/releases/recordings/

chirlu`: Really? :(

I think so, yes.

If you don’t like it, you can edit the recordings one by one, of course. :)

So there is a official guideline which can only be followed by this cancelling hack or a lot of effort?...this feels very wrong to me

as far as I see, I have to cancel 20 edits then (one for each medium). Better than editing >200 recordings one by one, but still a lot of stupid work

I guess I will leave this as it is

That’s how it is, there are tickets asking for improvements of course.

There is also a mass-cancelling userscript.

ok thanks

is logging

[freenode-info] why register and identify? your IRC nick is how people know you. http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#nicksetup

is logging

Users on #musicbrainz: danoply JonnyJD