#musicbrainz

hi. i've a small question about adding a relationship: how can i add a "rights society" relationship?

To a work? An artist?

I'm actually not sure right now what we have :)

to a release

i thought about adding it as a label but the page says not to do it

jwacalex: "This is a rights society, not a label in usual MusicBrainz terms." - so you can use it with the "rights society" relationship fine.

Oh, right. You need to "edit relationships" on the release page.

And then at the bottom you can do "release relationships" - make a relationship there and pick "rights society" as the relationship type.

maybe i'm too tired to find it. one moment

Oh, ok :)

Yeah, listen to Freso

so not on the release group but for the corresponding release

but there i don't find the type "rights society"

ok solved it

should switch to label -.-

thank you guys

ok and the last question for today: how can i annotate a bonus title?

What do you mean for this one? :)

If something is a bonus track? We don't really indicate that

ok. just asking because sometimes it's within the title and sometimes not

Yeah

found some disucssions about this issue but not a clear statement :/

The guess case tool removes (bonus track) from titles, which is a reasonable indicator that it's not really wanted

Although I don't think we have a specific guideline for it

But dunno, if code removes it that's good enough for me :)

i thought it depends on the offical title-list

this time it was clearly indicated not to be part of the title

Well, that's just extra info added to the title

since i was too dumb to find the relationship, asking if there is a certain annotation/tag looked like a good idea to me

We do different things with those - featured artists we move to the artist field, "rmx" we change to "remix", bonus track we drop. We generally follow the releases, but we do have some degree of standardisaton

:)

Yeah, sure, asking is never a bad thing!

Votes plz http://musicbrainz.org/edit/31270832

also the search server is crapping out again

sometimes I think that recording with 2 or more acoustIDs should be separated...

Nyanko-sensei: What if they're from the same track?

pretty sure the ones I added were sounding differently when I checked...

I've had files (far mostly MP3s though) give different AcoustIDs on different runs of chromaprint.

The same file.

hmm...

Anyway - you can compare AcoustID fingerprints on acoustid.org to see how similar they are.

If two fingerprints are vastly similar, it might be good to split. It might also be due to a bad rip/encoding though. I'm not sure how much that'd affect the calculations.

Anyway. Looking forward to Alastair et al having the AcousticBrainz based recording merge/split report ready.

is there any guideline on how ISRCs play into that?

I want to know too

currently, on erecording can be assigned multiple ISRCs, but from my understanding there should only be one, no?

pprkut: "should", sure.

I think it should...

But that doesn't mean that the same recording can't get assigned multiple ISRCs out in the wild.

Or that the same ISRC can get applied to multiple different recordings.

Because, labels.

prime culprit - compilations

For example.

Prime culprit: labels not having a clue what they have and don't have.

heh

Freso: if you had different fingerprints on different runs of chromaprint, then I'd like to see that

Japanese labels are often better though, so you may not have encountered it as much, Nyanko-sensei.

because that would obviously be a very bad bug

luks: I have mentioned it to you before, with the MP3s. :)

well, I'd like to see the files

japanese meticulousness

(Due to the MP3s falsely reporting one length before getting fixed by mp3gain --fix.)

but I really don't think that can happen

ok, so not different fingerprints and not on the same file

Yes, different fingerprints, IIRC.

I can't remember what releases it were, but I do seem to remember that comparing the fingerprints on acoustid.org showed differences.

different acoustids, because of the duration difference

if you had different fingerprints, then that would be a very serious bug I'd like to know about

Different AcoustIDs, definitely. But also different fingerprints IIRC.

luks: I did tell you about it when I was adding/working the releases. I'll keep it in mind to poke you again next time I encounter it.

pprkut, Freso: remember we merge remasters now, so multiple ISRCs on one recording can be correct, even without a label messing up :)

sigh. tracking all the band members is such a pain... ~50k songs

That too.

So, in general pprkut, ISRCs are helpful as an (yet another) indicator for whether two recordings should be merged, but is not necessarily in and of itself.

+enough

noted :)

eed to be sorted in the release group of the box set, or are they supposed to get their own release groups?

I would expect them to get their own release groups, combing releases into a box set is a separate release group (https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release_Group) so it makes sense to me that splitting a box set into separate releases would be new release groups too

there's also some proposals floating about for relationship types for linking things like that

I'm pretty sure there are some people who would disagree with me though :)

I guess the print on the back stating that it's part of the deluxe package makes them tricky to categorize?

the relationship thing sure makes sense.. I'll just set up two new release groups.

There doesn't appear to be a suitable type of relationship..

there's only proposals so far

I see. I'll mention it in "disambiguation" then

I would probably use the annotation, but I guess disambig. works as well.

Release groups don't have annotations I think

they do :)

New post: blog: Style update, 2015-01-27 <http://blog.musicbrainz.org/2015/01/27/style-up...;

sweet

Not necessarily faster, since I got a bit swamped with requests and stuff

But hopefully simpler, which is also why I got swamped with requests :p

I like the "bi-weekly" resumes.

There should be a checkbox to specify an analog release has to track length specified on medium or cover (instead of ??:??)

The tracklist would look better with nothing than with ??:??

Well, it's always possible to measure them approximately with a timer :p

But I think I'd actually prefer nothing than ?:?? even for CDs

(outside the editor)

It certainly would be an improvement :)

Lotheric: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/

Is there a relationship for things like 'produced by X "for blablabla productions"'

the blablabla part

Not really