#musicbrainz

Hmm, should I class MCing as spoken vocals?

As in rapping?

right, I'm sure some would say it's not the same as rapping, but that kind of thing

I would probably do "other vocals" with "MCing" in the text field.

that sounds like a better idea

Oh, ok, garage

Anyway, I'd just use vocals, but other might work too?

It's annoying that you can't use non-specified vocals with the free-text field. :(

non-specified?

Yeah.

Just vocals.

Without specifying a type.

(E.g., "other vocals", "background vocals", "soprano", "bass", whatever the current types are.)

oh right, yeah

*Ie.,

I guess both ie. and e.g. works there.

I'm never quite sure when artist relationships should be on individual recordings..

Yeah.

the credits are for the whole release

Well, if you know it to apply to a single recording, apply it there - if not, apply it to the release.

but I know that they apply to specific tracks

and clearly the vocals credit doesn't apply to the instrumental mix

so put it on the relevant recordings?

Yeah.

I know Rovics played and sung on all tracks, but the creditation is vague for the two other instrumentalists.

So I've put Rovics on all recordings and the other two guys on the release.

Oh, didn't realise you couldn't do that

(put credits on the standard vocals)

That's annoying

That's what I said. :)

Well, I said that "it's annoying", but, y'know.

should a remix be related to the original work?

or should only the original mix be related to the work, and then other versions related to the original mix?

Things like rap remixes with extra people in should have a new work (you can relate the two works with "later version" or whatever)

and if not, would it make sense to add the addition of an instrumental version relationship?

Well, you can use "instrumental" on the recording-work rel

hi folks can someone vote of these. http://musicbrainz.org/artist/a9241dc0-d910-4cd... I want to split the artist group up and neeed to remove these relationships first

reosarevok_: just spotted the instrumental flag on the work relationship, sweet

does headphones no longer work with musicbrainz for artist info fetching?

HTTP Error 502: Bad Gateway)

We have no idea, we don't run headphones

Ask the developer, I guess :)

"we"?

MusicBrainz

AFAIK the dev isn't around here, anyway, have seen him once months ago to ask some specific question but nothing more :)

is there some reason MB collectively does not use headphones?

Er, we are a music database, not a music hoarder collective? :)

thats not what I asked

I'm not sure what you asked then

I asked if anyone not you obviously had any experience with the question I asked. You said no one uses headphones here...Seems an odd declarative.

Oh. No, I say we don't run headphones, so even if someone else is experiencing the same as you, all they could tell you is "yes, it 502s for me too"

thats all I'd need to know

which is why I asked

Well, then maybe someone else around runs it :) You seemed to be asking MB whether headphones didn't work with MB anymore :)

(and since we got a few cases of people complaining because of us "breaking" their HS stuff, when it was more we were forced to throttle it so that the rest of the world could use MB, I might be a bit too twitchy about it :) )

I mean, a 502 mostly suggests the server you're calling is down, if it was our throttling it would be (IIRC) a 503

thx

So if it's a mirror, you could contact whoever it's running your specific mirror and check

If you're calling us directly, that's weird since our servers feel fine from the site at least

I need to setup my own mirror :(

That seems to be the experience of most people, eventually, yeah. I guess you can drop by #musicbrainz-devel if you find issues doing that

Someone might be able to help :)

tbh I'm somewhat surprised that people are willing to do all the effort for HS, but I guess I'm just not in the target group, heh

I am reading the docs on how to enter the data for some dozens of my original songs of the past few decades into musicbrainz online

so far, got the artist entered and some links... dunno about releases, release groups etc. yet for sure is tricky because never actually been professionally recorded

some of my songs only recording is as part of a youtube video, so how would I indicate that?

others only as mp3 on my website, so that is standalone?

website been online 17 years, since 2001 at current url

most of the songs have "official" pages on my web site, some up since the 1990s

bye for now. hope I wasn't being rude. probably come back

TheBikeGuitarist: You're not being rude. If you ever read this, you should add any lone mp3s as standalone recordings.

I'm entering a compilation release that has 5 albums spread across 3 discs. Do I:

a) put each album name in front of every track

b) use the disc title to mention which albums it has (but some are split across discs so would appear more than once)

c) just leave the info off

the release is http://mainlynorfolk.info/steeleye.span/records...

I would go for d).

(Put the info in the annotation.)

Either that or b), using SFT on both 1 and 2 and SoS on both 2 and 3.

Currently have b) in the release editor (specifying the tracks each title applies to in brackets)

I wouldn't add the releases titles to the tracks at all.

Unless they actually appear *in* the track listing.

so for disc 2: Storm Force Ten (1-2) / Live at Last! (4-10) / Sails of Silver (12-13) -- gaps because it includes 2 non-album singles

(In the same vein that we don't do "Bonus: …" or "… (bonus)".)

Ah.

I would not include that there, but use the annotation instead.

Fair enough

Also, assuming the recordings are actually the same, be sure to share them with the relevant releases.

That way a machine can also tell which recordings are from which releases.

Crap. Reached the end of the recording assignments (using the original albums) I see that the last page of the booklet says they're all 2010 remasters

Which means they should get new recordings, shouldn't it

Remasters are the same recordings.

oh good

:-)

(I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's what was decided... last year? The year before?)

Yeah, thought I'd seen many (nnnn remaster) annotations on recordings in the past

Well, it is a guideline.

If there are big, audible differences between an "original" and a remaster, a remaster should likely still be made.

E.g., a stereo remaster of a mono recording should be a new recording.

I can't compare, so couldn't make that choice

(I know there are a lot of these for the Beatles.)