#musicbrainz

/

      • ariscop joined the channel
      • ariscop has quit
      • ariscop joined the channel
      • ariscop has quit
      • ariscop joined the channel
      • ariscop has quit
      • ariscop joined the channel
      • ariscop has quit
      • ariscop joined the channel
      • ariscop has quit
      • ariscop joined the channel
      • hawke1 joined the channel
      • kepstin-laptop has quit
      • ariscop_ joined the channel
      • snoozebrainz
        anyone else having trouble with musicbrainz? getting "bad gateway: 502" when I try to fix an edit I made yesterday ;/
      • ariscop has quit
      • bitmap
        looks like your edit is trying a add a medium in position 3, but one already exists there
      • s/a add/to add/
      • CallerNo6
        "trynuh" is also acceptable.
      • hawke1
        I prefer tryin'a
      • bitmap
      • snoozebrainz: ^ can you describe what changes you were trying to do? there's a bug somewhere there
      • kepstin-laptop joined the channel
      • snoozebrainz
        I entered an album yesterday based on discogs data, when I went over it today I realized that data was wrong (does not match any other information I can find on ther internet and the tracklist is broken)
      • so I used the information from allmusic instead and added two new dics to the release and removed the old two dics
      • dufferzafar joined the channel
      • bitmap
        thanks, I'll see if I can find the bug
      • snoozebrainz
        From what I can tell from the interface, it manage to do the first steps (rename artist credits on the album) and it was able to enter the edits for the release group and enter the remove mediums edit but was not able to do the reorder thingy, but the "edit release group" and "remove medium" wasn't removed from the interface so I caused some duplicate edits
      • When I entered the edits separatly I was able to get them in
      • I still have the window open that got the bad gateway 502 if I can do anything there to help
      • simukis_ has quit
      • simukis_ joined the channel
      • ariscop__ joined the channel
      • ariscop_ has quit
      • jcazevedo joined the channel
      • dufferzafar has quit
      • hmm, an other question.. I would like to add: http://www.discogs.com/The-John-Coltrane-Quarte...
      • to musicbrainz
      • John Coltrane - The John Coltrane Quartet Plays, John Coltrane Quartet - Plays, John Coltrane Quartet - John Coltrane Quartet Plays
      • on the side of the cover it says: "John Coltrane" "The John Coltrane Quartet Plays" "IMP12142"
      • so I guess it would be the first one, but would like to check since it seems that album is listed all over
      • hawke1
        snoozebrainz: I would say all three of those should be merged into "The John Coltrane Quartet Plays"
      • also, I think discogs title is wrong, it should be "The John Coltrane Quartet Plays" not "The John Coltrane Quartet Plays John Coltrane"
      • snoozebrainz
        so if I add the new album to John Coltrane - The John Coltrane Quartet Plays and merg the other two release groups into that release groups it should be fine?
      • dufferzafar joined the channel
      • and should I set the artist of the album and the songs to John Coltrane or John Coltrane Quartet?
      • the releases in John Coltrane - The John Coltrane Quartet Plays has John Coltrane Quartet as the artist so not sure which one I should use :)
      • dufferzafar has quit
      • dufferzafar joined the channel
      • dufferzafar has quit
      • reosarevok has quit
      • ariscop_ joined the channel
      • reosarevok joined the channel
      • aron_kexp joined the channel
      • ariscop__ has quit
      • aron_kexp has quit
      • dufferzafar joined the channel
      • CallerNo6
        I can see how somebody would get confused, thinking it's like "Zappa Plays Zappa". I guess.
      • hawke1
        snoozebrainz: hard to say which artist to use. Either seems acceptable.
      • ariscop__ joined the channel
      • snoozebrainz: spine and medium suggest "john coltrane"
      • snoozebrainz
        the other one in the group used "The John Coltrane Quartet" so I went with that one
      • it kind of makes sense since the credited persons on the release are the members of the quartet
      • ariscop_ has quit
      • maybe the songs should be credited to to the quartet and the album to coltrane
      • created an edit to merge the different release groups, but won't start chaning artist credits on them since I know to little about what should be the correct credits :)
      • ariscop_ joined the channel
      • reosarevok
        Credits are overrated, yay relationships
      • reosarevok goes hide again
      • ariscop__ has quit
      • aron_kexp joined the channel
      • snoozebrainz
        relationships are even more confusing :)
      • hawke1
        CallerNo6: OK, after some comments and objections to my edit https://musicbrainz.org/edit/35596410 I think http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-563 is more important now. :-)
      • CallerNo6
        hawke1: everything is important. this is why I fail :-)
      • but yeah, it always comes back to "what's a label?"
      • hawke1
        I should so seriously not have to know the details of the history of occasions on which label X jerked off label Y and thus is allowed to use its logo, in order to put a label on a release.
      • reosarevok
        The problem with that one is that we need decent community input on that, and I'm not very sure how to get it
      • I mean, from multiple users, not the same five people who always argue about it and whose opinions I know by heart by now :p
      • hawke1
        reosarevok: lol
      • reosarevok: I think the problem is that those 5 users are the only ones who care one way or the other.
      • CallerNo6
        I have no idea what reosarevok is talking about.
      • reosarevok
        Not because those opinions aren't valid or anything, but because "label" is a very central part of our releases and it would be very good to know what people expect to see there
      • Maybe most people don't care at all, dunno
      • But I'd like to know even that :D
      • hawke1
        Judging by the way in which labels are arbitrarily slapped on releases, I think most people don't know, don't care, and don't care to know.
      • CallerNo6
        that's a good starting point. what do people want to know? it'd be pretty easy to come up with a list that answers that.
      • kepstin-laptop
        my personal preference for label is that as few as possible should be on any release in mbz, and the one(s) that are there should be the primary label(s) used on customer-visible packaging/branding
      • where "primary" is unfortunately hard to define
      • reosarevok
        I mean, by how iTunes for example doesn't even bother to mention the label, maybe people just really don't care nowadays :p
      • I guess we shouldn't tell that to any labels who want to pay us, though :D
      • CallerNo6
        if a label is a logo on the cover, then most digital releases don't /have/ labels (do they?)
      • hawke1
        kepstin-laptop: IMO labels should be available as a method to distinguish releases and identify the ones that you have in hand.
      • kepstin-laptop: If I see logo XYZ on my physical copy and someone has decided that that label is not the "primary" one for whatever reason, resulting in not being able to find the proper release on MB...that's a problem.
      • ariscop__ joined the channel
      • CallerNo6
        hawke1: that's why I think we're approaching the problem from the wrong angle.
      • you (and others, I'm sure) want to know what branding appears on a release. that's a totally valid thing to want to know. does it matter whether we call that the "release label"? not so much IMO.
      • kepstin-laptop
        (excluding digital releases, of course) very little of the stuff I own has any sort of confusing "multiple branding"
      • helps that in the canadian/us market, at least for cds, it's very common to use completely separate printings and pressings for the two countries, so they can put different labels on each as needed.
      • ariscop_ has quit
      • LordSputnik joined the channel
      • hawke1
        CallerNo6: yeah, I would have no objection if people wanted to take one of the several logos and mark it as "the primary" label. That's just fine by me.
      • CallerNo6: It's when it comes down to the ridiculous "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE" [cue highlander theme] that it bothers me.
      • Heck, could even pretend to mark one as primary now by making the label order significant (though it would be a pain in the ass to actually reorder labels, it would kinda work)
      • CallerNo6
        hawke1: well, right. I think the problem is that we're trying to shoehorn information into these legacy fields.
      • ariscop__ has quit
      • ariscop joined the channel
      • hawke1
        CallerNo6: Oh?
      • CallerNo6: I don't think they're legacy fields, and I don't know in what we we'd be trying to shoehorn it in...
      • CallerNo6: I feel like some people have decided there can only be one label and are trying to enforce it on everything.
      • blup
        [20:17] <hawke1> Judging by the way in which labels are arbitrarily slapped on releases, I think most people don't know, don't care, and don't care to know.
      • ^^this
      • basicallybasically :P
      • erh
      • reosarevok
        Well, I feel "label" is as much a legacy field as "artist"
      • (so, not fully, but kinda)
      • kuno
        reosarevok: I mostly care about reducing the pointless arguments about it, so even if the guideline is completely bonkers, as long as it clear and easy to follow, I'd be happy :)
      • reosarevok
        It's "something or other label-ish that really should be more specific"
      • hawke1
        reosarevok: What would be the "current" field replacing it?
      • aron_kexp has quit
      • reosarevok
        A set of relationships, which we mostly already have, plus an "imprint" one I guess
      • And better UI
      • hawke1
        reosarevok: Except that would just transfer the problem to the "imprint" relationship.
      • reosarevok: Someone, or some people, would just decide "there is only one imprint allowed" and we're back where we are now.
      • ariscop has quit
      • blup
        [20:46] <hawke1> CallerNo6: I feel like some people have decided there can only be one label and are trying to enforce it on everything.
      • yea, that bothers me too, why can't we like.. have al lthe things?
      • ariscop joined the channel
      • reosarevok
        Would it? You could also have a generic "label" relationship above all others, I guess
      • Same as we have "performer" above more specific performance types
      • If you're not sure what a label is on the release, just use that
      • CallerNo6
        blup: excactly. there's no reason why we can't have all the things.
      • hawke1
        reosarevok: But when you can see that there are 3 logos on the release...
      • blup
        yea. I mean, that's basiclaly how I *use* label
      • hawke1
        reosarevok: and they are all valid "labels" in that they have label entities in the database.
      • reosarevok
        hawke1: dunno. a lot of releases I see include the distributor's logo and I wouldn't call the imprint still
      • blup
        if there is the logo, use thingy
      • if there is no logo, go with.. uhh wahts on the spine
      • if thereisn't.. i guess soem rights thing
      • y
      • reosarevok
        Of course there are also cases where there *are* multiple valid imprint logos
      • hawke1
        reosarevok: OK, but concrete example: https://ia601704.us.archive.org/35/items/mbid-7...
      • reosarevok: To me that is "EMI" and a localized variant of "His Master's Voice"
      • blup
        I've had people take a label i created, add lots of other crap to it, altered it ad 4 years later somone went along and removed the label i added from the original release *I* added as "not being the right label"
      • aron_kexp joined the channel
      • reosarevok
        Hmm
      • hawke1
        There's an objection to that because the company EMI happens to have owned the imprint HMV at the time.
      • blup
        (different people doing all that)
      • reosarevok
        To me that's "EMI Die Simme seines Herm" or something to that point, if anything
      • (it seems like one combined logo, not multiple)