snoozebrainz: ^ can you describe what changes you were trying to do? there's a bug somewhere there
kepstin-laptop joined the channel
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
thanks, I'll see if I can find the bug
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
hawke1: everything is important. this is why I fail :-)
but yeah, it always comes back to "what's a label?"
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.
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
reosarevok: I think the problem is that those 5 users are the only ones who care one way or the other.
I have no idea what reosarevok is talking about.
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
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.
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.
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
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
if a label is a logo on the cover, then most digital releases don't /have/ labels (do they?)
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
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.
(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
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)
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
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.
[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.
Well, I feel "label" is as much a legacy field as "artist"
(so, not fully, but kinda)
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 :)
It's "something or other label-ish that really should be more specific"
reosarevok: What would be the "current" field replacing it?
aron_kexp has quit
A set of relationships, which we mostly already have, plus an "imprint" one I guess
And better UI
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
[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
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
blup: excactly. there's no reason why we can't have all the things.
reosarevok: But when you can see that there are 3 logos on the release...
yea. I mean, that's basiclaly how I *use* label
reosarevok: and they are all valid "labels" in that they have label entities in the database.
hawke1: dunno. a lot of releases I see include the distributor's logo and I wouldn't call the imprint still
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
Of course there are also cases where there *are* multiple valid imprint logos
reosarevok: To me that is "EMI" and a localized variant of "His Master's Voice"
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
There's an objection to that because the company EMI happens to have owned the imprint HMV at the time.
(different people doing all that)
To me that's "EMI Die Simme seines Herm" or something to that point, if anything