#musicbrainz

There's something

Haven't used it in forever, but it should work?

some scripts

that should basically be all of them

i tried the amazon one and it didn't work. dunno if it's my system or not.

tried to import https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QNYZ6N8/

what is there to import? I don't see a tracklist.

oh, i didn't even look. i pulled it out of itunes.

you linked the CD release to the itunes one? (:

actually no... i linked it back to Amazon since iTunes is digital. I just changed the medium to CD.

is there a policy on cover art resolution vs quality tradeoffs?

since its an archive, you can upload the best one you find

https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release-group/da64... has cover art at 3000x3000 or so, but it's visibly a scan + slightly blurry for some reason

https://www.levykauppax.fi/artist/shiraz_lane/c... meanwhile has a 1000x1000 version that does not appear to be a scan

musicbrainz apparently doesn't like ralph stanley

revi: around?

Yaniel: scan > not-a-scan, other than that it’s mostly subjective. A release can have multiple scans attached though, so if two separate people both scan their own copy of a release, I’d say it’s fine for two sets of scans to coexist in CAA.

to scan or not to scan

adendum to what freso said though_ if it's a diital release then we'd want the digital (ie not a (cd) scan) version of the artiwork :)

and but also, I don't think that " A release can have multiple scans attached though, so if two separate people both scan their own copy of a release, I’d say it’s fine for two sets of scans to coexist in CAA." isn't in the guidelines I don't think. but I like it! so i think it sohuld be added

I actually have done this on a few releases where it's difficult to gauge stuff

one was this where the "artwork" was actually stickers *on* the jewelcase

very difficult to scna :D

iconoclasthero: why? is there a bug on the ralph stanley entry or something?

this is more of a scan vs digital version of the cover art for the physical cd question though

thne i'd say scna al lthe way, and only the digital version sohuld have the digital uh version

of artwork

OTOH when bands put their physical discography online w/ covers they generally aren't going to be using scans

(ideally even the same files that are printed on the booklets)

in which case I personally would always use the "digital" art (since it has no printing/scanning artifacts)

I wouldn’t.

why not have both

reosarevok: hi

catquest: no, just that i had to enter 100% of 4 RS CDs.

although to be fair, one of them was in the system not linked to a media

also, why is a comment and a make all edits votable a thing for just attaching a TOC? I mean who's gonna argue that and what is anyone going to put in there except "picard"?

seems if not redundant unncecessary.

seems—if not redundant—unnecesary. (punctuation is not unnecesary in that sentence)

eh, I like the irony of typing "disc at hand" in the comment field

I bet nobody would have guessed so otherwise

I’ve begun to note where I have physical disc from when adding physical releases, rather than just saying that I have it.

i doubt it will help too many people if I put in State of Delaware Library System.

lol