#musicbrainz

/

      • d4rkie has quit
      • Nyanko-sensei joined the channel
      • MRiddickW has quit
      • Vacuity_ joined the channel
      • Vacuity has quit
      • killui has quit
      • Erin
        is there a good search method for looking up releases by catalog numbers?
      • it doesnt /seem/ like the release and release group searches will take that into account
      • MRiddickW joined the channel
      • Darkloke joined the channel
      • hendursaga has quit
      • hendursaga joined the channel
      • flamingspinach_ joined the channel
      • flamingspinach has quit
      • Glassjoe has quit
      • djinni` has quit
      • djinni` joined the channel
      • flamingspinach_ has quit
      • flamingspinach joined the channel
      • Darkloke
        hi2all. Can someone check our (longtime) dispute with aerozol regarding digital releases? I think we need more editor opinions here since so far it mostly his vision vs mine. https://musicbrainz.org/edit/77366354 On last week i did a lot of corrections to old digital releases by adding barcodes and updating cover art using a-tisket tool. He voted "no" for some edits motivating that "they are different releases". I suppose we couldnt agree with him
      • about what to count as "difference" for digital releases.
      • Darkloke has quit
      • JoeLlama joined the channel
      • JoeLlama has quit
      • flamingspinach_ joined the channel
      • flamingspinach has quit
      • darwin
        hrm, that that darkloke edit is an interesting one.
      • d4rkie joined the channel
      • Nyanko-sensei has quit
      • flamingspinach_ has quit
      • flamingspinach joined the channel
      • d4rkie has quit
      • Nyanko-sensei joined the channel
      • I am on the darklore side, it's the same release
      • it was released with both the "banner" and the square art in 2012
      • reosarevok
        Just leave a comment on the edit with the info maybe? :)
      • darwin
        yeah, I'm going to
      • but I have to do something for a sec
      • (it was released via a site which is unfortunately not in the wayback machine, because of a language gateway)
      • but that discogs edit shows clearly that the "new" cover art was associated with the original release in 2012
      • oh, wait, I see
      • trolley has quit
      • wait, no, what is supposedly the new cover art
      • trolley joined the channel
      • there is no new cover art, from what I can tell, and adding a barcode to a release which didn't previously have one does not, in my mind, create a new release where the only difference is the barcode.
      • I will comment to that effect.
      • deezer has the 2012 release date : https://www.deezer.com/en/album/96464542
      • oh, I see, the "difference" is the EA logo?
      • hendursa1 joined the channel
      • hendursaga has quit
      • nimiks has quit
      • eFfeM joined the channel
      • that's not different art. that's an additional label's logo on the art.
      • hrm.
      • ℗ «2019 EA Music»
      • © «2012 Electronic Arts Music»
      • I think this is actually the compelling argument that it's a different release.
      • not Cover art or barcode.
      • reosarevok
        An additional logo on art is a new release in any case
      • darwin
        is it???
      • reosarevok
        Yes, any cover art differences make a new release
      • Unless it's some handmade stuff which is meant to be different
      • darwin
        wacky, I guess I'm just totally wrong.
      • atj
        darwin: I'm in agreement with you tbh
      • reosarevok
        "Any difference in artwork requires a different release. This includes differences in the legal text on the back cover, even if everything else is the same. An exception should be made for releases where every cover will necessarily be different (like hand-printed, hand-made or even knit covers): in this case, it can be assumed that all the different versions are equivalent and qualify as just copies of the same release, unless
      • a difference is explicitly made by the artist or label."
      • darwin
        deezer has 2012 release date/copyright, but EA logo
      • itunes has 2019 release date/copyright, but EA logo
      • it's obviously the same files
      • 2019 date is just wrong.
      • atj
        The dates on the digital platforms are often wrong.
      • darwin
        I guess the itunes release date is potentially when it was released to itunes?
      • eFfeM has quit
      • so if a digital service watermarked its cover art by putting its logo on it
      • every release on it would be a new release?
      • this seems perverse. I understand the purpose of the rule for physical objects.
      • atj
        let's not get into hypotheticals :P
      • reosarevok has pulled the trump card here with a rule from the style guidelines
      • darwin
        yep
      • if OP had just linked to that, would have saved me misunderstanding
      • reosarevok
        darwin: in that case you'd probably just say the shop is doing bullshit, in the same way we wouldn't say if beatport adds "original mix" to everything, that's the intent of the labe or anything
      • darwin
        god I hate that shit
      • reosarevok
        So we might just put it up as "cover, watermarked"
      • atj
        look, this was released in 1979, before digital music existed:
      • reosarevok
        (same way as if you pick a CD from the library and has a library barcode glued on top that's not a new release)
      • atj
        Deezer inventing time travel there
      • darwin
      • "item not available"
      • so even better
      • reosarevok
        But if the label changed the cover... dunno. I mean, I don't personally feel strongly either way tbh, but I can see why some want to leave it separate and IMO doesn't hurt to do so
      • As long as the recordings are the same and whatnot
      • darwin
        it used to be available via itunes, probably without the EA logo
      • then it was re-distributed via itunes, with the logo and the bogus 2019 (P)
      • reosarevok
        I mean, maybe it's not bogus, can they re-register it for (P) if the sound hasn't changed? Dunno how the law works for that
      • darwin
        " The (P) section tells us and partners who owns the copyright for the collection of sound recording(s) on this specific release. "
      • so if it's not new recordings, my interpretation is "no"
      • for my next please shoot me topic.. are distrokid ids "labels" ?
      • atj
        no, distributors
      • darwin
        isn't the ditributor "distrokid"?
      • also, why, if they leave the default and get assigned an ID, is it a distributor, but if they put their nonsense non-legal entity label name in there, is it suddenly a label?
      • atj
        got an example?
      • haha, love the 20+ links to Discogs on the DK label page
      • darwin
      • atj: if one googles, the only evidence of "Jaja Life Music" is ... Tre Oh Fie releasing his own music via distrokid.
      • there's no bandcamp, no youtube, no other social media page. I would bet $20 that there is no legal entity called Jaja Life Music.
      • and that the only reason his releases say that instead of DK 123123213 is that he entered that as his label name on distrokid.
      • atj
      • "Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release."
      • "Note that different matrix numbers or barcodes may not necessarily mean that a separate release should be entered, please ask in the forum if in doubt."
      • darwin
        it also says " Discogs allows the entering of all versions of a release, such as white labels, reissues, different artwork, format variations, colored vinyl, different manufacturers, etc. "
      • atj
        You cYes, but the reissue has to be materially different to the original
      • darwin
        is a different pressing plant not a different manufacturer?
      • atj
        s/You c//g
      • The rule I've been given is that represses with different runouts shouldn't be different releases.
      • darwin
      • atj
        It's not applied consistently though
      • reosarevok
        "if one googles, the only evidence of "Jaja Life Music" is ... Tre Oh Fie releasing his own music via distrokid."
      • That probably is enough to make it an imprint, honestly - at least if consistently applied
      • darwin
      • reosarevok: that's why I mostly added his releases as "Jaja Life Music"
      • I think one I added as [no label]
      • reosarevok
        I mean, sometimes a label will give their artist a "personal label" which is basically just a name, I doubt they're financially independent as a sub-company either :)
      • darwin
        but... to me a label is something that exists. Jaja Life Music doesn't exist
      • if there were a legal entity called Jaja Life Music, I would consider it to exist
      • but /shrug it's all very abstract
      • what's the difference between that and a netlabel that doesn't have an associated legal entity
      • reosarevok
        What if there were a legal entity called "Label Whatever" that puts all this artist's music under their imprint "Jaja Life Music"? :)
      • The release label for MB would still be JLM
      • But it might literally just exist as a logo
      • darwin
        sure, I suppose that legal entity is called "Distrokid" in this case
      • reosarevok
        Labels are annoying :D
      • darwin
        it's just lol, if it says DK 12312313 I put "no label"
      • reosarevok
        Yeah, me too - that shows no intention of having an imprint or anything
      • evelyn
        the thing that annoys me about Discogs is that they treat all sorts of things as labels, e.g. series
      • darwin
        but the only difference between that and JLM is putting something in the field
      • atj
        evelyn: it's just a hack because their database schema sucks
      • reosarevok
        darwin: true :) But that's a bit like saying "if they leave the title empty I enter [untitled], but the only difference between that and a title is putting something on the field" :p
      • Or, I guess a more direct comparison, printing no artist vs printing "fdfdfidhghhgf"
      • If they print the latter, well, that's an artist now :D Even if it's just "I don't want to give a name and my cat walked on the keyboard so I left it"
      • darwin
        lol, like when tracks get called "A1" because there's side A and B printed
      • reosarevok
        Music! It's fun!
      • darwin
        and it's the first track on side A
      • god, I just had a flashback to the italojohnson fiasco
      • atj
        the world is messy and defies categorisation, part ten billion and fourty two
      • darwin
        where the vinyls were released as [untitled] ... so my DJ collection had a bunch of tracks identically named [untitled]