#musicbrainz

Is this something that can go in the MBDB?

nevermind, i'll just delete it once i tag it in my collection

Hi there ! which musicbrainz dump contains the series table ?

akashgp09: might be best to ask in #metabrainz

ok, thank you.

How do people like to handle uncredited instrumental or vocal performances? I have a solo album that clearly has a bunch of collaborators, but at least for the digital release, they are not credited: https://anjimile.bandcamp.com/album/giver-taker

Should I add the instruments and vocal parts as unknown, or just leave them out? Leaving them out suggests that every track is just the credited performer on lead vocals and acoustic guitar.

Ah… Wikipedia has better credits (for some reason).

Myself, I won't credit an artist on the track title (at release level) if it's not on the back cover of the album as featured or otherwise mentioned but I'll credit the recording

if i have a source that confirms said credit

https://catalogd.archive.org/catalog.php?all=1&... rederivation machine go brrr

Lotheric, I’m not talking about crediting the track, but adding performer relationships between recording and artist. I can hear someone playing flute but don’t know who it is. Do I add a relationship to [unknown] playing flute? (I do, now, know who was playing flute, but let’s say I still didn’t.)

I wouldn't

it could be sampled flute

crism: I think you're taking things a bit far personally

atj: That’s my motto!

I just don't see what value it adds to the database

If there were no performer relationships on a track, no big. But to have some of them suggests, to a viewer, that they are complete. If the only relationships are lead vocals and acoustic guitar by the credited artist, then it seems like an acoustic singer-songwriter track. The bass, drums, horn section, etc., are invisible. Having those performances present, even if we don’t know who did them, adds some value as to the nature of the

I understand what you mean but I don't agree with "But to have some of them suggests, to a viewer, that they are complete"

We have to work with the information as credited

If it's not credited in some manner which can be independently verified then you shouldn't add it.

anyway, that's my $0.02 :)

crism: I admire your quest for accuracy FWIW. I just think it can be end up being counterproductive and it's best to be pragmatic sometimes.

Thanks, atj. I’m indulging my OCD and trying to do depth-first detailed entry for my collections… I’ll be surprised if I get through the Cs before I die, but here I am.

MB seems to scratch that itch for a lot of people :)

I used to edit MB because I was using Picard to tag my mp3s... Now I continue to do it even if I mostly listen to streaming services because I enjoy doin' it. It has become a hobby :)

Proper credits is something I miss from physical medias

I think we're all a bit OCD to point lol

but lots of artists provide a PDF booklet with their downloads

I think the answer is that iTunes and such is an excuse not to bother :)

I didn't know it was possible to have an email has a username

it shouldn't be allowed to stop spam imho

MBS-11571: Disallow e-mail as a usename

chiming in with atj here thati don't think adding [unknown] performed flute when yo uhear flute is necessary (and I dislike such [unknown] credits anyway) if information about these things aren't to be found (it was found at wikipedia happily :D) then maybe an annotation is better than [unknown] credits

I was more impressed by a blind person contributing to MB and a beginner no less.

yes I read the message, that's really cool!

i hope our website is functional with screenreaders

chaban, That's very impressive too! haha

chaban: it does destroy any excuses around not adding edit notes though :)

it definitly does :D

*obviously* I always add notes!

true