#musicbrainz

I don’t know of any tools that can pull it from a cuesheet though

are AR discids the same as MB discids?

cue + .wav can make a discID

IIRC

reosarevok: ok

you can also try ctdb, http://db.cuetools.net/

AR discIDs are different

example: http://db.cuetools.net/?tocid=pWm49twO9yM2Ufmjf...

(click on the release name to expand the details)

you can see the ctdb discid, the mb discid, the freedb discid, the AR discid…

balrog: What is the release ? I can try to find an EAC log and add discid for you

I forget which one reosarevok was asking about

lemme look

is it possible one of the composers for Duke Nukem 3D based one of the works on Blade Runner End Title? :)

it’s just too similar, so I’m gonna assume yes :P

ooh the cities are on their way http://musicbrainz.org/area/f9a822ff-adce-434c-...

first batch of them at least

Ooh

technically 10 as a test run, waiting for replication now :P

Well, ok, the second batch will be the cool one :p

sweet

SultS_: ... You seems have HIM lastes album... can you check http://musicbrainz.org/edit/22292507 (and see http://musicbrainz.org/edit/22189555)

woot! Boston is in

Jozo: I do not, I did just some CD TOC related edits + some smaller corrections… no cover art to check, unfortunately

if the cover art is correct though, I could easily get a larger one :P

(and I think it is)

SultS_: Oh. I hate when there is popular ablum that noone seems own. :/

go buy it :)

SultS_: I can wait until it's available on my local library (and its may be cutted down covers :/)

not sure if we would even get the same version they sell in finland

SultS_: Yeah. I just worried digipak and normal edition cover arts...

SultS_: And It's ok me to add some cover art what feels correct... But now added cover art is so poor quality

Mut maybe noone caras

s/caras/cares/

Jozo: well the cover art it’s probably *not* from the actual CD… more likely found from the internet and belongs to a downloadable release… CD version would probably not have equal dimensions

When our cover art add edits 10% is wrong, 10% is maybe wrong, 20% is so bad quality

I think it would be valid reason to vote no, if you think it’s for a downloadable release instead

I don’t even like OK quality, when good quality is so easy to find

it’s not like we have to worry about storage space

I am always torn when I have a digital download cover art file that exactly matches the CD…

(I'm also uploaded many so bad quality images.... and some images what I'm not sure)

It seems silly to go through the lossy print/scan process rather than just uploading the original file

I always upload itunes profided image to CD release when it matches to release... (And there is so much release where I do not do that)

I think uploading downloadable release cover art is sometimes justifiable… as long as it matches the CD

…and preferably no actual CD cover art to upload instead

well, not preferably

isn’t itunes cover art relatively low quality as well?

SultS_: Pretty good quality... usually 1200x1200, somedays upscaled on earlier releases

I think it's acceptable if it matches, it's not like we can't delete it if we get something better

most of the stuff I see is 600x600 and the 1200x1200 ones are just upscaled

ugh…

I have one CD release what I have to use discogs images, cos itunes provided is so clear

nikki: I do not usually compare 600 vs 1200. But 1200 is better most of digital releases releases in recent years

I use a software to find me the best / most correct match :)

SultS_: What software?

Album Art Downloader (windows)

Jozo: I usually look for fuzzy bits and usually find some, so then I use the 600x600 one

it searches most known databases and more

nikki: I use download speed indicator... itunes is slow when I request 1200x1200 image ad its (not available)

that would mean paying attention when opening it :/

offtopic conspiracy theory: new google maps doesn’t seem to work in firefox… coincidence? I think not…

You know what would be cool? a userscript that organized the works recordings list into a sortable table…

somewhere I had a branch that put them in a table

you know what would be cool? the guy who decided all municipalities in Slovenia would get ISO codes falling off a cliff

haha

is that your way of telling me to stop being distracted? :P

hawke_1: Sortable? I like see release date first

No, but this is: stop being distracted! :p

nikki ^ :p

Jozo: that’d be nice too

hawke_1: and something similar what SHS do

SHS?

hawke_1: SecondHandSongs

Jozo: for my purpose (finding classical recordings which don‘t have correct performer artists set), sortable columns would be better though

hawke_1: 'cos recording date is much much difficult to determine than release year

Jozo: It depends…sometimes recording date is easier.

Jozo: some genres (classical a lot of the time, and most discographies of early 78s have recording session info but not release dates

hawke_1: And on pop-albums you never know when they are recorded

Jozo: not true at all…just that you need to use different sources.

unrelated: Is the label wrong on this one, or the ASIN, or am I missing something? http://musicbrainz.org/release/66f01760-fe73-48...

hawke_1: What sources provide me recording dates?

musicbrainz says Deutsche Grammophon, Amazon and the cover art say Archiv Produktion

hawke_: I find it definetly hard to find any usable dates… release cover art showing that it was recorded between 2011-2012 is not very useful

Jozo: Live releases tend to have recording dates, and sometimes you can find articles about the production of $HOT_NEW_ALBUM

I can’t use it on recordings

SultS_: Sure you can

how?

recording recorded in a course of 2 years?

put it as the start/end date.

yes?

that’s not correct though

That seems fine to me.

hawke_1: Usually releases do not mention anything about recording dates

that seems terrbile to me

terrbile*

terrible*

If they first made the recording in 2011, and made some further edits and additions and recorded some more vocals in 2012…that seems correct to me.

there is no such info

the dates are for the whole release

not any separate recording

hawke_1: And If source says for album "recorded 2011-2012" you do not know which song are recorded when

indeed

Jozo: But as has been pointed out before, in modern production there is no specific date/time on which a recording is made

it’s a longer process than '5 minutes in the studio'

hawke_1: I can just put recorded date to recorder relation if its only one

hawke: that doesn’t mean 2011-2012 is correct for the recording

I don’t see '2011–2012' as any worse than just '2011'

both are bad, because neither is verified information

e.g. if the release says “all tracks recorded in 2011” would you not put that for the recording date?

both *could* be wrong

I would

well, yeah. Anything *could* be wrong.

but that’s one year

the release doesn't say what year x recording was recorded

OK, and 2011–2012 could be just a month (december–january) but we don’t know, so we just put the best we have.

hawke_1: Album recorded between 2007-2012... what is recording date?

it says sometime during these 2 years

Jozo: 2007–2012.

we do put the best, but we don’t even have that info

hawke_1: And I put this to recording-work relation?

that info *is* the best we have, if the release says it.

you can’t just assume release level info applies to every recording

Jozo: well, that’s what I would do. (and do do)

hawke_1: I do not

hawke_1: along the lines of http://nikki.mbsandbox.org/work/0e1c1082-03cb-3... (ignore the fact the existing relationships bit is repeated at the bottom)

2007-2012 could mean 'all were recorded in 2007, shelved for awhile and then edited further in 2012' or it could mean 'track 1 was recorded 2007, track 17 was recorded 2012' — it’s still the best info we have. Maybe another release will give us better info (I have had that happen in fact)

hawke_1: I have no idea what you wanted then

nikki: that, but sortable, I think.

the table part seems fine

right, so along those lines :P

we don't have much sorting at all, but adding sorting with a userscript would be pretty easy afaik

(whereas converting the existing one means creating the table in the first place)

It would probably want a date column as well.

hawke_1: I do not still want guess... Or I do not want add info what is propably wrong

hawke_1: I see a date column...

Oh, just blank. :-D

exactly :P

presumably you have some better example you could look up

hawke_1: Same applies to "instruments performed" on that albums...

hawke: your Unordered tracklists section in track numbering proposal can’t be followed, as long as http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-6404 remains unfixed

hawke_1: I have just one album in hand that says recording date is something beetweeb 2007-2011....

hawke_1: And many many albums that have "plays that instrument" on ALBUM