#musicbrainz

hahahaha

yeah i just speak english now. i plan on an early dementia

I got accosted by a nice man in his 40's in the grocery store yesterday, cos I was bitching out 13yo daughter for knocking down all the chocolate on display in english

let me guess he's a father of 12 and raised every single one of them perfectly?

and this guy comes running up the aisle I thought he was going to attack me, but he was just so excited to hear english (i live in a really tiny town in the middle of nowhere, population 1200) and could I help him and his wife buy groceries

daughter is all "see, I totally did that on purpose, it was kismet", I was all "no you still can't buy all the chocolate that fell on the floor"

wow she's too clever

you better watch out for that one, you're in trouble

omnomnom kismet

Mineo: Re-uploaded all 3 releases.

kismet++

!seen kismet

My ex's mother always gave it to her son

And sometimes he got too much and I could get some of it :D

Yeah, I could buy it I guess, but that'd be boring :)

going back to my question on mb-style, about track artists: http://www.discogs.com/Eric-Clapton-The-Best-Of...

The back cover doesn't include track artists. They're listed in the booklet instead. We'd really go with the back cover because the booklet isn't prominent enough?

oh, wait, it's not clear if what (if anything) is the back cover on that example. I can find another one if it matters. It's not uncommon.

[15:39] nikkinew zealand - US$19.72, denmark - $13.77, norway - $16.59, sweden - $17.02...

and everything is supposed ot be more expensive here :P

lol sweden

oh my ghoul the finns are coming out of the woodwork

seriøst snakk om babelsk forvirring i chatloggen!

LOL freso

wtf is kismet?

and now it is bedtime for this old cat

T_T

nikki: btw should all those different county asin's added too...

a person!

hello!

CallerNo6: Use your best guess... not back cover. (Leftmost may disagree this)

:(

CallerNo6: When credits listed on booklet it's clear to use those

CatCat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kismet_(chocolate_...

CallerNo6: Leftmost disagree crediting cos there is not listed on anywhere on release (http://musicbrainz.org/edit/21247629)

reosarevok: heh i look it up on google and found that :D

they have this in estoina?

estonia

anyway ,natt

Jozo, yeah, Leftmost got me thinking about the question.

CallerNo6: It's common that full credits is not listed on backcover... but only somewhere else on sleeve

CallerNo6: Especially on complication albums

Jozo, yeah, that's my position too. I'm still trying to understand the position held by warp and leftmost.

(and trying to understand if theirs is a widely-held position)

CallerNo6: I suggest you use correct credit always when they are listed on somewhere on sleeve. And when they are not told on sleeve anywhere, use your best guess when it's possible.

CallerNo6: Sleeves are also often wrong... So using common sense is good

Oh, Jozo == kaik ?

CallerNo6: yep

I think the problem is the we're thinking of the track artist as a factual field, while they're thinking of it as a more fuzzy.

In e.g. classical, it certianly is more fuzzy.

Well, artist credits for tracks are supposed to mean "whoever the release credits the tracks to"

reosarevok: http://musicbrainz.org/edit/21247629 -- comment this particular edit, please :)

Jozo: I can understand both points - so I'm kinda curious to see what style people think

I would generally just follow what the release says (and I've sometimes added feat. artists to tracks for a CD that lists them but not for the equivalent digital release that does not)

But I don't have a strong enough opinion to fight about it :p

(nor would I probably vote no if someone decided to "fix it")

reosarevok: Release cover/sleeves are too often wrong... (Artist corrected things later and so)

To me, it still seems arbitrary to say that a "track credit" is something found on the back cover, and must be prominent.

Especially in the case of pop compilations.

Huh

Compilations are precisely the place where I'd expect a back-cover track credit

It's common, sure. But it's not something I'd base a guideline on.

reosarevok: btw http://musicbrainz.org/release/376c600e-0314-4b... http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18026248 -- I have exacly same release, but where ten track is listen ""Huhtikuu" not "Huhtikuussa". Should I add new release? (I've sent to band email, but they seems to like answer)

Everything else is exactly the same?

I can find any number of counterexamples.

CallerNo6: sure, I wouldn't say "USE ONLY BACKCOVER!!!!"

reosarevok: yes, everything else. but oneverywhere "Huhtikuussa" is replaced "Huhtikuu"

CallerNo6: I'd probably say something like "don't try to set every artist mention in the liner notes as track artist, but use only artists from what seem like credits". Only not-crappily written

Jozo: Hmm. I guess in theory at least that'd be a new release, yes...

reosarevok: I add it as new release when I get scanner (to proof it :)

reosarevok: the proposed guideline does't say "back cover", but it does say "track list". Which is commonly understood to be the list on the back cover.

Well, dunno

I pretty much default to classical lately which almost always has a second tracklist, heh :)

So I'm not even sure

In classical releases I rarely follow printed tracklist...

hah, "Congratulations! Your mix Spanish Hip Hop 1997-2010 just received its 100th like, officially certifying it Gold"

?

CallerNo6: just got mail from 8tracks

Jozo: I tend to try to kind-of follow it. Not *completely* as-is, usually I add or modify some bits, but trying to keep kinda close

reosarevok: Yep

reosarevok: (I have not lately added almost none classical release) but everytime I've added something, I have to edit tracklist somehow

reosarevok: It may be cos I've often imported cd stub or freedb release... and it feels like editing tracklist when I'm really doing it

Nah, I mean, even from releases themselves, it often needs some touching

And I tend to add stuff like I. or No. 1. to titles, even though I maybe shouldn't

CatCat: Sover du?

reosarevok: what about 8tracks?

derwin: just what is two lines over where I mention 8tracks

oh I see

I didn't even know mixes could be "gold", that's how often I visit the site nowadays

But it seems people keep finding the old stuff and liking it! Which is nice I guess :)

yay! http://www.mericalgunringborg.com/works.html#Li...

Vibraphones are so cool

Hate is so cool :)

CallerNo6: I love it :)

Huh, CallerNo6: http://data.photo.sibnet.ru/upload/imggreat/125... is the kind of thing that certainly looks like liner notes and not credits to me

(I mean, I already had the same argument on the edit itself, but I still don't see how those are track credits in any way)

reosarevok: then maybe I don't understand what a track credit is.

For me it's the difference between it saying "track x, by this guy" and "track x, where this guys performed and this one did y and this other one did z"

This is totally like the standard liner notes format. You wouldn't add 5 people to the track of a David Bowie album because they happened to be listed as playing in it

I mean, if we were to do that we should just drop credits and use relationships only...

Which makes sense on new material.

Hmm? What does'

The credits are supposed to be "how this is credited", not "what this is". If all the Reinhardt recordings appeared in a release that claimed to be Justin Bieber's, the credits would be to Justin Bieber

(but the relationships wouldn't be, clearly enough)

Same as we are supposed to credit Albinoni for "his" Adagio if a release does, even though it's not a fact that he wrote it - it's still the case that he's given the credit

Presumably, on the Bieber release there'd be some reason. Some understanding as to /why/ a bunch of songs by somebody else are on his CD.

(and so maybe that would make sense, I dunno)

Dunno

Haha

There seems to be a clear reason why we have songs where other people performed too, credited to Django here

It's a Django comp

So for the credits here, Django is the main artist. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't store who else performed, but that's not (so) important for the purposes of the release

I mean, if this was a new release, I doubt people would consider using that small-print artist as the track artist at all

That's kind of what I meant.

It's only being considered because they're the "canonic" artist for the recordings

but that would seem to be a great match for the recording artist

02:18:47 < Jozo> johtso: liner notes are likely http://musicbrainz.org/release/90f456b0-e78f-45... release

02:19:30 < Jozo> johtso: http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-life-and-time... - allmusic says also Composed by: Harry Belafonte --- I bet that those liner notes are wrong

reosarevok: Should we follow this too? Credit works to wrong artist cos liner notes says

Jozo: the general idea seems to be for relationships to always represent facts about the music

reosarevok: it's not clear to me that anybody intended to "credit" the tracks to the release artist. They simply emphasized different information in different places. What's so magical about tabular data on a back cover?

reosarevok: classical music guestion... what I should do about this http://musicbrainz.org/release/cc5f4256-b580-4d... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde... "Anh. 294a in the third edition of the standard Köchel catalogue of Mozart's works. ("Anh." denotes "Anhang" or "appendix" to the catalog.) Unknown until the 20th century, this concerto was later discovered to be a spurious work by Marius Casadesus."

I mean, if the same back cover had the track artist in columnar form, it'd be a wall of text. It'd look like shit.

But the release and track credits are supposed to represent facts about the way the stuff is credited in the particular release, so in that case it would seem reasonable to keep attribution errors, or like in this case, attribution priorities

I'm still not seeing what makes the back cover tracklist a priority.

It's just one place to look.

And I'm still not seeing why the tiny-text there means those should be track credits. Nor why people care, anyway - aren't the relationships the truly useful bit of data anyway? :)

ARs are where the decent data is, sure.

Jozo: I'd credit it pretty much like it is now. But it's annoying, because people will probably enter duplicates of the concert with Mozart as the composer, too

For the "Albinoni" we ended up keeping both as composers, because at least in that way people can find it: http://musicbrainz.org/work/45ec51ab-2614-33fd-...

Although something like "claimed" composer might make more sense - but we don't have such a relationship

I did add a few of those as "misc support" but I guess considering "attributed to" as a kind of miscellaneous support is... a stretch :)

It just felt less wrong than claiming they had composed the stuff though