#musicbrainz

http://www.discogs.com/Sly-Fox-Lets-Go-All-The-... -- note this says "Unofficial Release", how should this be entered?

leaving it blank for now

as far as I know, what discogs calls an unofficial release is what we call a bootleg

okay, I'll go back in and change it

hmm

so what does one do when the relationship editor claims unspecified errors with tracks?

swear and have some bong hits

oh i thought you meant, what do i do

it underlines some relationships but if i remove those rels it just underlines the relationship above

heh

which relationship types?

mastering

ahh if i remove the mastering ones maybe it will work

yes, those should go on the release now

ok, so why does it let me do them on the recording then

http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-6457 btw

because we can't remove it entirely while there are still recording-level ones

and because of that ticket I linked :)

serious question, why do we persist with style changes not supported by the code?

i.e this is a pretty terribly unusable situation

we didn't realise the relationship editor couldn't support it

moratorium? :)

on what?

on removing support for them at recording level

well, we could reallow them, but that wouldn't exactly *fix* anything, because then people would get edit notes saying "this is wrong, it should be on the release!" and they'd be like "well, why did it let me submit them then >(" :/

bitmap: have you seen the ticket I linked, btw?

every time i go to do anything on MB there's some unspecified hidden bug or 'gotcha' that you have to be in the special circle to know about. Maybe it was alwas this way, but I'm sure noticing this a lot more now that I've stopped editing so often. It's pretty discouraging

is there a separate ticket for "actually display error message for errors in relationship editor"?

I'd kind of expect to be able to hover over the relationship with the red squiggle and see some sort of error

hm, I don't think so

and yeah, our interface really needs some work :(

will create one

(I do think we've always had a lot of little bugs and quirks and whatnot though)

thanks!

bitmap: ^

thanks for your help as always

you're welcome

still amazes me how fast i can mass-AR a disc these days though, truly a thing of beauty

i used to spend hours per alubm :)

so niggles aside, life is better than a year ago... even if it is a bit obscure

hehe

it's kind of a virtuous cycle too - since it's so much easier to do I think more people are doing it, which means more of the technical artists (recording engineers etc) are pre-created for me which speeds things massively

oh yeah, having to stop and open a new window to add a new artist is the most frustrating part of adding relationships for me

Does a free SoundCloud download constitute a release?

unclear

Does it have a cover?

reosarevok: yep

Then it might be the best choice

[08:20] <nikki> oh yeah, having to stop and open a new window to add a new artist is the most frustrating part of adding relationships for me

ding

good morn. erh noon

Anybody around here uses a Mac and has an opinion about disc drive names and/or detection?

see LIB-28 then (about using disc drive numers on libdiscid and possibly PICARD, rather than these ever-changing /dev/rdisk* things)

reosarevok: so that link is still not really what I was after, though I'm dealing with it now in any case

what I would have wanted was a list of all releases on which alessandrini was credited in that way

Krystof: well, it's where you edit all the uses of a particular artist credit

But yeah, what you say would be great. We just don't have it. There is the "Filter" thingy which I think is still broken :/

while I'm complaining, all the neat userscripts to save a zillion clicks on fixing artist credits in releases seem to have stopped working. My fault your (collectively) yours?

Ours but most are fixed-ish in their latest versions

(we updated jquery and it broke tons of stuff)

The edit artist credits one sometimes requires changing the "credited as" thing for it to realise you want to change multiple credits and not just that one

So, add space, remove space :/

fair enough. Now I need to understand how to persuade chromium that I am allowed to ask it to run userscripts

heh

I gave up and installed tampermonkey

Less effort than dragging and dropping into the extensions tab every time

that sounds like a good hint

alright, now a data representation question for you.

I am tangentially involved in a small project aiming to demonstrate the potential of linked metadata in music cataloguing

finding interesting information to present to users of catalogues such as Early Music Online and the European Corpus of Lute Music

Sounds interesting

What can we do to help? :)

some of that is going to be finding ways of referring to shall we say mutations of the same work

case in point, "Tant que vivray", a chanson sometimes attributed to Attaingnant, who arranged it for lute and for lute-and-soloist

Can I colonize the "work" area for this to see if I can represent what I think needs representing?

"[classical music]" *sigh* http://musicbrainz.org/recording/8e71d75e-88ba-...

heh

That was created for cases where they couldn't identify the right composer. Whiiich here seems to be on the track title? :p

But it's generally been abandoned in favour of simply [unknown] for those cases anyway - wonder how hard it be to get rid of it

About the work thing... it's unclear :)

See http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Classical/Works

(I know, tl;dr)

I'm an academic, I don't do tl;dr

heh

Yeah, I guess we're still only amateurs in the "saying stuff with too many words" area

Anyway, the (IMO annoyingly arbitrary) restrictions on arrangement-as-work are tricky

so they are. I think in this case they don't hurt because "Tant que vivray" is a popular song in all its incarnations

so lots of recordings of all arrangements

but for stuff even deeper in the long tail that will get annoying

I mean

They *are* guidelines-not-rules

sure

I am not worried about making the existing data worse in this regard

(so I've seen people skip the requirement because, say, the arranger is Sibelius or Prokofiev or whatever)

(it's more supposed to be a "don't add arrangement-as-work for stuff like 'I arranged this for string quartet to play with my own quartet'" I think)

http://musicbrainz.org/work/5b622357-be60-34d7-... # the current work. Note (a) one recording and (b) wrong composer and (c) the album it's from :-)

Heh, Japanese and their love for classical-as-idol-music

But yeah

I'm sure there's plenty to improve in the early music area. Even more than in "classical" in general, I mean, and there's already so much there

http://musicbrainz.org/release/7b951e8d-cd2f-4d... :(

Worst thing is it *does* seem to be the correct title for the track at least :p

hello

hi