#musicbrainz

drsaunde: you changed it from VA

drsaunde: why actually?

erh i don't want to just step over stuff but i'll probably add an edit to change it back to VA

even if you wanna take the discogs page as reference: http://www.discogs.com/release/3922

it lists all artists and tracks separately and not the thing being 1 long mix with a cue list or something

that thing has been VA forever o_O

(well, since earliy 1999 ;)

Kerensky97: there is also already an AR to Timecode being the remix DJ

both together is kinda pointless to add to the previous issue

deadchip: was away...one sec and i'll check

deadchip: because Timecode is the release artist on both the cover and spine

umm

well i have the disc, i know that

but it can not be sensibly argued that this is a work done by Timecode

i mean, the terminology is getting vague here now

but it's not an _art_work by Timecode

he did a little crossfading on the tracks yeah

well..I only usually credit the DJ mixer as an album artist if they are credited as such on both the cover and spine

and in that case I think they should always be the release artist

but this example is a little different with the crediting of E-Z rollers for the disc 2 as well

technically to be correct you need to change the release artist of disc 2 to various artists as well

well

actually i would change the release artist for _both_ discs to Moving Shadow

simply because this thing is a promo

moving shadow is a label not an aritist

i know that this isn't normal practice and probably to make it sane there would be something needed to be estblished to allow labels to be direct release artists

drsaunde: i know, and ^

for a promo/showcase of their artists, the label can be for most purposes seen as the release artist

that this is an -entirely- different matter on how to represent this on MB is, well, another matter

ok...i see your point...but as of right now that wouldn't be a good idea to create a label as an artists

i was just talking about how it naturally is

yeah i wouldn't do that yet

more like, once labels get firmly into the new server

then it could be thought about this

cool...so will you switch disc 2 to VA as well?

maybe even a release class of "Promo"

(but keeping E-Z rollers as track artist)

well, heh, actually i would switch it to hrm ok nvm that

drsaunde: on disc2 all tracks are by e-z rollers

but the release as a whole is VA

maybe i'm seeing it too simplicistic (?)

ok, in that case, then yes, if you see it as a whole

disc 1 is not available without disc 2 and vice-versa

but then, why did you split it into Timecode and E-Z Rollers in the first place :P

i will call that an oversight

or fuckup

haha

ok i'll add an edit

and i'll remember to bring the labels-as-artists-for-promo-discs up in .. october

maybe there could be even a release type category Promotional

just remember there are many single-artist promos which that wouldn't apply

it wouldn't be 10ths of thousands of releases but some would

hmm

would have to be VA promos

yeah

label showcases basically

also another possible problem is that these label promos are often a combination of a few different labels which normally have nothing to do with each other

i hope the rest of the moving shadow stuff holds up...i've done a lot of work there

hmm

i think i can check

i have a tonload of moving shadow stuff myself

that's why this caught my eye in the first place heh

i came across it while retagging

timecode is also

drsaunde: btw Timecode is an alias for

erm what's his name again

Rob Playford

moving shadow guy

drsaunde: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timecode_(DJ)

Timecode, real name Rob Playford, (born 25 March 1968) is a UK drum and bass DJ, producer and record label owner.

heh

hi

ello BrianFreud

damn

sorry

hi BrianG

what's good?

hum i'm working on a m4a plugin for taglib from scratch

the other alternative i have is to access python-mutagen via boost::python

might be more interesting work but also somehow wacky

herregud sånn skravling :/

solkatt is now known as CatCat

natta!

hmm. anyone el se having cover art issues?

in picardqt

it dosen't seem to want to display any artwork in the cover art box

Same non .com issue, or something different?

not the same issue

well.. i mean it is, but it's a .com

and it's a fresh coverart.py

hmmm, what's the urlid or release?

straight from the teet

any

I found a similar one with cdbaby: http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3070

hmmm

a14?

yeah

I guess I ought to download and try it in a14, but for the moment, still a11 - let me try those

oh wait

a11

yes

for Ultimate Alt, I think it may be this ASIN that's causing issues: http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000008DV0/m...

That release has 3 ASINs, but B00000008DVO is a customer image, not an Amazon one - the other two ASINs have Amazon art

For the Common one, I do see art

gmm

hmm

You running linux or Win?

linux

Not sure, though I have more of the python packages installed on my Win system - each time someone has art issues, I never seem to, I wonder if it's related...

You have mutagen and pyqt installed, for example?

yeah i have all that junk

as well as real python itself?

it worked yesterday

hmmm

Well, I think for the Ultimate one, it's a flaw in the plugin - it ought to be able to get art from any of the ASINs, and not fail if just one doesn't have art

For the other, let's see...

ok, url is properly formatted, nothing wierd in it

wait

you said you re-downloaded the coverart plugin?

yeah

ok, let me send you mine

from the url in the wiki

I know coverart was one of the 2 things most affected by the plugin coding change between 11 and a12

perhaps that's why you're having issues

ah so i might have a plugin for a version of picard that i dont have yet

Try that version instead

yes

exactly

thanks

now to remember where it goes.. .picard or .config/MusicBrainz/blahblahblah

a12 and a14 both had some plugin changes - and the path changed too, so what's one the wiki now would NOT be the right path for a11

that did the trick

thanks

:)

One of the things I think luks added in a14 was plugin versioning, so it'll eventually be clearer what the problem is