Creating the release group first, and when I try to add that discogs URL to it, it says: 'This URL is not allowed for the selected link type, or is incorrectly formatted.'
What am I doing wrong?
Rotab
release group = discogs master
release = discogs release
adhawkins
Aha, ok. I'll add that URL to the release then. Thanks.
yvanzo
Discogs releases with no other version do not have discogs master URLs to link to.
adhawkins
On the reverse of the cover. For track 1, it says: "Track 01 - Blue Arctic Danue", then on the next line "10.00pm Session at A30 - Budapest"
How should I enter the '10.00pm Session...' info in the release?
As a disambiguation for the recording?
yvanzo
Is it for this track only?
adhawkins
Yes. The second track has a similar annotation. Just trying to upload a photo.
yvanzo
Is that the name of an event?
Rotab
that track duration on discogs o_O
yvanzo
If you cannot get more info on that event (which is the only way to enter 10:00pm for now), an annotation will do.
Or I guess it could be considered part of the track title?
MajorLurker joined the channel
Darkloke joined the channel
Nyanko-sensei joined the channel
D4RK-PH0ENiX has quit
agentsim_ has quit
agentsim joined the channel
agentsim has quit
MajorLurker
Further question to my problem with acoustic ID and Picard above. All the tracks that Picard/AcousticID are not picking up are under 2 minutes in length. Does anybody know why that might be?
naught101 joined the channel
reosarevok
Hmm. I think generally acoustIDs are 2 minutes long?
MajorLurker
SO if the track is less than 2 minutes it does not generate one?
I have only noticed this problem over the last little while.
Maybe I have not had so many short tracks before :)
reosarevok
I would expect it to still generate one
But that might be where the problem stems from, maybe something broke or I dunno
MajorLurker
OK I will throw a bug in and see then....
reosarevok
Make Freso open that AcoustID forum category we decided about and then post there :p
MajorLurker
Freso, ^^ do that!
please
reosarevok
(I would but can't figure out if I have the rights and how to do it)
Darkloke
Hi, guys. reosarevok, i need your help again about downvoting. This edit: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/48621417. I made such changes, coz imo track artist should be credited "audiomachine" being as main group/band/production studio, while individual tracks still have composer info. What do you think?
[11:05] <Darkloke> I see. Ok, then 2nd question - how should i credit a track artist for this release (and similar) - simply "audiomachine" for all tracks or per composer? I think the 1st one, but not sure.
[11:11] <reosarevok> Darkloke: without seeing the tracklist it's hard to know, but I think it makes sense to have it as you did if it does list the composers
simukis joined the channel
reosarevok comments
iliekcomputers__ is now known as iliekcomputers
MajorLurker
ok now I thought I made a bug report but I cannot find it now.... ;(
Thanks for the comments, reosarevok, but i am still confused what to do now...
MajorLurker
adhawkins, I would have added the dates too
reosarevok
Darkloke: fwiw at least the move from various artists to audiomachine seems very reasonable to me and makes the stuff less of a mess
adhawkins
MajorLurker: In the annotation? Or the 'recorded' relationship?
reosarevok
b)
adhawkins
Ok. Will do.
MajorLurker
in the relationship
reosarevok
Darkloke: the per-track bits, less sure. The digital version should have the composers as artists, as per that page. I don't know how the physical version shows the composers
(but it might make sense to leave them be as artists if we don't have more info that they are *not* credited)
adhawkins
Should I enter the same date for start and end? Seems a little counter-intuitive.