#musicbrainz

anyone wants to approve? :P https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/66185229

Hey all, you may remember I was here a couple of weeks ago to get help with a musicbrainz local docker setup...well, I accidentlly nuked it all! I know there was working on generating an up to date image, any progress on that or do I start from scratch?

SothoTalKer, I have voted for.

thx ^^

createdb.sh should have an option for wget to use -4 or -6. Since ftp.metabrainz.org resolves both ipv4 and ipv6 it's causing problems with my vm which may resolve an ipv6 but isn't ipv6 connected. It causes the fetch to fail.

oh, it's ftp.musicbrainz.org - how odd is that. *sigh*

hi! I'm wondering if the release I added looks ok (https://musicbrainz.org/release/ce6a5611-6bc4-4...), is there anything else I should add?

hi

hi!

hey peanutcat

how's your day? :D

fine

hey all

Yo

hows it going

hey everyone, merry Christmas!

CatQuest: I was wondering about the rabab/ generally stringed instrument research task. I understand it's festival-time and you're busy! let me know about it when you have some time :)

hey

hi antara ! I actually already have written the fist draft of that task!

I'm waiting for admins like freso or reosarevok to look at it though

and they're away for holidays <3

oh wonderful!

no problem about the holidays, I can do it whenever they're back

I understand this is a very busy time haha

haha

it's no longer busy. all work is oover!

now is the time for relaaaxing

yayy that's lovely too!

reosarevok: if i use "uppercase roman numerals" it will also uppercase "MIX" XD

It's a legit Roman numeral!

it is :)

1009

anyone have a good explainer on how ISRCs are not actually unique?

At the very least, they are limited by 100 years, so I guess after that they can be reused by newer tracks. Quantity of labels is also limited, but for now, on "overflow" fictional 2-letters country codes are being assigned (at least, for the US)

Or do you need some practical (instead of theoretical) examples? :)

even a reference to the overflow country codes would be great

oh, I see, wikipedia mentions it

how obviously stupid is two digits for year?

what in the actual

Adapted Records uses QM code for some of it's records (yeah, weird): https://beta.musicbrainz.org/artist/ab80aab0-18...

I hate that it's 2019 and I still have to read articles like this : https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18531476/mus...

xplt: QM is the overflow for US. another obvious FAIL

who could have possibly predicted that there would be more than 99,999 releases a year!

Yes, but the label is actually Australian :3

LOL, super fail.

I'm bummed that this article doesn't mention mb : https://djmag.com/longreads/producers-are-losin...

I don't know where they get their ISRC, maybe they have some American re-seller who provides it to them

Not "99999" releases, but 99999 tracks by a single label (is it even possible?!) in a year

And it mean that there are [26+10]^3 labels (=46656) in the US (also quite impressive if it's true)

*more than

it has to be true, otherwise why would QM exist?

anyway, thank you for your help, the above article came up in a DJ community that I participate in, and I wanted to advocate for MB and MBIDs.

hmm. https://isrc.ifpi.org/downloads/ISRC_Bulletin-2... doesn't mention year rollover but otherwise it's a good reference

that doc contains the official current list of codes

oh, huh, last updated december 5, 2019 - there might be some changes in that update for me to add to my magicisrc checker :)

it seems really, really weird that they don't mention year rollover

why would they define it this way, it's so obviously the y2k problem?

the reason for the extra fake country codes is to allocate more label codes, not necessarily because any given label is running out of codes (i expect most of the allocated label codes are barely used)

i think the way labels are expected to handle is is to .. handle it themselves

LOL wtf, this doc?

if the same label has releases in both, say 1930 and 2030, then they should start assigning numbers in 2030 where they left off in 1930

(and if they run out, request a new label code)

" Although the Year of Reference element is only two digits in length, the ‘Year 2000’ (‘Y2K’) problem does not in practice arise with ISRC. (See Section 4.8 Year of Reference)

In addition, while the year of reference is only two digits, there is no Year 2000 (‘Y2K’) problem with the ISRC. The ISRC system’s Year 2000 problem will not occur until the year 2040 because even under previous recommendations that the Year element of an ISRC should represent the year of recording, there was a recommendation that years earlier than 1940 should not be used. "