#musicbrainz

Style question… extended last-cut tracks. Specifically “Crazy” at the end of _Gordon_ by Barenaked Ladies. It is a recording of “Crazy,” but as Wikipedia says, “‘Crazy’ ends minute 4:08. After six seconds of silence, a hidden track called ‘Dat Fodder’ is heard, containing several studio outtakes and ad-libs.” I don’t think the track should be retitled… but should the recording be? How to capture this fact whil

You should enter the hidden track, both on the track listing and the recording. Given the length of the silence I might even add "/ [silence] /" in between

Relavent guidelines are here... https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Unknown_and_u...

Ah, thanks, cheezmo2… I read those guidelines, but not very well apparently.

Check out the [unknown] section at the bottom under "Examples and specific indications". I think that covers your case.

first bullet "in combination with the one for multiple titles"

Hmm… a complication. The recording at https://musicbrainz.org/recording/ddc60c9b-c4b9... is 5/6 the full one with the hidden stuff. One of them is just the song. Split it off, I assume… and mark the longer one as an edit of the shorter?

Now I have to wait 6 days for the edit to be approved before I can go decorate the newly-created track. We really need a clone or copy feature.

Does anyone know a good source for checking publishing rights? The MBz variants of _Gordon_ list most (but not all) of the works as published by WB Music, but I can’t find any evidence of that (and I do find evidence of different publishers in the liner notes, Discogs, etc.).

So… I found one at Warner-Chappell Music (who has subsumed WB Music): https://www.warnerchappell.com/song-details/WW%... — it seems that they are the administrator, rather than the publisher. I guess publisher is the best way to capture that for MBz purposes, though?

crism: you got cut off after capture this fact whi

cheezmo2: *please* don't use [silence] in the middle like that. it's so useless 😹

extended period of silence cna be noted in a disambiguiation imho

@crism I've approved your edits so you can proceed with the decoration.

CatQuest: I guess publisher is the best way to capture that for MBz purposes, though?

Though I opted to remove the rights manager… no evidence anywhere they are actually the publisher.

uh you mean BB?

cheezmo2 cheezmo2_ Thank you!

CatQuest: WB Music (now Warner-Chappell) is the USA licensing agency for the Barenaked Ladies catalog; Treat Baker Music is the Publisher.

Is there a way to capture the rights management relationship for a work?

oh god don't talk to me about labels I have no idea :D

but iirc there is a label-work relation like this, reosarevok ?

Publisher yes, licensing agency probably not

If that's interesting and often available we could add that

My usual reaction to label questions is similar to CatQuest's but :p

I mean. I get a lot of recordings on releases (esp compilations with VA artists or an artists long time releases) where recordings have "licensed by" this and that

Yes, but that's for a specific recording rather than the work :)

true

still it's a recording-lable rel i really wish we had :/

huh, that's amsuing, first time i came across a release that had a WD item, and the WD item hada a discogs master rel but said discogs master rell wasn't attached to mb RG

Well, that's really a track-label rel

But we don't have those :/

IIRC we have that as a release-label rel but

yea.

Someone had felt it was worthwhile to attach WB Music as a publisher to a few of the tracks on BNL’s _Gordon_. I don’t know why… but when I see users misusing relationships, that suggests that there’s a relationship they are interested in capturing. (Similarly, a rights assocation like SOCAN or ASCAP only has release-level relationship; that should really be available on work or or label instead or in addition.)

In case that was too long: (Similarly, a rights assocation like SOCAN or ASCAP only has release-level relationship; that should really be available on work or or label instead or in addition.)

when I see users misusing relationships, that suggests that there’s a relationship they are interested in capturing. <-- there is a point to that

Am I allowed to make a request here?

jsut ask, don't ask to ask :)

A while ago, I added a release to musicbrainz, but I am still not very good at using the interface, so it has some issues. How do I properly indicate that it's a 2cd release and populate the information fields with the track lengths?