#musicbrainz

Would this be a reasonable way to represent this artist credit? http://i.imgur.com/zJRO6Q0.png http://www.discogs.com/master/424891

it seems weird to me :/

what would the alternative be? the surname doesn't really belong to one or the other credit but both..

it's kind of awkward

I would just do [Salma] & [Sabina Agha]

That's what I've done before.

I would... yeah, what freso said

And what I've seen others do.

cool, I'll do that

to me putting it in the join phrase implies that it's not part of their name, when it obviously is

the way discogs did it seem even weirder

hibiscuskazeneko: btw, regarding events that span multiple days, I imagine the best way would be individual events for each day, each linked to a parent event covering the entire set of days

Should I set the parent event as a series or event?

event

Is there a ticket to add Park as a place type?

not that I've seen

well then http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-464

It may not happen before April though, hibiscuskazeneko.

Just a heads up.

(It might happen before, but don't hold your breath!)

I'm not desperate

Hi!

hi

hi :3

Python rocks.

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/... <-- you mean these?

>_>

Wow, literally, python rocks.

reosarevok: now i also installed the script you used, but how do i use it on the edit tracklist page?

The wintry mess up north is finally moving our direction

My college is cancelled but I tentatively have a doctor's appointment

reosarevok: now i also installed the script you used, but how do i use it on the edit tracklist page?

hopphopp, there should be a button at the bottom, where guess case also is

"Being purely a distributor, NO releases should be listed here" is nonsense since we can have multiple labels attached to releases, right?

Depends on how you define release label

We generally define it as an imprint, so you should probably use the distributor relationship for distributors

can we give cat# for distributor AR?

No, not really. The whole catno/imprint discussion is fairly complicated and a lot of people disagree on i

it

In general, distributors are not release labels, but if it's the only way to store a catno, I personally would be fine with adding it there

hm, we should kill the distributor AR and just use a label that is type distributor.. also makes it a lot easier to add

(others wouldn't)

but I can't really follow up on such a change.. Although I am going to search if there is a ticket for that

a lot of labels have multiple roles, so that wouldn't really work in practise

you need to have some way of saying that they performed a particular role in the connection between release and label.

Not really IMO. We maybe should modify how we do labels so that the different types work in the same way, but the types aren't enough at all, especially since you can only have one and a lot of labels put out their stuff and distribute extra stufff

what? no, a label doesn't have different roles. Some companies have a distributor and label with same name -> different MBID

re-releasing is not distributing. I don't remember an example where a real (production) label is also a distributor. Some labels don't have/use a separate distributor though

anyways, I will set the label and cat# and try to find a ticket. Adding an AR is 1) too much work for such a standard thing 2) no way to save the distributor #

style ticket that is

kepstin-laptop: though?

how do you know "which distributor you get something from?"

I mean, amazon isn't a distributor in that sense

you don't, normally...

yes, you only state what is on the release and be done with

if somebody finds out there have been other associated distributors (not sure how though) then add these additionally (but then you also might know if that is a different or no cat#)

well, releases typically indicate distributors by having in fine print on the back "distributed by X", which imo seems like a perfect use for an AR.

yes that is difficult in some cases, but no reason to make it difficult for the easy ones (my music is always easy..)

in most cases, the distributor isn't as important as the consumer-visible "brand" ("imprint"), so having it in the same label field doesn't make sense, imo.

hm, you say in that case people would be confused having to add that as "label with type distributor without cat#"?

this is not about importance this is about easily adding a release in the release editor. And the distributor # is an identifying fact that is nice to have there

easily adding a release in the release editor? well, that's an *entirely* different issue from data model

solution to that is to integrate the relationship editor and release editor more closely, and that's something that iirc has been worked on, and will probably happen at some point.

well yes, somewhat. The issue at hand is that we have two different "releations" with distributor data. One with # and one without.