It’s not that it’s particularly difficult though (though tracking down AcoustIDs/cover art/performers is sometimes rough) — it’s that it’s very hard to actually see what the result of your work is going to look like.
e.g. if I wanted to try to normalize all the Kochel abbreviations on recordings to 'K.' instead of 'KV' — they just show up orange, I can’t really be sure if I’ve gotten them all.
v6lur_ joined the channel
(Aside from there being 42000 recordings making that a big project)
CallerNo6
Even for that, it would help to write out a best-practice workflow for all those steps.
How do I compare fingerprints? Once I do, how close is close enough?
etc
hawke
Heh.
I’m not quite sure what such a thing would look like.
CallerNo6
e.g. I've spend probably two man-days trying to come up with a workable cover art work flow and failed. I have kepstin's system bookmarked somewhere, I think.
person-days
hawke
mouse-days?
Anyway, I feel like there are too many different approaches to have any kind of single document.
CallerNo6
That's exactly what discourages people like me from editing in the first place.
hawke
like, IIRC a fair amount of our documentation takes the approach of adding a new release for a pop artist.
(or for a classical artist, even)
but that doesn't really help with cleanup.
CallerNo6
no, agreed
hawke
And once you're thinking towards cleanup: you could approach from 'find a release and add all the relevant information'
or 'go through the recordings and make sure they're right'
or 'go through the works and make sure they're right'
and probably some others.
CallerNo6
too overwhelming (for me)
kepstin-laptop should maybe write up his cover art stuff as a blog post or something.
CallerNo6 thought about emailing the IA and asking if they have suggestions. specifically, for doing vinyl covers.
(other than "buy a bigger scanner, loser")
kepstin-laptop
yeah, there's two ways to go about that, you can either scan it piecewise and recombine, or carefully set up lighting and take a photo.
kepstin-laptop doesn't have any vinyl, but he's done a lot of recombining of stuff for digipaks
those generally have seams or bends where you can hide the artifacts, though.
CallerNo6
helpful
kepstin-laptop
I have a small pile of cds beside my scanner now, been putting them off :/
should just document them when I do them.
CallerNo6
meticulous photoshop/gimp work is great, but too much work for the casual contributor I'd think
hawke
You don’t actually need to set up the lighting that carefully.
I did some adequate vinyl covers…just photograph, correct for the lens, and scale appropriately.
kepstin-laptop
it's mostly just a matter of avoiding glare and having a neutral-color thing in the photo to correct white-balance.
hawke
nod.
CallerNo6: doesn’t require much gimp/photoshop unless you’re scanning.
Interestingly: a friend of mine is getting me a large-format scanner.
“Using "major" or "minor" is the preferred style for generic Works titles in English” — does that mean that we *should* add major/minor to works titles, but not track titles (“Do not add "major" or "minor" if these words are omitted in the source”)?
Or does that just mean not to use the 'C' for major and 'c' for minor method?
spinza joined the channel
angmew joined the channel
CallerNo6
That predates the key attribute of course
hawke
It does, but it’s still relevant
I think there’s some consensus that we can’t simply omit the key from the title
Otherwise half the works would just be called 'Sonata'
