#musicbrainz

/

      • Ooze joined the channel
      • Ooze
        Hello. I'm new to MBZ. I'm using beets to manage my library. I just submitted my first edit. How long do I have to wait for it to be applied? 7 days?
      • Clint
        it depends
      • derwin
        it can be voted on by 3 people before then to approve it, if it isn't in the class of things that are an auto-edit
      • paste the url for the edit?
      • Ooze
      • Vacuity has quit
      • Vacuity joined the channel
      • G0d joined the channel
      • otisolsen70 joined the channel
      • fhe joined the channel
      • MRiddickW joined the channel
      • Vacuity has quit
      • Vacuity joined the channel
      • ttree has quit
      • fhe has quit
      • fhe joined the channel
      • MRiddickW has quit
      • otisolsen70 has quit
      • notsosmart has quit
      • antlarr has quit
      • ttree joined the channel
      • notsosmart joined the channel
      • notsosmart
        Found 99 results for "artist:"Patrice Rushen" AND Forget Me Nots"
      • how the hell is this possible
      • what can I do with this?
      • atj
        notsosmart: it's a popular song so there are lots of recordings, this isn't unusual
      • many of them could probably be merged, but lots of editors aren't aware of how recordings work in MB, or want to spend the time to determine if a song matches an existing recording
      • Lotheric
        Should I use an artist entity for the relationship ([video recording] was directed by 16pads) when the a videoclip was credited as being directed by a production company (https://www.sixteenpads.com/about) ?
      • notsosmart
        atj: could I just assign all of them to one of the 5-7 recordings that actually exist and have ISRC? That would be judging just by the time, but I think it's hell lot better than 99 recordings
      • Lotheric
      • notsosmart
        I have a strange feeling that it's just one person :D
      • Lotheric
        I *could* use Patrick Antoniewicz but can't be sure if he's the only director associated with the company or just the main one
      • yeah me too
      • trying to find more info on the web
      • :)
      • notsosmart
        someone might correct me on this, but I think the approach is not to add companies like that to MB, as it goes beyond music-related information -- it is not a label, so not a relevant company
      • you can write this in Annotation
      • atj
        notsosmart: there are recordings with duplicate ISRCs and lengths that differ by over a minute
      • you've also got about 20 recordings that are part of DJ mixes
      • notsosmart
        right, but dupliacate ISRC are quite easy to deal with
      • I'll merge them first
      • atj
        I've just created a big merge for the main recordings
      • *recording
      • based on +/- 2 seconds of 4:43
      • notsosmart
        nice
      • about the DJ mix issue... maybe there can be one recording without ISRC, sort of "unknown recording", and merge those mixes there?
      • atj
        no
      • learn the rules :P
      • how recordings work and how you want them to work are different
      • notsosmart
        what am I missing?
      • atj
      • DJ mixed recordings fall under "Recordings of different durations can be merged, as long as there is no evidence to suggest that differences in mixing or editing have caused the change in lengths"
      • e.g. the difference in length is due to the mixing
      • notsosmart
        I see
      • elomatreb[m]
        I don't think that's the common consensus
      • It is very common to have separate releases for DJ-mixes
      • atj
        elomatreb[m]: you misunderstand me
      • I was quoting the rule that indicates why DJ-mixed recordings are separate
      • notsosmart
        no no, atj is right
      • elomatreb[m]
        ah sorry, I misunderstood
      • notsosmart
        in that case those recordings should have "DJ mix" relationship with one of the recordings that the DJ has used as source
      • atj
        elomatreb[m]: sorry, my wording was a confusing
      • Lotheric
        and then you have explicit vs clean recordings
      • elomatreb[m]
        I thought you were saying to merge DJ-mix recordings with their non-mixed counterparts because it's just a mixing difference
      • notsosmart
        alright, but what I mean is that there is a set of original recordings, and all those other recordings are in some relation to those base recordings, or to each other etc.
      • atj
        yes, but in order to create the relationships you need a canonical recording
      • which is rarely self-evident
      • elomatreb[m]
        Ideally that would be the case, but determining which recording is which is very difficult outside of trivial cases
      • notsosmart
        exactly
      • elomatreb[m]
        doing it properly would require having all the releases at hand and actually listening
      • atj
        and this is why we end up with 50 recordings
      • notsosmart
        no I don't think that's good approach
      • elomatreb[m]
        It's better than any alternative
      • atj
        it's the only proper approach
      • notsosmart
        let me explain why I think it is not
      • elomatreb[m]
        for recordings with known provenance, you get full and reliable information, without claiming a false level of accuracy for recordings where it's not known
      • atj
        look how many different AcoustIDs there are https://musicbrainz.org/recording/55bfed5e-b406...
      • elomatreb[m]
        Remember that there are also Works, which can properly link together the separate recordings even if you don't know the full details
      • notsosmart
        first of all, I think it is not any approach, or any alternative -- it is physically impossible to listen to all of these mixes and to learn which DJ used which source recording. So what you are proposing is not actually possible.
      • so currently there is no alternative, those unknown recordings will be there, but this should be addressed
      • some change in schema, like somehow marking the recording as unknown, or filtering them out
      • elomatreb[m]
        there are very different levels of "known", I don't think this is something you can quantify in the database
      • atj
        notsosmart: I suggest you learn about works, they achieve what you want I think
      • notsosmart
        I know about works, and indeed there is a much better situation there
      • elomatreb[m]
        e.g. a recording which nobody knows what it sounds like (e.g. if it's DJ-mixed or not), a recording where it's known to be live but not from which concert (date/location), etc
      • notsosmart
        but it should also be with recordings
      • atj
        well, I suggest you post on the forum and try to build some sort of consensus
      • but keep in mind that you're not the first person to think about this
      • elomatreb[m]
        The situation with tons of duplicated/unknown recordings is also dramatically worse for "older" artists or for really popular ones where there are tons of compilation releases compared contemporary artists where it's easier to confirm two digital recordings are the samew
      • notsosmart
        elomareb[m]: `there are very different levels of "known", I don't think this is something you can quantify in the database` -- in every database there is always "other"
      • elomatreb[m]
        "Other" is not a useful qualifier though
      • notsosmart
        why?
      • elomatreb[m]
        why would it be?
      • notsosmart
        useful to indicate that it is not the one enumerated or accounted for
      • elomatreb[m]
        if the data about a recording is known, it should be added. If not, it can't be, so I don't see how that would be useful
      • Compare to the "Data Quality" field which we have on releases mostly for historical reasons, which basically nobody uses
      • notsosmart
        elomatreb: `if the data about a recording is known, it should be added. If not, it can't be, so I don't see how that would be useful` - I see your point
      • but "DJ mix of an unknown" recording is a common practice in music industry, and should be addressed. For example, in case of Patrice Rushen, there is a lot of DJs who included some recording of her track on their mixes, but Patrice Rushen has no control over it whatsoever
      • and when looking at her recordings, I see just a bunch of dudes mixing her stuff, instead of her recordings
      • covers I can easily filter out, problem solved there
      • but for dj mixes? I can make rec-rec relations if I know the source recording
      • but if I don't, it's not possible
      • so why not just an attribute? for a DJ mix?
      • just like for cover, live, etc
      • then we would need a filters and/or groups on an artist recording page, like for releases there are not only groupings (albums, EP, singels, other, etc.) but also an option to show/hide official/unofficial/various artists groups
      • fhe has quit
      • skelly37 joined the channel
      • OK so a different issue but same song... a user created a release "101 Disco Anthems" (a compilation) and added a recording of "Forget Me Nots", and shortly added ISRC USEE10183258, ripped from CD
      • but the recording has length 3:56 instead of 4:45, so it must be either an edit of that recording, or a mistake on the CD
      • should I make "edit of" relationship without actually hearing the track, or create another recording, because it is unknown?
      • crism has quit
      • zer0bitz joined the channel
      • crism joined the channel
      • skelly37 has quit
      • elomatreb[m]
        notsosmart: I'd say don't add "guessed" relationships like that
      • Linking both recordings to the appropriate work should be enough
      • notsosmart
        think so too
      • so is the ISRC unknown for this recording?
      • elomatreb[m]
        If the ISRC is ripped from the CD, it should go on to that recording
      • It's possible to have recordings with multiple ISRCs as well as ISRCs that belong to multiple recordings, since the concepts used to assign ISRCs don't necessarily match the MB recording concepts
      • notsosmart
        ok
      • so both recordings with same ISRC can be linked with relation "edit of"?
      • s/both/two/
      • elomatreb[m]
        They could, but I would advise against it unless you listened to both
      • They should both be "recording of [work]"
      • If in doubt, duplication is preferable to overzealous merging (since untangling an incorrect merge is really annoying)
      • notsosmart
        understood, thank you
      • zer0bitz has quit
      • ssam joined the channel
      • G0d has quit
      • agatzk joined the channel