#musicbrainz

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?

it depends

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?

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/89776399 *

Found 99 results for "artist:"Patrice Rushen" AND Forget Me Nots"

how the hell is this possible

what can I do with this?

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

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) ?

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

I have a strange feeling that it's just one person :D

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

:)

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

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

right, but dupliacate ISRC are quite easy to deal with

I'll merge them first

I've just created a big merge for the main recordings

*recording

based on +/- 2 seconds of 4:43

nice

about the DJ mix issue... maybe there can be one recording without ISRC, sort of "unknown recording", and merge those mixes there?

no

learn the rules :P

how recordings work and how you want them to work are different

what am I missing?

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

I see

I don't think that's the common consensus

It is very common to have separate releases for DJ-mixes

elomatreb[m]: you misunderstand me

I was quoting the rule that indicates why DJ-mixed recordings are separate

no no, atj is right

ah sorry, I misunderstood

in that case those recordings should have "DJ mix" relationship with one of the recordings that the DJ has used as source

elomatreb[m]: sorry, my wording was a confusing

and then you have explicit vs clean recordings

I thought you were saying to merge DJ-mix recordings with their non-mixed counterparts because it's just a mixing difference

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.

yes, but in order to create the relationships you need a canonical recording

which is rarely self-evident

Ideally that would be the case, but determining which recording is which is very difficult outside of trivial cases

exactly

doing it properly would require having all the releases at hand and actually listening

and this is why we end up with 50 recordings

no I don't think that's good approach

It's better than any alternative

it's the only proper approach

let me explain why I think it is not

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

look how many different AcoustIDs there are https://musicbrainz.org/recording/55bfed5e-b406...

Remember that there are also Works, which can properly link together the separate recordings even if you don't know the full details

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

there are very different levels of "known", I don't think this is something you can quantify in the database

notsosmart: I suggest you learn about works, they achieve what you want I think

I know about works, and indeed there is a much better situation there

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

but it should also be with recordings

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

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

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"

"Other" is not a useful qualifier though

why?

why would it be?

useful to indicate that it is not the one enumerated or accounted for

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

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

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?

notsosmart: I'd say don't add "guessed" relationships like that

think so too

so is the ISRC unknown for this recording?

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

ok

so both recordings with same ISRC can be linked with relation "edit of"?

s/both/two/

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)

understood, thank you