notsosmart: it's a popular song so there are lots of recordings, this isn't unusual
2022-05-20 14039, 2022
atj
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
2022-05-20 14053, 2022
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) ?
2022-05-20 14022, 2022
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
I have a strange feeling that it's just one person :D
2022-05-20 14017, 2022
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
2022-05-20 14033, 2022
Lotheric
yeah me too
2022-05-20 14044, 2022
Lotheric
trying to find more info on the web
2022-05-20 14045, 2022
Lotheric
:)
2022-05-20 14039, 2022
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
2022-05-20 14017, 2022
notsosmart
you can write this in Annotation
2022-05-20 14027, 2022
atj
notsosmart: there are recordings with duplicate ISRCs and lengths that differ by over a minute
2022-05-20 14003, 2022
atj
you've also got about 20 recordings that are part of DJ mixes
2022-05-20 14038, 2022
notsosmart
right, but dupliacate ISRC are quite easy to deal with
2022-05-20 14043, 2022
notsosmart
I'll merge them first
2022-05-20 14018, 2022
atj
I've just created a big merge for the main recordings
2022-05-20 14022, 2022
atj
*recording
2022-05-20 14059, 2022
atj
based on +/- 2 seconds of 4:43
2022-05-20 14001, 2022
notsosmart
nice
2022-05-20 14038, 2022
notsosmart
about the DJ mix issue... maybe there can be one recording without ISRC, sort of "unknown recording", and merge those mixes there?
2022-05-20 14044, 2022
atj
no
2022-05-20 14001, 2022
atj
learn the rules :P
2022-05-20 14016, 2022
atj
how recordings work and how you want them to work are different
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"
2022-05-20 14014, 2022
atj
e.g. the difference in length is due to the mixing
2022-05-20 14052, 2022
notsosmart
I see
2022-05-20 14057, 2022
elomatreb[m]
I don't think that's the common consensus
2022-05-20 14008, 2022
elomatreb[m]
It is very common to have separate releases for DJ-mixes
2022-05-20 14015, 2022
atj
elomatreb[m]: you misunderstand me
2022-05-20 14045, 2022
atj
I was quoting the rule that indicates why DJ-mixed recordings are separate
2022-05-20 14053, 2022
notsosmart
no no, atj is right
2022-05-20 14012, 2022
elomatreb[m]
ah sorry, I misunderstood
2022-05-20 14031, 2022
notsosmart
in that case those recordings should have "DJ mix" relationship with one of the recordings that the DJ has used as source
2022-05-20 14034, 2022
atj
elomatreb[m]: sorry, my wording was a confusing
2022-05-20 14034, 2022
Lotheric
and then you have explicit vs clean recordings
2022-05-20 14035, 2022
elomatreb[m]
I thought you were saying to merge DJ-mix recordings with their non-mixed counterparts because it's just a mixing difference
2022-05-20 14044, 2022
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.
2022-05-20 14015, 2022
atj
yes, but in order to create the relationships you need a canonical recording
2022-05-20 14028, 2022
atj
which is rarely self-evident
2022-05-20 14034, 2022
elomatreb[m]
Ideally that would be the case, but determining which recording is which is very difficult outside of trivial cases
2022-05-20 14039, 2022
notsosmart
exactly
2022-05-20 14059, 2022
elomatreb[m]
doing it properly would require having all the releases at hand and actually listening
2022-05-20 14003, 2022
atj
and this is why we end up with 50 recordings
2022-05-20 14015, 2022
notsosmart
no I don't think that's good approach
2022-05-20 14029, 2022
elomatreb[m]
It's better than any alternative
2022-05-20 14041, 2022
atj
it's the only proper approach
2022-05-20 14053, 2022
notsosmart
let me explain why I think it is not
2022-05-20 14057, 2022
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
Remember that there are also Works, which can properly link together the separate recordings even if you don't know the full details
2022-05-20 14039, 2022
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.
2022-05-20 14052, 2022
notsosmart
so currently there is no alternative, those unknown recordings will be there, but this should be addressed
2022-05-20 14042, 2022
notsosmart
some change in schema, like somehow marking the recording as unknown, or filtering them out
2022-05-20 14012, 2022
elomatreb[m]
there are very different levels of "known", I don't think this is something you can quantify in the database
2022-05-20 14038, 2022
atj
notsosmart: I suggest you learn about works, they achieve what you want I think
2022-05-20 14058, 2022
notsosmart
I know about works, and indeed there is a much better situation there
2022-05-20 14004, 2022
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
2022-05-20 14005, 2022
notsosmart
but it should also be with recordings
2022-05-20 14053, 2022
atj
well, I suggest you post on the forum and try to build some sort of consensus
2022-05-20 14026, 2022
atj
but keep in mind that you're not the first person to think about this
2022-05-20 14047, 2022
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
2022-05-20 14028, 2022
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"
2022-05-20 14042, 2022
elomatreb[m]
"Other" is not a useful qualifier though
2022-05-20 14058, 2022
notsosmart
why?
2022-05-20 14000, 2022
elomatreb[m]
why would it be?
2022-05-20 14001, 2022
notsosmart
useful to indicate that it is not the one enumerated or accounted for
2022-05-20 14046, 2022
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
2022-05-20 14007, 2022
elomatreb[m]
Compare to the "Data Quality" field which we have on releases mostly for historical reasons, which basically nobody uses
2022-05-20 14010, 2022
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
2022-05-20 14004, 2022
notsosmart
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
2022-05-20 14036, 2022
notsosmart
and when looking at her recordings, I see just a bunch of dudes mixing her stuff, instead of her recordings
2022-05-20 14044, 2022
notsosmart
covers I can easily filter out, problem solved there
2022-05-20 14009, 2022
notsosmart
but for dj mixes? I can make rec-rec relations if I know the source recording
2022-05-20 14017, 2022
notsosmart
but if I don't, it's not possible
2022-05-20 14012, 2022
notsosmart
so why not just an attribute? for a DJ mix?
2022-05-20 14038, 2022
notsosmart
just like for cover, live, etc
2022-05-20 14014, 2022
notsosmart
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
2022-05-20 14031, 2022
fhe has quit
2022-05-20 14041, 2022
skelly37 joined the channel
2022-05-20 14045, 2022
notsosmart
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
2022-05-20 14029, 2022
notsosmart
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
2022-05-20 14040, 2022
notsosmart
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
2022-05-20 14010, 2022
elomatreb[m]
Linking both recordings to the appropriate work should be enough
2022-05-20 14058, 2022
notsosmart
think so too
2022-05-20 14011, 2022
notsosmart
so is the ISRC unknown for this recording?
2022-05-20 14046, 2022
elomatreb[m]
If the ISRC is ripped from the CD, it should go on to that recording
2022-05-20 14029, 2022
elomatreb[m]
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
2022-05-20 14057, 2022
notsosmart
ok
2022-05-20 14010, 2022
notsosmart
so both recordings with same ISRC can be linked with relation "edit of"?
2022-05-20 14043, 2022
notsosmart
s/both/two/
2022-05-20 14053, 2022
elomatreb[m]
They could, but I would advise against it unless you listened to both
2022-05-20 14005, 2022
elomatreb[m]
They should both be "recording of [work]"
2022-05-20 14051, 2022
elomatreb[m]
If in doubt, duplication is preferable to overzealous merging (since untangling an incorrect merge is really annoying)
