#musicbrainz

Hi! I'm in the process of grabbing (ripping) many CDs from my collection with `whipper`, and most of them get cool metadata from MB :) however, there are some lesser knowns compilations that I'd like to add. is there a way I can use Picard to fingerprint most of the individual tracks on the compilations and pre-fill my new MB Release with artist and songname infos from that?

(or something similar taking off a big part of the work automagically)

albertus: the easiest way is to use an importer userscript, with CDs mostly importing from Discogs

(be sure to use "guess case" and so on to avoid Titles That Read Like This For No Real Reason

what are userscripts, and where are those buttons added?

ah, Browser plugins?

it's a browser plugin which runs the scripts

yeah, "tampermonkey" or similar depending on your browser etc.

I'll look at that, found the docs on the website. Regarding just the use of Picard to get good tags for the files, how do I prevent the files from being scattered all into different releases after fingerprinting them?

by associating them with the release they're on?

... which is not yet existing

I'm not sure what you're asking. Either it's going to identify them as single tracks from a bunch of different releases, or it's going to identify them as being on a release.

In beets the mb tagger, there's two entirely different modes of operation, not sure about Picard.

I'm ripping CDs that are not in the database, and I thought I could still get nice "artist" and "title" tags and filenames via fingerprints

albertus: the other thing you can do with Picard is, if you've got a rip already with rudimentary files, cluster the files and then click "Submit cluster as release"

rudimentary tags*

that sounds like what I was asking in the first place :) but Discogs import would also be of use on quite a few of them, so the userscripts are also a great hint

or, none at all, as long as it's in a folder structure

I have a folder per disc, from ripping them, with useless "12. unknown artist - unknown track.flac" names

not 100% sure how picard differs, but it's infinitely better to just associate with the correct release in general..

have you read https://picard-docs.musicbrainz.org/en/workflow... ?

and I tried picard (for the first time) and it worked really well to fingerprint them, but the "right hand pane" seems to be grouping by release, and it finds every song on a different release, of course, so they are all scattered in the right hand pane

"lookup" is the wrong process for my case, it seems

I need the fingerprinting thing, which, in my understanding, is just a different thing Picard does

(which is not described as much as a workflow in the docs, as far as I have found)

yeah, I mean, in theory, you could configure picard to fingerprint stuff, but not tag release information or reorganize the files on disk into releases

but in practice, it's almost certainly more work to do that than just... import the correct release

fingerprinting is really most useful for either tagging individual files or identifying which release contains all of your files

your hybrid approach where you want to identify files without identifying the release is not really what it's designed for

there's an option in the setting to exclude certain tags from being tagged... I'm wondering which ones I should add to avoid the arbitrary releases

hmm. I cannot identify the release because it's just missing from MB as of now

"I can't identify the release but I want to tag the files as belonging to a release" is not really a common use case

people either want to tag individual files and not care about the release they're on or they want to tag the entire release

and, frankly, I can't understand the benefit you are seeking by tagging the files without identifying the release

so you have a compilation with 15 tracks and 10 of them are on other releases and 5 aren't.. so you end up with a release with 10 tracks tagged and 5 unknown tracks

is that an improvement?

sure it is. with my first release (2 discs) I have only 2 left untagged

so yes, I think I would want the tags specific to artist and title to be fetched from fingerprinting on individual tracks, but to keep the existing track number and not take in any release-related tags

this one-off fingerprinting would mainly be to use the rips in DJ software with useful metadata of individual tracks. but I also want to submit them to MusicBrainz over time, so I would keep track numbering from the ripping process

is there a list of (ID3) tags that are release-related, so I can blacklist them in Picard settings?

to me a release that is partially-tagged is not an improvement over a release that is untagged, but people are different :)

How should solo projects be entered as an Artist?  Specific example: https://lafaute.bandcamp.com/album/automata "La Faute is dark, dreamy solo project of Peggy Messing, an artist, multi-instrumentalist and singer-songwriter based in Toronto."

So I would add Peggy Messing as a Person, but would her solo project La Faute be a Group with the one Person as a Relationship?

(I see Peggy Messing is already in MusicBrainz.)

I think that must be the way to go, because there is no way to enter a release as being by one artist but "credited as" something else like you can with tracks and relationships.

I would probably just add "La Faute" as an artist who is a person

and a "real name" relationship to peggy messing

a group is more than one person

How do you enter a "real name" relationship?

I think I figured it out.

This is what I've entered: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/36a01156-dd0b-40...

derwin: I find it's less work to tag only the remaining ones by hand (and merely cross-check the auto-tagged ones, which may be 90%)

hi how's it going?

I have a request. AU navy are trying to use my AKAI MPC. But its probably actually enish navy. ENISH NAVY TRYING TO USE MY AKAI MPC!!1

can someone get them off.

I am the inventor of hip hop!

so I can make mine.

It has been a long time in the coming.

But I rested with some AU allies now i can make my hip hop

🍻

slydacyfa: wut

Do cover art edits have to provide a source for the exact file submitted?

Ideally. Sometimes this allows other editors to use some tricks to find an even better version (higher resolution).

But for other purposes it should be sufficient to link the source website (or state that it's your own scan/photo).

How about if an art edit provides no source, but it *is* the correct art for the release. should that be voted down for not having a source? or is that fine

I would ask the editor to provide a source. Only if I am able to add a better image I would downvote a correct cover art upload.

there is a big problem of people uploading the 1200*1200 (or less) Bandcamp image, despite the full-sized image being freely available from the CDN

I think there should be a message which prompts about sources and ways to fetch the largest image from common sites (Bandcamp, Qobuz &c.)

kellnerd, I just saw your request on PICARD-2617. To start with, I'll try to put together a plugin to provide the information, and then if there's agreement from the primary devs we can see about adding it to the base code. I expect this might be a bit too niche for that.

PICARD-2617: Add variables for file creation and modification date(time) https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/PICARD-2617

!m rdswift

You're doing good work, rdswift!

should all-lowercase track titles on streaming platforms be treated as artist intent, or should I "correct" them to match the style guide?

rdswift: Yeah, I know that it is very niche. Otherwise someone else would have requested it already. My initial thought was to simply forbid Picard updating the modification timestamp, but that way my media center won't find files with updated tags.

Embarassingly I still haven't retagged my whole collection three years after joining MB, as you can infer from the date of the ticket '=D

I know what you mean. After about 5 years I thought I *finally* had my files all tagged, but I still keep finding stuff that I've missed. Argh!

rdswift, kellnerd: I think we could add those variables to Picard directly. For me this looks like a good idea, we already have other technical file variables

Okay, do you want me to add it to Picard then instead of a plugin?

Yes, that would be great 👍

Okay, I'm on it. Thanks.

Anyone familiar with the musicbrainz api?

Sum: don't ask to ask, just ask.

Sciencentistguy: it depends

What's the diff in the relationship from Work --> Release vs Work --> Recording? Is there a 1-1mapping between release and recording?

Sciencentistguy: if the all-lowercase is also the same on other platforms, maybe. if not, maybe not.

sum : a work may have multiple recordings. that recording might appear on multiple releases.

for example, "hey jude" by the beatles is a work which has been covered by many different artists.

"hey jude" recorded by the beatles has appeared on various releases by the beatles.

Ok, let's assume that I only care about recordings / releases by the same artist. So the data hierarchy is Work (the concept) --> recording (actual production of concept to work) --> release (consumer accessible version of recording)

sure, modulo the fact that there are often multiple different recordings of the same work by the same artist

bob dylan has many released takes of "like a rolling stone" from the various sessions he did while recording the song that was eventually released on "highway 61 revisited"

yea so work A --> recording A1 / recording A2 / ... --> release R1(recording A1) / Release R2 (recording A1) / Release R3 (recording A2)

including live performances

where does that fit in?