#musicbrainz

Is this the right place to ask picard scripting questions?

eharris: yes

loved you in "The Abyss" btw

Is there a way to get picard to either write out a text file from a script, or to call a script/program with all the track info when processing a release?

unfortunately I use beets and have no idea, lol, but if you stick around and idle a bit probably someone can help

I've been meaning to play with beets, but I'm a little afraid of it doing stuff I don't intend/expect without me knowing. Hard to trust a new program after I've spent so much time curating my library

Hmm, no new release of beets in 2.5 years? Last release says they were planning to push a new release every 4x a year.

Hello. I'm new at MB. Is it possible to change multiple cover arts at a time, or should I make separate edits for each cover art? Front and back cover arts mixed up for https://musicbrainz.org/release/dfdea8b6-7c2e-4... release

derwin: YES I see it lmao

could 'type: blank/empty' be renamed just to artist? fixing a 'person'-type to the correct one and giving correct begin date at once still shows 'birth' date in the edit. this leads to confusion on voter side, because voters don't see the intended change and what happens in my edit mask 'birth' -> 'begin' in dependance to type. example1 https://musicbrainz.org/edit/111619051 | example2 (may be more debatable, but the initial confusion is

similar) https://musicbrainz.org/edit/111572617

MonkeyPython: ;)

Some people consider one man bands as a "Person". I'm leaning more into considering them "Groups".

kinda see this point if I'm honest

if it's a "person" i feel it's a performance name and should be merged to the person

person/artist entry

eharris: beets is weird with releases - changes are happening in the master branch but they're not being released. I run a dev version that i build myself, to get latest features.

might be worth joining #beets as well if you're interested in it

a person can't have a begin date, it is birth. that's the logic difference I really prefer. 🙂

one person is no group, that would be schizophrenia 😛

the point is I want to add a release to Darkest Grove (opened on metalarchives in tab) and see begin date 2000. searching on MB I found this entry already as person, everything empty. the mask wants birth date. questioning myself do I touch it and make everything correct or just add the release and ignore the rest...then I stumbled over the problem that the voters don't see the birth into begin change.

but group cna have only one person

yes, I can do that, if that's recommended/wished consensus. but that doesn't solve the problem...if I change person into group, voters still will be presented with 'birth date'

it would help if such edits would be 1.) more verbose and 2.)renaming blank option just to 'artist', either way it suggests deletion of that flag/info to voters and 'birth' together with group or $anything non-person leads likely to a no and when I do edits, I fill in everything at once.

most voters or only-voters don't know about the mask change birth<->begin at all

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/02605fbf-04b5-42... same here...and even 2x as person in db. I'd like to change into blank/artist and add 2004 as begin date, but I don't want to trigger the great moaning.. 😏

oh and does anybody know which settings CAA does internally for 500px with imagemagick? I'm faster locally...-adaptive-resize 500 oder normal resize? -quality 50 or 75?

Hello lovelies

<3

oi

<< woah dude

who wants to pm

???

<07aszazin> Can someone explain me in short when I should add a new entry for a release already in the database with very minor differences (Same artwork, only difference later pressing by different plant, Disc ID is the same)?

I stand to be corrected, but I don't think that warrants a new release.

if the artwork differs, it differs -> new release. as precise as possible. if the existing data of older rls is good enough for your tagging, then everything is ok 🙂

...and how much does it hurt in terms of effort to pull in another release if the group already exists via script? 😉

<07aszazin> Yea, my main concern is: we have Discogs for every minor detail, but one might drown there in 5, 10 identical releases with only a difference in the runouts. I wonder whether it pays to do the same On MB, as MB can access the digital data to spot any actual difference, while Discogs has to take all info from reading it by The Human Eye & inputting through The Human Finger.

mr44er: I agree that differing artwork means a new release. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought aszazin said that the artwork was the same.

<07aszazin> Yes, all artwork is 100% identical, even in the most minor details, including the disc. Without using the Discogs link, I wouldn't even be able to know there was a difference.

I didn't think that a different runout necessarily required a different release in MusicBrainz.

yes, that's my 'if'...some people don't see or oversee small differences...new cover has another position of title/another font etc.

barcode has 3 other numbers and such

it makes no sense if every year a repress of 1000 pieces/CDs come out

scanning vinyl-cover additionally if cd-cover is present and the same doesn't really make sense

<07aszazin> The only thing that could be a problem, is when I would add the manufacturer, as the 1999 pressing was done by EMI Uden, and the 2008 pressing by Optimal Media GmbH

yes

<12lazybookwyrm> Definitely mention this stuff in disambiguation and possibly annotation if more details are needed.

but for example every year 1999/2000/2001-2008 EMI anything would be not necessary, but for example remastered tracks 2009 EMI should be another rls

<12lazybookwyrm> Whether new pressings warrant new releases has a few threads on the forums (with no conclusions lol)

"<mr44er[m]> scanning vinyl-cover additionally if cd-cover is present and the same doesn't really make sense" It does if the CD cover is a gatefold or digipak (not square). Then again, I guess that would fail your "and the same" test. ;-)

<12lazybookwyrm> https://community.metabrainz.org/t/cd-releases-...

it also depends what you would need or want personally (I don't care if my own vinyl mp3s have cd-cover), but for MB here I do precise edits...well, try to do my best 🙂

<07aszazin> My concern is mainly: The documentation on discogs now caused for a lot of releases an almost unworkable amount of releases which are identical due to their digital nature. I mentioned to the database manager I wished there was a way to group such as-good-as-identical represses over time within the MR (release group), he seconded that. MB isn't yet at that stage of having series of almost identical variations one has to

check one by one. My proposal would be to add a third level in MB (before it's too late 😉 within a 'release' to document manufacturing variants. Such variant would ideally only contain the differing manufacturing information (= manufacturing companies, an annotation to include runouts, etc, images to include matrix pictures, and possibly the complete variant picture set for peer-review purpose).

<07aszazin> It would keep the database workable, while enabling the possibility to document any manufacturing variation. (Learning out of the problems on another site.)

like dedup on ZFS

<07aszazin> Had to look that up, but: yes. Although it could be nothing more than a relationship to a specific subset. So you get (for instance): Release Group -> Release -> Manufacturing Variants. The manufacturing variants would only be visible within the release, not within the release group.

04:42 < MonkeyPython> but group cna have only one person

take for example the act Blond:ish, who started as a duo but who are now one person...