#musicbrainz

any chance I can get a review on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/112074790 this? data is from iTunes (and also verified correct on my CD)

(trying to update my Roon data:)   )

<078000tomatoes> https://musicbrainz.org/edit/112094507 @Aerozol any way to revert this? i fucked up 🙂

8000tomatoes: Looks okay to me? You added an alias and added 1 release as ‘performs as’ Max Marx, sound right?

8000tomatoes: what exactly were you trying to do and where did you fuck up?

Yeah, what aerozol[m] said, nothing here seems too bad?

Possibly a bit confusing because the Max Marx release is the only one where he is credited directly. So before that was added, this more comprehensive tab would have been displayed (as the fallback) - https://beta.musicbrainz.org/artist/71f357b6-60...

Is anyone else having MB go super slow?

<078000tomatoes> ah, it just doesnt show all the releases directly?

It only shows all the releases *for the artist* - if there's none it falls back to various artists releases where they appear, which might be what you were seeing before

<078000tomatoes> oh.

<078000tomatoes> Technically is it even right to credit Tom Scott - because he is Max Marx but its uncredited (and well documented that he's the vocalist)

<078000tomatoes> https://www.basefm.co.nz/14902-2/ / https://www.discogs.com/release/5548946-Tom-Sco...

<12Aerozol> It's a bit of a grey area... if it is Tom Scott with a funny name, 'credited as' is right. But if it is Tom Scott performing a different act, then it's better to create a new artist and link the two using 'performs as'. If that sounds confusing, it's because it is haha

<12Aerozol> We almost always split if the two performance names denote different genres, for instance

<12Aerozol> Discogs has it under Tom Scott as well I see. And they have exactly the same thing - it's the only thing on his discography, but the 'credits' tab has all his other stuff. I think it's fine tbh! Not bad work at all

<078000tomatoes> https://musicbrainz.org/edit/112145933 is there any way you can set commit dependacies?

<12Aerozol> You should be able to set the alias already, it wont interfere. Otherwise all you can really do is ask for votes for edits you want through asap!

<078000tomatoes> ah i see, i wish you could link dependancies kinda like you can on gerrit (the code review platform)

<12Aerozol> Could do with a better edit note, but I'm going to approve the change - looks like you know your NZ/AUS hip hop stuff 👌

<078000tomatoes> if i have info, that isn't credited publicly, but known semi privately, is it worth uploading it?

<078000tomatoes> things like "i know it was recorded at this studio"

<078000tomatoes> (haha i know the elefant traks people )

<12Aerozol> Absolutely. Just make sure to put in the edit note that it's first hand knowledge

<12Aerozol> If you have any A+ album suggestions atm, I'm keen for them!!

<078000tomatoes> what genre?

<12Aerozol> Anything, hip hop is good though

<078000tomatoes> for conceptualised: what tag for relationships do i put?

if there isn’t any appropriate relationship type at the moment, you can add an annotation instead

to have a contrast with artist confusion: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/111619051

is there anything doable that the edits are more verbose to voters?

mr44er[m]: this is the sort of edge case where we *should* have a one-member band since that seems to be how the artist sees it

Will make the necessary edits since you say you would rather not :)

<078000tomatoes> @Aerozol i added a bunch of credits for ABC and fixed up some edits for Tom, would love you to have a check if you get time 🙂

I like that when I google MacCriunna Google asks if I meant "Macarena"

Almost the same ting, yes

*thing even

Oh, I see Tom King is already listed as a member :)

Also linked him to Blood Storm under his other name then (https://musicbrainz.org/artist/d24bec5c-304d-45...) - possibly not worth splitting the artist into several names right now, but if someone who knows more thinks it should happen, that's fine

<reosarevok> "Will make the necessary edits..." <- this edit was successful, so this is ok. but I know these cases appear again, where I find 'person' and as birth date the artist begin date. making those edits correct feels like making voters angry 😄

Well, unsetting the type is not the right fix

You should either make it a group, if it is

it is not

This one is :)

Just a one man band

Those are a thing

Or make it a person, remove the start of performance date, and set the birth date if known

Start of performance date under a specific alias can always be set as the start date for the relevant artist name alias

thats the problem with it, yeah. group = 2+ persons 😄

Usually, yes

But our schema allows for one man bands, because they're intended as bands

but what is wrong with artist/blank? I think this is the most fitting?

That the intention is for it to be a group. If it wasn't, then it should be a person.

ah..ok that was my missing piece

I don't think there's any situation in our schema where we'd actively prefer no type for artists

Unlike for works for example, where many just don't fit any type at all and leaving it blank is entirely fine

i kept pulling my hair out, but it was my conclusion when ruling out one after another with the help texts

small "draft"

"That said, this example does look like it specifically involves one person doing everything, so I’d expect Person. It might be possible to call artist intent on it if the person always refers to the project as “a band” and themselves as “its member” though, which I don’t know whether it is the case here!"

I think I still agree with myself in 2020, heh

(that feels like so long ago)

Because they actually use a different name for them as a member vs the artist itself, it suggests to me intent for this to be seen as a band and that's why I would use Group

Yeah, I see the discussion is no fun. I just want to drop missing begin date, but can't when it's already person type. <- main problem. changing to group (what's printed on cd etc) is ok, that entry also has begin date but I need to check how those edits would look for voters

suggestion: A grouping of multiple musicians who perform together (in some cases, some or all of the members might differ in different performances or recordings). -> A grouping of multiple (or just one-man-band) musicians who perform together (in some cases, some or all of the members might differ in different performances or recordings)

but yeah, a third $anything clearly for that purpose wouldshouldcould be better. solo-performer/project/one-man-band and only with begin date

<reosarevok> "I like that when I google..." <- https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/39bbe379-... 😅