#musicbrainz

That said, if you were only comfortable uploading the parts of the art containing credits but not the liner texts and whatnot, that'd be perfectly fine 🤷‍♂️

[08:09] reosarevok[m] That said, if you were only comfortable uploading the parts of the art containing credits but not the liner texts and whatnot, that'd be perfectly fine 🤷‍♂️

this.

for example for books this becomes an obvious distinction.

crap, i just added a bunch of recording relationships to the wrong person... who knew there could be two separate US audio engineers both called Andy Gibson?

labels really should start putting MBIDs in the liner notes to avoid situations like this

so i have this album, but mine is in a jewel case: https://musicbrainz.org/release/706367c2-5a9b-4... - is it possible that the digipak release and jewel case release both have the same barcode? i know labels do weird things with barcodes...

Barcodes do get repeated across what I would call reprintings… Barcodes are mostly for inventory management, and since the days of the long-boxes, the package doesn’t really matter to them. But since it’s part of the primary release data in MBz, I would say different packaging warrants a different release.

more confusing example: my copy of this album https://musicbrainz.org/release/5baacafd-c206-4... has the same barcode but is published by a different label (People Like You Records, same as the other release)... i'm guessing this must the EU releaser

although apparently they're an imprint of Century Media

discogs.com makes this even more confusing because they have a different barcode for the US release, the MB barcode is listed as the EU release on discogs. gah

can i split this into two separate releases based on the discogs entries? the original data source for MB was apparently Amazon which i would consider dubious

also the credits for this album are printed as light yellow text on a white background and are literally unreadable, good job art department

why are there so many III people in American music? Wayne Hancock III, Hank Williams III, John McTigue III...

<04elomatreb> lw: if you are in doubt, splitting is probably fine

i'm not 100% sure splitting it would be more correct, tbh

although since mine does have a different label printed on the back i guess that's sufficient to split it

<04elomatreb> possibly, but merging a duplicate is easier than untangling a wrongly unified release

<04elomatreb> yes, if there are any printed differences it's a new MB release

<04elomatreb> (not sure if you're serious about the III message, but that's a roman numeral)

<04elomatreb> (as in "Wayne Hancock the Third")

oh yeah i know, it's just how many people seem to have it specifically in this kind of music. i just ran into another one checking something else on this album

<04elomatreb> probably a generational thing

there's a credit on this album which i can't read and it's missing from discogs' entry.... "Police <something>"? i think it's meant to be 'police scanner'

lw: “Police <something>”… pic plz?

crism: https://i.imgur.com/VTj1gLt.jpeg - track "Driven by Demons", third from the top on the left column

tried taking a better pic with flash and i think it says "POLICE SOUNDS"

(the track has sfx of cops on it, so it makes more sense than you might imagine)

https://i.imgur.com/bKbIp9m.jpeg (sadly i do not have a proper camera but also this is no easier to read in real life)

i'm like 85% sure that says 'SOUNDS' though

Wow that sucks. Concur on POLICE SOUNDS, but fire that designer… Does the track have sirens or police chatter on it?

yes, and the start and also near the end (https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=HvsJc3phuFo) ... so despite being a bit weird it's basically an sfx credit

s/and the start/at the start/

they also misprinted the title of the track in the liner notes. i'd almost wonder if this is a bootleg printing of the album but who would bother to bootleg some obscure country album?

hmm, the 'sound effects' relationship type doesn't have a free-text field like 'instruments' does, but i can't find a suitable 'instrument' relationship ('sounds effects' is apparently about fx processors)

i guess i'll just list it as 'instruments' with the actual credit in a text field

oh it's also completely missing the credits for one track. what the heck

but discogs has them somehow

crism: ironically the art/design credit is completely unreadable which is probably for the best!

... unless you're looking for someone to design your next album and want to avoid whoever did this one

incidentally a lot of these 'III' people seem to be associated in some way with Hank Williams III (like Bob Wayne to started as a roadie for him), i wonder if they added it to their own names for that reason :-)

i wonder if hankie the third managed to avoid his dad's shitty politics

i learnt the other day that Jon Schaffer of Iced Earth was one of the jan 6 rioters, which... on the one hand is not surprising given the content of his songs but also like, wtf

ah good to know

if a publisher is associated with a rights society (like ASCAP) what relationship do i use to indicate that?

or is that a property of the work rather than the label?

e.g. https://musicbrainz.org/work/6741ca2f-cbc0-4776... which is credited to 'Saddle Up a Dead Horse Music (ASCAP)' in the liner notes

oh never mind, question answered by the annotation on the ASCAP entry: https://musicbrainz.org/label/9ba458d5-e97d-4c8...

thanks, annotation person

hmm but wait, this relationship is for Label-Release, i think i need Label-Recording or Label-Work