#musicbrainz

ivy: that looks like a valid merge, yeah

exciting, i don't think i ever did a merge before

if an album is released by Napalm in Austria, then it's released by Soyuz in Russia, and the back cover has the logo of both labels, should it have both labels on the release entry, or just Soyuz?

ivy: The release should have all the labels that are on the cover, and only those (generally)

that makes sense, thanks

i think that means i've been doing this wrongly, although in my defense a lot of these are only added with a single label... at least now i know how to fix them :-)

is a pirate release group a label? https://musicbrainz.org/label/e2484807-9e8c-434... - it seems to me that just distributing a release doesn't constitute a label by itself

otherwise Qohuz, HDtracks, ... would all be labels

Qobuz

Do they put together their own bootleg comps, or is it just rips of official music?

We do have a specific label type for bootleg labels

And they do belong

they just rip/download existing official releases and put them on bittorrent/telegram/etc., at least as far as i know

Then those shouldn't even be separate releases

(context: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/118556067 - someone has uploaded one of their releases)

That's the barcode for the original: https://mediatheque.ivry94.fr/doc/MUSICME/50149...

"Information about pirate releases is allowed if they are not equivalent to an official release: a direct digital rip of an official CD should not be added, but a pirate release including demos or remixes in addition to the content of the official CD release can be." https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Beginners%20Guide

It looks like this might not belong in MB anyway in that case

in one of the other edits for that label they have a modified cover fwiw

with their logo

Yeah, they do here too, but that doesn't make it anything else than "a direct digital rip of an official CD" with a watermark imo

faiur

reosarevok[m]: my feeling is the release should be in the db, but it should be modified to reflect the official release (with better artwork)? it seems like this release isn't otherwise in the db

Well, yeah, agreed that if there's no original yet this could be made into that

The Spotify link is anyway the official one already, so there's clearly an official digital version to display

is there a way to look up a disc id by pasting an EAC log into the website? i know Picard can do this, but i don't always have it open

ivy: someone recommend me https://eac-log-lookup.blogspot.com/ once to convert the EAC logs to a disc ID you can search for on https://musicbrainz.org/search

that's handy, thanks

hmm, i am not fond of this edit: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/118698511

What do I categorize a release as if it's just a dropbox link in a tweet by the artist from 2018 :)

bwbuhse: standalone recording?

https://web.archive.org/web/20230504192146/http... specifically this is the tweet... https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/e000f977-... and the release group. Should I get rid of the release/release group then and just leave the recording?

my recollection is that standalone recordings aren't actually very useful so that might not be the best solution, maybe someone else has a better idea

(i don't think Picard can use them for tagging, for example)

Ah hm

i think if i was adding it i'd just make it a digital media, [no label], no barcode... that's basically what it is even if it's not sold in a real music store

this is one i added a while ago that was a single self-published track on the artist's website: https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/31f3a603-... - i asked here and the consensus was that it's still a release

Cool, that makes sense. Thanks :)

i might post on the forum about this deezer thing because i really don't like the idea of removing accurate information from the database to appease automated tools

ivi: picard can also tag against just a recording instead of a full release. This works for both real standalone recordings or any recording, especially if you explicitly load it into picard.