#musicbrainz

Hi all. I'm very confused and hoping for some help. Why does this album artist come up as [unknown] when it is linked to Macintosh Plus? https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/ae13885d-...

<c0wg0d[m]> "Hi all. I'm very confused and..." <- if you look in the edit history, the actor who added the album answered that question in their edit notes: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/111789518

Oh snap, I got scammed then

Thanks for the heads up

(also, technically the nature of the linking is the other way around: the release artist is linked to the [unknown] artist entity, but the "credited as" field for that linking was used to make it show up as Macintosh Plus)

Yeah I saw that

Now I'm not sure how to add this album to my collection...

I don't really like the idea of having an album tagged with an unknown artist, seems weird

* unknown artist in my music collection, seems

reosarevok[m]: sorry for the delay, no, those tracks all have vocals. Software can remove the vocals, but the actual files are wav files on disk.

If the actual tracks are the full vocal version, then karaoke should be removed

would it be possible to add some clearer images as examples for the packages? https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release/Packaging click for instance on the box image.

If I found good quality images for some releases on discogs can I take them directly and upload to the cover art archive? Do I have to credit discogs?

Yes and I recommend the `Enhanced Cover Art Uploads` [userscript](https://beta.musicbrainz.org/doc/Guides/Userscripts#Userscripts:_Cover_art) to do that

Thanks!

If a jewel case is made of non-transparent plastic, should the first page of the booklet only be marked as booklet (as it is not actually visible without opening the case)?

I would think so. "Front" should be what you see when you see the release before opening it or anything.

sanojjonas (@_discord_251035399244349450:chatbrainz.org) thats odd - they're quite high resolution on the original page that help page is "derived" from

i think the problem is dat if you click on any of them on the website they just take the small scaled on to open https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/...

yep i agree that is odd - might be worth raising on JIRA as that seems like an unexpected bug

not all of them do that.

yeah not sure why its just some - they all seem to have the same formatting in the wiki source

I have a situation that I can't figure out how to approach even after reading the docs. This recordng https://musicbrainz.org/recording/b2270928-bb89... is part of an EP. Some time after the release of the EP the song was "extracted as a radio single", simply meaning it started being broadcast on the radio (in the same exact version as it was already released in the EP on streaming platforms and physical

releases). Someone created this new release group https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/bc22883a-... marking it as a single and with its only release being that song (marked as digital media). He also created a brand new recording instead of using the already existing one https://musicbrainz.org/recording/8206915d-2e5b.... My first thought is that a song being extracted from an album

and broadcast on the radio doesn't constitute a new release and so that all of this should be deleted, but is that right?

Did the same person also add it to Wikipedia? Cause there it's also being referred to as a single

No, the wikipedia page was also created earlier than the submission on musicbrainz

So you think in this case it should he treated as a single? That seems reasonable to me anyway, but I think at least the recording should be the same right? And also the release as single should have some relationship with the EP?

I don’t think it qualifies for a MB release just because it was on the radio, unless there is some kind of new information to go with it (e.g. this file was distributed by X distributor/label)

Tbh I still have to read the docs on relationships so I think mI could find an answer to my last question there

aerozol[m]: Wikipedia says who it was distributed from but it is the same distributor as the EP

Hmm interesting, it does seem of some value to note that it was “released” as a single. This might be one for the style lead, I have no idea - reosarevok ?

Especially for charts

The picture on the release seems bogus though

the cover art looks like a youtube thumbnail

I can't read italian but i think the wikipedia page linked in the edit note is based on the music video

im still not really sure how MB handles music videos

It lists a separate release for the music video - “The music video for the song, directed by William9 and Giorgio Scorza, was released on YouTube on 7 June 2021.”

“It was originally published as the second track of the EP Ahia! in December 2020, and then released as a radio single by Sony Music on 23 April 2021.”

We're still not sure how we handle music videos

The question here isn’t about music videos really reo, it’s about whether it’s a release in MB if it was released as a single for radio

As in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrivile_scemo

afrocat_0[m]: The cover art is a screenshot from the youtube video yes! I was in fact also in doubt about if the youtube video constituted a release, but first I wanted to see more clearly about the radip single

That sounds like a promo release, back in the day at least

But now, no idea how that works

If it's just "hey, play from that digital EP"... probably not? But not sure

s/radip/radio/

afrocat_0[m]: No, the wikipedia page is also about the radio single

That’s what it kinda seems like? There’s no evidence of a CD or a file. But if we want to track stuff like “the single charted at #5” or “was released as a single on X date” then I guess it’s kinda useful?

You can add the video btw, as far as what the (younger) MB-editorship is up to. Reo drafted some guidelines here: https://community.metabrainz.org/t/style-2428-s...

Emphasis on “as far as what other editors are up to”, not my opinion. But it seems like a consensus is slowly being formed - at least, I don’t know if anyone is “fighting back” against the music videos?

Since there seems to be no consensus I think I will at least disambiguate the release as "Radio single extracted from EP", try to fix the recording to be the same of the EP version (I don't know it that's possible, I'll try) and remove the cover art

Then also maybe add the video release

I don’t know if “extracted from EP” really says anything. It also sounds like a surgical process was involved :P

I would do:

Release annotation + disambiguation as “radio single”

Relationship between the two release groups: “single/EP which was taken from / associated singles/EPs”

And merge the recordings