#musicbrainz

Good evening! (Well it’s the evening here.)

I was wondering: if an album is released several time under different Bandcamp profiles (for example, under the artist profile, then the label profile), that count as separate digital releases, right?

I don't think so, but others might.

I’m asking, because it’s what I saw earlier today.

I personally consider all digital releases that are obviously the same tracklist and recordings to be the same release.

this is an arbitrary thing not really addressed by the documentation

i dont really see how it's different from an artist selling cd copies at a concert

conversely there may be something about the release on the artist bandcamp that is unique, like custom pdf notes or an additional hidden track [not displayed on the web-page] if you shell out for it

so it's really about using reasonable judgement, i think that the cd-sales-at-concert example may be a good way to think about it as this is a question of distribution if there's nothing fundamentally different from the regular digital releases

the other thing to check will be UPC. this is embedded in the bandcamp page but it is not widely-known

I think that a unique UPC on the bandcamp page compared to those on streaming/digital download stores or the label bandcamp is a good reason to make a new release, as it is analogous to cd barcode. but if the label bandamp has no upc, or the UPC is identical to the CD on one of these bandcamp pages, i would say ignore it. there's countless examples of the upc getting added by artists that is just the CD barcode and in this case it's fairly meaningless

you can expose the UPC using the bandcamp userscript or grep for the 'upc' field in the page sources

Thank you! I’m going to look into that.

OK, here is a practical example.

Lost Cascades published their album “Crystal Sun” digitally trough the label Paradise Records. The album was available under the artist name (https://lostcascades.bandcamp.com/album/crystal...) and the label’s (https://paradiserecordshtml.bandcamp.com/album/...).

Later, they made a cassette release through Geometric Lullaby. The album was also made available digitally on https://geometriclullaby.bandcamp.com/album/cry....

Finally, it was also published as a MiniDisc by Pacific Plaza Records which also made a page for it on Bandcamp (https://pacificplaza.bandcamp.com/album/crystal...).

Those four digital release have no UPC and seem to be identical in all aspects. So, as far as we are concerned this is a unique digital release, right?

(Right now, there are three separate digital releases for that album on MusicBrainz: https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/955778c3-...)

again, I consider those one release, except for the cassette version.

Too late to catch Sylvhem, but I would often add diferent releases for label vs band releases on Bandcamp if it helps tell a story about the release. For instance, a release on a band's Bandcamp 6 months before a release on a labels Bandcamp tells a story

And MB reflects that by having a [no label] release at an earlier date and then a [x label] release 6 months later

Plus the user can easily decide what label/band they want to give their money too when they purchase via MB links. I don't know if people actually do that but I like the idea a lot

Anyway, I think some of that applies to the 'Lost Cascades' example, there's a story to be told there :)

<aerozol> Too late to catch Sylvhem, but I would often add diferent releases for label vs band releases on Bandcamp if it helps tell a story about the release. For instance, a release on a band's Bandcamp 6 months before a release on a labels Bandcamp tells a story

I kinda know waht you mean. in my oppinio it's simply "it was released separatly" and that.- in mb is a "separate release" you know?

and yea. i usually go directly to the rtist if i can

Based on the advices given to me here earlier, I plan to merge https://musicbrainz.org/release/d06f1842-c823-4..., https://musicbrainz.org/release/a373e89f-47af-4... and https://musicbrainz.org/release/84d3aeb7-c1b7-4.... Any idea of what I should keep for the label?

Sylvhem: i woyld kepp these separate

would*

one of them even has a very different date

they where released on different labels

Hey all! I just made a fairly substantial edit to https://musicbrainz.org/release/d513d1ca-3bd1-4...

Not so much in time, just the number of changes. I used @kellnerd 's script to fix all of the punctuation:

It should have changed all of the track and recording titles with with quote marks/hyphens, but it seems to have only applied a the changes to one of the CDs track titles and a single recording.

I checked the diff pretty thoroughly but there's a chance I missed something. Before I cancel it and try again, I wanted to check if there was a limit to the number of changes in an edit or something similar? Cheers!

Sorry aerozol, CatQuest, I only saw your messages in the log now 😅.

I’ve gone ahead and started a merge here (https://musicbrainz.org/edit/86989911). If any of you think they shouldn’t be merged, feel free to chime in there!

guyfawcus: the reason it's not automatic edit is that you changed three dots ... to ellipsis …

so it's going from three characters to one character

the other edits went through because they were automatic edits

aerozol, CatQuest : By they way, I think you both make very good points. I’m not too keen on the idea of merging thove either.

ev: 🤦 I only checked the open edits, didn't realise that the others went through automatically. Thanks!

guyfawcus: also, there's no style guideline for Gaelic so you need to check the orthography matches the book. there were earlier editions of the book that did not correspond with the current orthography e.g. acute accents. there is no guideline for Gaelic but if you could write one that would be great

doesn't seem to apply to that track listing but things like accents on capital letters are particularly contentious

ev: Tapadh leibh a-rithist! All of the titles were hand copied from a physical copy so this version should be okay. If I find alternate spellings I presume they should be added as aliases? I'll be sure to keep an eye out.

I'm still very much a beginner when it comes to Gàidhlig (spent a little while on Duolingo but I've only just read the part of that book where it talks about accents, in the notes before page 1 '=D ); helping out with that sort of thing is definitely a goal of mine when I learn a bit more!

the book is ok but i think you should subscribe to the podcast Beag air bheag and listen to the radio/tv to really pick it up

and http://akerbeltz.org/index.php?title=Fuaimean_n...

ev: Sgoinneil =D I'd added a preset for Radio nan Gàidheal on my radio and watched some TV, but I hadn't found that podcast or wiki (already delving into them). Much appreciated!

hi there, how do i get picard to fill track names as they are from musicbrainz?

What do you mean?

Hi there, on musicbrainz for vinyl releases, tracks are often titled as A1 A2 ect. yet when i go to tag a track in picard with a vinyl release, the track has 01 or something like that in the track file in the file. how do i get picard to fill track field with A1 or A2 like mp3 tag can do with discogs?

No idea.  Maybe there's a plugin?  I don't use vinyl.

thank you, im surprised as i dono why picard tags files as 01 when in musicbrainz the album numbering is A1

Goldmaster: by definition the tags are numeric only. For ID3 you can enter anything anyway, but software might or might not be compatible with track no. like A1. But if you want Picard provided the %_musicbrainz_tracknumber% variable for that

There was a discussion about this a few days back

yeah ive got that for file names, im talking about in the file metadata field. so i have to set picard to use id3?

Goldmaster: https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/libera/musicbra...

i have picard set as id3v2 version 2.3 and not sure if i need to set to 2.4

thank you just having a read up.

i wonder if plex lists the records as ABC or 123

Sylvhem: heym, i voted no on tha adit :( soory

*sorry

KassOtsimine, don’t be sorry. I would vote no too if I could 😅.

then.. why enter the merge ? :D

if yo uactually disagree with it

you can technically vote no on your own edits

its just called "cancelling" 8b

KassOtsimine: Because when I asked the question here yesterday, the consensus seemed to be that they should be merged.

huh.

Erin: Yeah, I may just do that X).

I must have missed that convo somehow

erin: :D

i guess the question is why do you think it shoudl not be merged

have you uncovered evidence that the 3 items are unique releases?

im peeking now

two of them definitely have the same release date

yes. but one of those was self-released :o

thats a distinct one for sure then

google has provided me a vinyl

Yeah. Apparently they have been published on the Bandcamp pages of the author and of the label at the original release date.

i see 3 digital only

https://www.discogs.com/release/14812150-Lost-C... here's a cassette version

There are two cassettes version and a MiniDisc version.

yea. all the digital releases come fro mthe fact that each was a physical release but bandcamp usually has adigital thing for selling this (or it's merc instead)

so each thne is a physical+ it's "digital page"

None of the physicial releases have an entry in MusicBrainz (yet).

fun

those should deff be added :D

now the ultimate question

do we consider a bunch of different locations of the same digital package of content to be distinct?

42!

or the same

wait not that answer-...

cause there's also spotify

but id ont think we should have a release for every website

KassOtsimine: I was planning to do just that when I found the three different digital releases.

i'd say "yes" of the label is different/selfreleased

yeah the label change makes sense