IRC log of musicbrainz on 2012-11-05
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 00:00:22 [Freso]
- Wait, half way through RFC-RFC 159?
- 00:00:27 [Freso]
- Or MB-RFC?
- 00:01:54 [reosarevok]
- I'd bet for the existing one
- 00:02:48 [Freso]
- RFC-RFC exists.
- 00:02:53 [Freso]
- "RFC 159 was never issued.
- 00:02:55 [Freso]
- "
- 00:03:23 [Freso]
- My point was that if #6 was only half-way through that... well.
- 00:03:26 [kovacsur]
- and I think he meant STYLE-159 (ie. the recording merge one)
- 00:04:03 [CallerNo6]
- STYLE-159, yes. The style thread /should/ have been RFC-159. Or did we stop doing that?
- 00:04:32 [CallerNo6]
- Wow. How many different ways can my lame joke fall flat? I hope it's at least funny when I fall.
- 00:05:18 [kovacsur]
- hey, it was funny in at least two entirely different ways
- 00:09:32 [kovacsur]
- hm, it would be useful if you could create artists in the relationship editor, just like works
- 00:11:13 [Freso]
- kovacsur: I'm pretty sure there's a ticket for that.
- 00:11:21 [Freso]
- (And I agree.)
- 00:11:55 [kovacsur]
- that would save me writing a userscript :)
- 00:15:29 [Freso]
- http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5515
- 00:16:23 [kovacsur]
- thanks, voted
- 00:20:52 [Lotheric]
- voted too
- 01:04:28 [Prophet5]
- Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
- 01:16:05 [jacobbrett]
- jacobbrett has joined #musicbrainz
- 01:20:57 [kurtjx]
- kurtjx has joined #musicbrainz
- 01:34:06 [Prophet5]
- Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
- 02:26:33 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 02:26:35 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 02:32:49 [JoeMooCow]
- JoeMooCow has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:00:48 [robmorrissey]
- robmorrissey has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:27:31 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:36:18 [ehrgeiz]
- ehrgeiz has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:40:37 [uptown]
- uptown has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:48:53 [ianmcorvidae]
- folks who use beta: I've just merged a very large patch to it; nothing that *should* be user-visible (changed the way the server configuration system works), but if anything looks funky please be sure to tell me :)
- 03:49:12 [ianmcorvidae]
- (and hey, worst case it's just a different bug we need to fix, right? :P)
- 04:37:31 [STalKer-X_n]
- STalKer-X_n has joined #musicbrainz
- 05:08:41 [g-ram]
- g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
- 05:14:27 [Prophet5]
- Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
- 05:44:19 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 05:44:21 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 05:53:10 [g-ram]
- g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
- 06:00:03 [Diaoul]
- Diaoul has joined #musicbrainz
- 06:06:57 [derwin]
- jeeze
- 06:07:03 [derwin]
- searching for this artist's name is.. fail..
- 06:07:03 [derwin]
- http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d2a54937-fd0d-4586-85c3-235a405019cf
- 06:07:37 [ianmcorvidae]
- it is?
- 06:07:41 [ianmcorvidae]
- I get them as the top result
- 06:23:24 [derwin]
- well.. say you know their name is the decibels
- 06:23:54 [derwin]
- 1) search for decibels
- 06:23:59 [derwin]
- 2) search for dbs
- 06:24:03 [derwin]
- 3) search for db
- 06:33:55 [ianmcorvidae]
- they appear as the third result on the second search?
- 07:08:58 [Transfusion]
- Transfusion has joined #musicbrainz
- 07:13:14 [andreypopp]
- andreypopp has joined #musicbrainz
- 07:48:55 [dwg]
- dwg has joined #musicbrainz
- 07:53:31 [uptown]
- uptown has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:13:34 [dwg]
- dwg has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:30:23 [v6lur]
- v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:38:46 [ruaok]
- ruaok has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:48:57 [Prophet5]
- Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:51:27 [dwg]
- dwg has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:30:06 [yvesr]
- yvesr has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:40:49 [CatCat]
- Freso: when I read about that https://musicbrainz.org/work/b0d43efe-ce93-482b-b806-3f2ffc011fb3 on wikipedia, I automatically thought about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_the_Wild_Roses_Grow and sure enough, it is mentioned in the page .. heh
- 09:41:26 [CatCat]
- they have a common "down in the willow garden
- 09:41:28 [CatCat]
- yea
- 09:41:44 [CatCat]
- * CatCat likes that sort of thing
- 09:53:07 [robmorrissey]
- robmorrissey has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:58:39 [CatCat]
- should this be Various artists? or DBS / R4 ?
- 09:58:40 [CatCat]
- http://musicbrainz.org/release/1cd088b2-0b33-4bb3-9a91-370fa30f44d4
- 10:01:47 [Freso]
- CatCat: :)
- 10:13:49 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:23:44 [Bakura]
- Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:28:13 [ijabz]
- ijabz has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:34:20 [reosarevok]
- reosarevok has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:42:55 [jmvanel]
- jmvanel has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:45:22 [kovacsur]
- kovacsur has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:54:38 [Bakura]
- Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
- 11:11:35 [Freso]
- "Why are we trying to do those two things in the same place?
- 11:11:37 [Freso]
- "
- 11:11:42 [Freso]
- +1000000
- 11:12:37 [reosarevok]
- Save me the effort of reading chatlogs, which things?
- 11:13:24 [Freso]
- http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2012-November/016634.html
- 11:13:40 [Freso]
- (Hint: Not a chat log. :p)
- 11:18:10 [reosarevok]
- heh
- 11:20:38 [reosarevok]
- Not a bad question, no
- 11:20:51 [reosarevok]
- Mostly "to avoid adding even more places for doing things" I guess
- 11:25:25 [voiceinsideyou]
- voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
- 11:28:26 [reels]
- reels has joined #musicbrainz
- 11:53:50 [warp]
- * warp responded.
- 11:58:31 [Freso]
- warp: +1
- 11:59:00 [Freso]
- But I think I already +1'd you a few times during the IRC discussion(s) already, so... :p
- 12:31:24 [krusty_ar]
- krusty_ar has joined #musicbrainz
- 12:32:06 [kurtjx]
- kurtjx has joined #musicbrainz
- 12:38:12 [Jormangeud]
- Jormangeud has joined #musicbrainz
- 12:50:10 [LordSputnik]
- LordSputnik has joined #musicbrainz
- 13:42:39 [kurtjx]
- kurtjx has joined #musicbrainz
- 13:52:48 [MJ]
- MJ has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:05:55 [hawke_1]
- hawke_1 has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:06:59 [hawke]
- hawke has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:11:38 [robmorrissey]
- robmorrissey has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:22:39 [soehest]
- soehest has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:27:44 [v6lur]
- v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:42:05 [ehrgeiz]
- ehrgeiz has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:42:22 [lidel]
- lidel has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:53:11 [LordSputnik]
- Recording style proposal updated :)
- 15:04:34 [CallerNo6]
- CallerNo6 has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:05:53 [hawke_1]
- hawke_1 has left #musicbrainz
- 15:06:23 [hawke_1]
- hawke_1 has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:14:25 [pickles444]
- pickles444 has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:21:30 [Bakura]
- Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:51:17 [function1]
- function1 has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:53:05 [CatCat]
- is it possible that the recording-merge thing will become sane like the classical recording-track-work thing was made?
- 15:53:10 [CatCat]
- is it possible?!
- 15:53:14 [CatCat]
- * CatCat can only dream
- 15:53:20 [CatCat]
- and hope
- 15:53:24 [CatCat]
- and maybe one day...
- 15:53:27 [CatCat]
- soon
- 15:53:32 [CatCat]
- that will hapen
- 15:57:32 [hawke_1]
- CatCat: No, it’s not possible.
- 15:57:44 [hawke_1]
- Is the new proposal more sane in your opinion though?
- 15:59:19 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: IMO you should change that “one or both of the recordings” to “both of the recordings”
- 15:59:27 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Otherwise they’re liable to be merged anyway
- 16:01:32 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: but that would require adding disambiguations like "original audio"
- 16:01:51 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Example?
- 16:02:09 [LordSputnik]
- all of those super-recordings that are on about 50 tracks
- 16:02:16 [Freso]
- * Freso thinks everyone should just sober up and agree with warp >_>
- 16:02:27 [LordSputnik]
- as soon as a remaster comes out, you'd have to call one "xxxx remaster" and one "original audio"
- 16:02:41 [LordSputnik]
- with one or both, you'd only have to disambiguate the remaster
- 16:02:54 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: And anyway, you pretty much should have three cases: “original audio” (whatever that means), “xxx remaster”, or “unknown/unclassified”
- 16:03:34 [hawke_1]
- Otherwise how do you tell the one true “original audio” (though usually that’s meaningless) from some random recording from a compilation.
- 16:03:54 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Yeah, if we want to differentiate between mp3 and flac :-/
- 16:03:55 [LordSputnik]
- currently, you don't
- 16:04:02 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: …and that’s bad.
- 16:04:09 [Freso]
- hawke_1: That's not what warp is saying.
- 16:04:21 [LordSputnik]
- because all compilations generally get put on the recording which has the nearest duration
- 16:04:30 [LordSputnik]
- or the first one that comes up in the search
- 16:04:40 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Last I heard from warp was “I want it differentiated down to the bitstream level”
- 16:04:42 [LordSputnik]
- or a new recording
- 16:04:58 [Freso]
- hawke_1: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2012-November/016637.html
- 16:05:32 [Freso]
- hawke_1: AFAICT, he doesn't want the MB db to include the item representation, only down to manifestation representation.
- 16:05:56 [hawke_1]
- Freso: that would suggest splitting every recording on every release
- 16:06:00 [LordSputnik]
- Freso: that's why we need to add more entities, either by using my track groups idea or kep's master recordings/sub recordings idea (which are basically the same but with different names)
- 16:06:10 [Freso]
- LordSputnik: yep.
- 16:06:22 [hawke_1]
- which kind of defeats the purpose of recordings, and loses a lot of interesting information.
- 16:06:35 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: recordings have no clear purpose
- 16:06:38 [hawke_1]
- (and would also add a *lot* of AR work)
- 16:06:44 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: only to replace tracks, as far as I can tell :P
- 16:07:01 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: I would say that the purpose of recordings is to find/identify commonalities between tracks.
- 16:07:14 [Freso]
- hawke_1: On the contrary. It's exactly what's been suggested with various names by now - some way to have "super recordings" which would store all the performance etc. relationships.
- 16:07:18 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: the only issue is how much commonness is important
- 16:07:26 [Freso]
- Like "works" do now for composition ARs.
- 16:08:48 [hawke_1]
- Freso: I didn’t say such a thing wouldn’t be useful.
- 16:08:54 [hawke_1]
- I think it would be useful and great.
- 16:09:06 [LordSputnik]
- Freso: I think he was talking about warp's idea
- 16:09:11 [hawke_1]
- but manifestation as track is not.
- 16:09:14 [Freso]
- LordSputnik: So am I.
- 16:09:22 [hawke_1]
- I’m confused.
- 16:09:25 [Freso]
- hawke_1: I don't agree.
- 16:09:42 [Freso]
- :)
- 16:09:57 [hawke_1]
- You don’t think I’m confused? ;-)
- 16:10:02 [Freso]
- Nope. :p
- 16:10:24 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Warp says “So I would prefer to just give tracks proper MBIDs again (and disable re-use of tracklists by different releases) …for individual tracks I think we should also try to keep this mapping: manifestation = track”
- 16:10:27 [Freso]
- I don't agree with "manifestation as track is not (a great and useful idea)".
- 16:10:49 [hawke_1]
- Freso: That means that every single instance of a track would need to have all the ARs added to it
- 16:10:54 [Freso]
- No.
- 16:11:12 [hawke_1]
- and it would be impossible to find where one track appeared across different releases.
- 16:11:24 [Freso]
- Because the track would be related to expression/recording, which would contain all the performance ARs.
- 16:11:27 [hawke_1]
- It would be back to pre-NGS, but with multi-disc releases.
- 16:11:40 [LordSputnik]
- No, because recordings would still exist
- 16:11:48 [Freso]
- Like works contain composition ARs.
- 16:12:31 [hawke_1]
- Well, then we still have the same problem of identifying individual recordings.
- 16:12:35 [hawke_1]
- and when to merge and all that.
- 16:12:36 [CatCat]
- hawke: way to let a cat down, man :(
- 16:12:55 [Freso]
- We don't have to add all "lyricist/composer/writer" ARs to all recordings currently, so I don't see why we would have to add perfomer/recording engineer/etc. to all tracks if the ARs are already on the track's related recording.
- 16:13:04 [Freso]
- hawke_1: No, we don't. :)
- 16:13:17 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Not to the same degree anyway.
- 16:13:18 [hawke_1]
- Freso: You pretty much have track-MBIDs now: Just use release-MBID+disc#+track#
- 16:13:32 [hawke_1]
- I’m not sure how it helps though
- 16:14:07 [Freso]
- hawke_1: The expression-recording wouldn't care if it's analog, a remaster, a digital mix, a 8 second or a 16 second fade-out - they'd all be the same expression-recording.
- 16:14:21 [hawke_1]
- Freso: OK, we can do that now.
- 16:14:25 [Freso]
- hawke_1: The difference between those types would be in their manifestation-track.
- 16:14:32 [hawke_1]
- Just merge everything.
- 16:14:48 [hawke_1]
- (and it does care if it’s a remaster because the mastering engineer AR will be different)
- 16:14:52 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Which is a bad idea, as AcoustIDs etc. will also then be merged.
- 16:15:01 [hawke_1]
- Freso: No they won’t.
- 16:15:08 [Freso]
- If you merge all recordings?
- 16:15:15 [hawke_1]
- A recording-track will just have multiple AcoustIDs.
- 16:15:17 [CatCat]
- god my comments has spawned a huge debate about whatever :(
- 16:15:19 [CatCat]
- :/
- 16:15:22 [LordSputnik]
- But they won't be tied to release tracks any more
- 16:15:31 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: They’re not now.
- 16:15:41 [LordSputnik]
- because release tracks use the AcoustID attached to their recording
- 16:15:46 [hawke_1]
- They’re tied to *recordings*
- 16:15:47 [CatCat]
- well any debate is a good debate, it mans that we can at least get anywhere
- 16:15:48 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Exactly. So you don't know which manifestation-track your AcoustID belongs to, only the expression-recording.
- 16:15:49 [LordSputnik]
- and if we merge all the rec
- 16:15:51 [LordSputnik]
- ...
- 16:15:54 [CatCat]
- though i hope that we end with a sane result
- 16:16:00 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Yeah.
- 16:16:04 [hawke_1]
- Freso: This is already true.
- 16:16:10 [Freso]
- hawke_1: No, it isn't. :)
- 16:16:23 [CatCat]
- right now it sounds insane :P
- 16:16:23 [Freso]
- Well, it is to some degree, for some recordings.
- 16:16:38 [Freso]
- But right now, we have distinction between manifestation and expression.
- 16:16:46 [Freso]
- Some people merge based on one, some on the other.
- 16:17:06 [Freso]
- And even LordSputnik's revised proposal doesn't fix this.
- 16:17:11 [hawke_1]
- Freso: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/1ebfca60-df29-4035-9d09-e0385d84ff55/fingerprints
- 16:17:13 [hawke_1]
- You were saying?
- 16:17:14 [Freso]
- As it can't be fixed without a new entity.
- 16:17:40 [LordSputnik]
- my proposal is just a stepping stone to new and greater things :P
- 16:18:06 [LordSputnik]
- (i hope)
- 16:18:30 [Freso]
- hawke_1: "to some degree, for some recordings."
- 16:18:36 [Freso]
- hawke_1: is what I was saying.
- 16:18:42 [Freso]
- hawke_1: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2012-October/016588.html
- 16:18:50 [hawke_1]
- Freso: I would say “to no degree”
- 16:18:59 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Read that mail ^
- 16:19:08 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Yep.
- 16:19:14 [hawke_1]
- Read it before
- 16:19:54 [Freso]
- Those are both the same expression, but not the same manifestation.
- 16:20:10 [hawke_1]
- Yes.
- 16:20:13 [Freso]
- Which is why I'm not merging them, though next to all ARs are identical between the two.
- 16:20:22 [hawke_1]
- Freso: “next to all”?
- 16:20:47 [Freso]
- Mastering engineer. (Which is applied on the release level though.)
- 16:21:35 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Right…pretty much every manifestation is different.
- 16:21:50 [hawke_1]
- To some degree.
- 16:22:09 [Freso]
- And so we shouldn't claim they're the same.
- 16:23:11 [hawke_1]
- OK, so what we should do then, is treat our recording-level as expression…and merge away happily, right?
- 16:23:16 [hawke_1]
- I’m OK with that.
- 16:24:05 [Freso]
- Yes, and make tracks proper entities again (MBID or not) so they can have AcoustIDs and possibly other identifiers attached to them.
- 16:24:08 [LordSputnik]
- We should rename recording to performance, and have work->performance->track.
- 16:24:24 [hawke_1]
- That would be just fine by me.
- 16:24:30 [Freso]
- I'm sure some ARs should also be applicable on a track level.
- 16:24:32 [hawke_1]
- Not everyone agrees witht hat though
- 16:24:45 [hawke_1]
- luks: You around?
- 16:24:50 [Freso]
- (E.g, mastering. :))
- 16:24:50 [luks]
- more or less
- 16:25:10 [hawke_1]
- luks: I know I asked this before, but do any of the submission tools submit the release ID of a file?
- 16:25:11 [function1]
- if i add a discid, will the track durations from the cd toc replace any manually entered track numbers? i saw this http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/How_to_Add_Disc_IDs but it doesnt mention manually entered track numbers, from a freedb import. i want to use my cd toc durations only
- 16:25:15 [Freso]
- Possibly (re)mix.
- 16:25:17 [hawke_1]
- or is it just the recording ID
- 16:25:31 [luks]
- hawke_1: no, they don't submit release IDs
- 16:25:34 [luks]
- just recording IDs
- 16:25:39 [hawke_1]
- luks: k
- 16:25:48 [dekarl]
- dekarl has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:25:51 [Freso]
- function1: Not automatically.
- 16:26:19 [LordSputnik]
- function1: you have to go to the disc id and say "Set release track times from id"
- 16:26:20 [Freso]
- function1: But you can set the times for the release using the CD TOC.
- 16:26:22 [voiceinsideyou]
- voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:26:45 [function1]
- Freso: but i have to do this manually, enter each duration by hand?
- 16:26:58 [function1]
- LordSputnik: ah ok
- 16:26:58 [Freso]
- function1: No. Just do what LordSputnik said.
- 16:27:14 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Sounds like you're not disagreeing with warp then. :)
- 16:27:14 [hawke_1]
- Freso: releaseMBID+medium#+track# = track MBID. Also, changing the thing that AcoustIDs are attached to would pretty much mean wiping the acoustID database. Which would be a Bad Thing, I think.
- 16:27:37 [hawke_1]
- Freso: No, I’m not.
- 16:27:57 [hawke_1]
- Freso: as long as we treat tracks as unmergeable.
- 16:28:13 [LordSputnik]
- function1: no, it's a single click, if you click the disc id, in the "Attached to releases" section, you'll see buttons on the right- "Set track durations", "Remove and "Move". "Set track durations" will do what you want
- 16:28:14 [luks]
- wiping the acoustid database is doable if there is a good enough reason to do it
- 16:28:32 [luks]
- the fact still is, most recordings/fingerprints have only one release
- 16:29:02 [luks]
- so those are not affected by these changes
- 16:29:14 [Freso]
- Also, it should be possibly to move/copy AcoustIDs from parent expression-recording to child manifestation-track.
- 16:29:24 [Freso]
- (Probably not easily, but...)
- 16:29:37 [hawke_1]
- Freso: I’m not sure how reliable that would be.
- 16:29:53 [Freso]
- hawke_1: It wouldn't be reliable. A lot of AcoustIDs would need unlinking.
- 16:30:00 [hawke_1]
- Freso: That’s already true.
- 16:30:06 [Freso]
- Exactly.
- 16:30:39 [hawke_1]
- But it would mean that any given manifestation-track would have a much smaller number of canonical AcoustIDs.
- 16:31:38 [Freso]
- Yes! :D
- 16:31:48 [hawke_1]
- It would clearly help on the acoustID end.
- 16:31:55 [hawke_1]
- But I’m not sure that it would help on the recording end.
- 16:32:10 [hawke_1]
- Freso: different recording devices at a live concert: different expression? different edits: different expression? remasters: different expression?
- 16:32:16 [hawke_1]
- Isn’t it still all the same questions?
- 16:33:20 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: different recording devices = different manifestation, different edits: different expression (if the edit is significant), remasters: different manifestation
- 16:33:28 [Freso]
- hawke_1: I'm pretty sure all of those are the same expression, but different manifestations. warp knows the FRBR better than I do though.
- 16:33:51 [hawke_1]
- If that’s the case, and expression=~performance, then that seems fine to me.
- 16:34:03 [LordSputnik]
- what is the FRBR?
- 16:34:14 [Freso]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records
- 16:34:25 [Freso]
- LordSputnik: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2012-November/016637.html
- 16:34:29 [voiceinsideyou]
- voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:34:37 [hawke_1]
- Or even if we go so far as “If you want to split an expression, you need to have an AR differentiating them”.
- 16:34:58 [Freso]
- +1
- 16:35:04 [hawke_1]
- Would there be *any* track-level ARs?
- 16:35:12 [LordSputnik]
- remasters
- 16:35:29 [Freso]
- mastering, (re)mix possibly, possibly other production ARs
- 16:35:48 [LordSputnik]
- would this system allow track merges?
- 16:35:57 [Freso]
- I'm undecided on that.
- 16:36:00 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: I believe we were saying “no”.
- 16:36:12 [LordSputnik]
- otherwise we would have to ad production ARs to every track
- 16:36:17 [LordSputnik]
- *add
- 16:36:18 [hawke_1]
- * hawke_1 facepalms.
- 16:36:34 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Weren’t you saying those were release-level?
- 16:36:41 [LordSputnik]
- Freso: mastering, (re)mix possibly, possibly other production ARs
- 16:36:51 [LordSputnik]
- were all apparently track level
- 16:37:02 [Freso]
- I'm leaning towards no (merge the releases, if they're the same - but we need other tickets before that can happen), but there might be good arguments for yes too.
- 16:37:17 [g-ram]
- g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:37:20 [Freso]
- hawke_1: For the two BSB Christmas Time recordings, yes.
- 16:37:29 [Freso]
- hawke_1: And possibly for most other cases.
- 16:37:30 [hawke_1]
- Freso: And is that not the case in general?
- 16:37:56 [Freso]
- hawke_1: But I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a few cases where it isn't so.
- 16:38:14 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 hopes this will be remembered as the Great BSB Debate of 2012.
- 16:38:27 [Freso]
- Haha.
- 16:38:32 [Freso]
- Hi Alex. :p
- 16:38:37 [hawke_1]
- Hi Freso.
- 16:38:44 [Freso]
- XD
- 16:38:58 [hawke_1]
- ;-)
- 16:39:14 [Freso]
- Hi Alex#6. :p
- 16:39:28 [hawke_1]
- Anyway, isn’t this idea basically the status quo but with more permissive merging rules?
- 16:39:31 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 waves
- 16:39:36 [Freso]
- And also hi Alex_1. ;)
- 16:39:42 [hawke_1]
- (plus changes to acoustID to track release ID+medium/track#?
- 16:40:10 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Possibly. :)
- 16:40:53 [Freso]
- * Freso would personally love to merge more recordings to loosen up on the multi-AR adding, but doesn't want to associate AcoustIDs and such with the wrong releases. :(
- 16:41:35 [Freso]
- * Freso would also personally love some ice cream, but ah well
- 16:42:06 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Given how many acoustIDs are now associated with the wrong release, I’m not too worried about it.
- 16:42:14 [hawke_1]
- also how flexible acoustID is.
- 16:43:32 [Freso]
- Well, I am. :D I also don't want two different audios using the same representation MBID in my tags. It irks me the wrong way. :)
- 16:45:23 [LordSputnik]
- I think we should have track groups as well as recordings. Never merge tracks, just group them. Associate AcoustIDs with tracks, producer ARs and remaster info with track groups, performance ARs with recordings/performances. Attach both tracks and recordings/performances to works
- 16:46:23 [LordSputnik]
- to me it makes no sense to merge tracks, because they represent different physical things. it make sense to group them though, like releases are grouped into release groups
- 16:46:36 [hawke_1]
- Freso: $set(musicbrainz_real_trackid,$musicbrainz_albumid+$discnumber+$tracknumber)
- 16:46:57 [Freso]
- hawke_1: :p
- 16:47:17 [Freso]
- LordSputnik: +1
- 16:47:23 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: That’s pretty much what recordings are though…
- 16:47:30 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Only it's not.
- 16:47:34 [LordSputnik]
- no, recordings are performances
- 16:47:40 [Freso]
- It's part of what they are, but not all of it.
- 16:47:42 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: not right now they’re not
- 16:47:48 [luks]
- they are simply track groups
- 16:47:54 [LordSputnik]
- "recording" is ambiguous and is possible the worst entity name in mb
- 16:47:55 [Freso]
- Like was said earlier, "recordings aren't well defined."
- 16:47:57 [hawke_1]
- luks: +1
- 16:48:05 [LordSputnik]
- recording can mean anything
- 16:48:19 [CallerNo6]
- and probably will?
- 16:48:48 [LordSputnik]
- by splitting track groups and performances we have two clearer entities instead of one confused one
- 16:49:03 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: we’ll have two confused entities!
- 16:49:18 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: what's confusing about "track group" and "performance"
- 16:49:24 [luks]
- what's a track group?
- 16:49:33 [LordSputnik]
- a performance is a performance of a work, a track group is a group of tracks?
- 16:50:01 [luks]
- is it the same audio, remasters, etc? you have the same problem as with recordings
- 16:50:46 [LordSputnik]
- performance is the expression of a work, a track embodies of a performance, and track groups group tracks
- 16:50:59 [luks]
- but which tracks?
- 16:51:37 [LordSputnik]
- tracks which from different releases in a release group
- 16:52:02 [LordSputnik]
- and tracks which are identical to those tracks
- 16:52:20 [luks]
- so it's basically what we currently have as recording
- 16:52:22 [LordSputnik]
- tracks that would be merged if merging tracks was allowed
- 16:52:36 [LordSputnik]
- no, because the current recording requires unique audio
- 16:52:40 [LordSputnik]
- whereas track groups don't
- 16:52:51 [luks]
- then I still don't know what track groups are
- 16:53:05 [jozo]
- jozo has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:53:35 [LordSputnik]
- neither do I fully, I have a vague idea but it's not fully formed
- 16:53:35 [jozo]
- ... i found
- 16:53:54 [LordSputnik]
- I did know, but then the discussion today changed that
- 16:54:01 [warp]
- :)
- 16:54:22 [LordSputnik]
- https://moqups.com/kepstin/1yWeVoBO
- 16:54:39 [LordSputnik]
- https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Random_Stuff
- 16:54:43 [LordSputnik]
- were from a few days ago
- 16:55:06 [luks]
- I'd vote for getting rid of shared tracklists, make *some* track IDs publicly available
- 16:55:29 [warp]
- some?
- 16:55:37 [LordSputnik]
- ^
- 16:55:45 [luks]
- yes, I don't know how would the track IDs look like
- 16:55:52 [luks]
- or how would they be managed
- 16:56:03 [warp]
- luks: UUIDs, like our other identifiers
- 16:56:12 [luks]
- but the only reason why people are against merging recordings is that they are the only thing with public IDs
- 16:56:12 [warp]
- luks: I don't understand what you mean with managed
- 16:56:29 [luks]
- warp: if you switch a track to a different recording, is it the same track?
- 16:56:32 [LordSputnik]
- are there enough ids to cover all the tracks in all releases?
- 16:56:36 [luks]
- is it the same track if you reorder the tracklist?
- 16:56:46 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: There are plenty of IDs.
- 16:57:05 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: it’s a 128-bit number.
- 16:57:07 [warp]
- luks: ah, like that.
- 16:57:11 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: ah ok
- 16:57:12 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier
- 16:57:29 [luks]
- releaseid+discno+trackno doesn't really work because of reordering
- 16:57:42 [hawke_1]
- luks: Oh, good point.
- 16:57:50 [luks]
- and arbitrarily discarding track ids after they are modified doesn't work either
- 16:57:54 [hawke_1]
- luks: Though it works as well as anything else. :-)
- 16:58:20 [warp]
- luks: those are good questions, though they don't seem inherently difficult to answer.
- 16:58:21 [kepstin-laptop]
- kepstin-laptop has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:58:46 [luks]
- warp: well, I can't answer them :)
- 16:58:52 [luks]
- assuming I want the track IDs to be useful
- 16:59:04 [LordSputnik]
- why should track ids be useful? :P
- 16:59:13 [luks]
- we might as well use sha1(fingerprint) as track IDs
- 16:59:25 [luks]
- LordSputnik: because then people will cry about recording IDs again :)
- 16:59:54 [warp]
- luks: there is more to a track than the audio data.
- 16:59:56 [LordSputnik]
- well, why not give them random ids like we do with all other entities? (afaik)
- 17:00:12 [luks]
- LordSputnik: but then does the ID change?
- 17:00:22 [LordSputnik]
- when you reorder tracks?
- 17:00:32 [LordSputnik]
- the id should stay with the track when it moves
- 17:00:33 [luks]
- if you reorder two tracks, if you change one tracks slightly (typo), or completely (different recording)
- 17:00:39 [LordSputnik]
- if the track is deleted, delete the id
- 17:00:43 [warp]
- luks: with reordering, I'd prefer the track MBID to travel with the track title, not the track position.
- 17:01:13 [luks]
- releaseid+recordingid almost works
- 17:01:23 [Freso]
- But not always.
- 17:01:25 [luks]
- except for the cases with the same recording multiple times on one album
- 17:01:29 [hawke_1]
- luks: Except when the same recording appears on the same release…yep.
- 17:01:32 [luks]
- yep
- 17:01:41 [hawke_1]
- luks: And that would be worse if we treated recordings as performances
- 17:01:57 [hawke_1]
- (worse → “more true”)
- 17:02:35 [warp]
- luks: moving a track to a new recording it should keep the ID (it is similar to moving a release to a different release group).
- 17:02:43 [warp]
- s/new/different/
- 17:03:00 [luks]
- I think I'd disagree with that
- 17:03:37 [hawke_1]
- I think that with the way the release editor works now, it’s not feasible
- 17:03:47 [warp]
- hawke_1: sure
- 17:03:52 [hawke_1]
- due to all the guessing it has to do about renaming/moving tracks
- 17:04:09 [hawke_1]
- or rather, the guessing it *does* — not sure if that’s strictly necessary
- 17:04:21 [warp]
- the track <-> recording matching stuff in the release editor is dodgy (and I should know, I wrote it :)
- 17:05:29 [warp]
- most of that was written when our idea of a release editor was having the tracklist in a textarea and parsing that.
- 17:05:50 [luks]
- I'm starting to think that releaseid+discno+trackno is really the best option
- 17:05:51 [Freso]
- Heh.
- 17:05:52 [warp]
- that didn't work out so great. so a lot of the guessing can probably be simplified or removed now.
- 17:06:05 [hawke_1]
- warp: Yep…it only really gets nasty when you mix in the track parser with it. Other than that you could add drag/drop handles and pretty much get away with it.
- 17:06:19 [hawke_1]
- (the track parser is very very handy for some things though)
- 17:08:28 [warp]
- luks: in which case the track id stays the same when the track is moved to a different recording
- 17:08:34 [hawke_1]
- (Not saying it’s *easy* to “just add drag/drop handles” — but from the UI perspective I think that would do it.)
- 17:08:45 [warp]
- luks: which you just said you would disagree with. what was your objection there?
- 17:09:02 [hawke_1]
- warp: The AcoustID association would then be wrong/invalidated.
- 17:09:11 [luks]
- warp: there is no good solution
- 17:09:14 [hawke_1]
- Not sure if that’s luks’ objection, but…
- 17:09:17 [luks]
- so this seems like the least bad one :)
- 17:09:43 [luks]
- my objection is that the trackid should represent music on that release
- 17:09:58 [luks]
- if you move it to a different recording, it's obviously not the same song
- 17:10:05 [warp]
- hawke_1: we already have buttons for moving a track up/down. drag&drop would be a more convenient interface, but doesn't change the semantics of the interface.
- 17:10:22 [luks]
- but the same thing happens when you reorder tracks, so neither method works perfectly
- 17:10:40 [warp]
- luks: isn't that the same thing with moving a release to a different release group?
- 17:10:48 [hawke_1]
- warp: What about reordering by typing in new track numbers? Is that not doable with “vinyl style track numbering”?
- 17:10:59 [luks]
- warp: that doesn't happen very often
- 17:11:09 [luks]
- but track-recording association is a common problem
- 17:11:52 [warp]
- luks: ok, I didn't consider the frequency of these edits. that makes sense.
- 17:12:20 [hawke_1]
- luks: That’ll be less true if recording[track group] =~ performance though, because it will be harder for it to be wrong.
- 17:12:35 [hawke_1]
- There’ll be a lot of merges, but that’s about it.
- 17:12:36 [luks]
- that's true
- 17:12:37 [Freso]
- reo: In case you read logs; if no other comments come along for STYLE-160, should I just continue with it as RFV on Thursday?
- 17:12:54 [hawke_1]
- Freso: do you have a +1 on it?
- 17:12:59 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Yep.
- 17:13:11 [Freso]
- reo: Oh, right. RFV as "other database".
- 17:14:07 [hawke_1]
- Freso: then yes, RFV.
- 17:14:16 [hawke_1]
- There aren’t any objections that I see.
- 17:14:29 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Part of the RFC is a question regarding "other database" || "has score at".
- 17:14:41 [Freso]
- hawke_1: And there are no clear comments pointing either way.
- 17:15:23 [Freso]
- hawke_1: So the question wasn't so much as whether to move to RFV "as normal", but whether to use "other db" or "score".
- 17:15:50 [hawke_1]
- Freso: i suppose per the rules you’re supposed to re-RFC and specify which one you want.
- 17:16:00 [Freso]
- Guest52888 / smgoller: Identify with nickserv. :p
- 17:16:40 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Per the rules (as I read them), I can move to RFV if I state what has been changed since the proposed RFC.
- 17:17:19 [Freso]
- I'm not nikki or reo though, so I may have read it wrong. :)
- 17:18:05 [hawke_1]
- Freso: “Any changes to the text of the RFC prior to sending an RFV clear that +1 and reset this requirement.”
- 17:18:15 [reoafk]
- reoafk has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:18:53 [warp]
- Freso: you should re-RFC before the RFV if you changed the proposal.
- 17:19:06 [hawke_1]
- Freso: I’m sure you can get a pretty quick +1 on it
- 17:19:21 [warp]
- Freso: if your changes are non-controversial or very minor, I don't think you have to wait the entire RFC period again though.
- 17:19:41 [Freso]
- Either way, I still don't know what to change it to. DB or score.
- 17:19:51 [warp]
- Freso: pick one.
- 17:19:59 [nikki]
- I agree with warp
- 17:20:06 [hawke_1]
- +1
- 17:20:11 [warp]
- it doesn't matter which one you pick if no-one cares ;)
- 17:20:12 [hawke_1]
- Either would be acceptable.
- 17:20:17 [jozo]
- Is it difficult to get more instruments?
- 17:20:32 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Which do you think people would look for it under?
- 17:20:47 [nikki]
- jozo: see http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Instrument_Tree
- 17:21:03 [hawke_1]
- If you think people who want to add the links will think “it’s a score database” then score — otherwise other.
- 17:21:03 [Freso]
- jozo: No. Not if they're used often enough.
- 17:21:08 [hawke_1]
- jozo: You need to have the instrument appear on 5 releases.
- 17:21:26 [Freso]
- nikki: :p
- 17:21:37 [nikki]
- * nikki is reminded how much she hates that page
- 17:21:39 [hawke_1]
- nikki: Wasn’t there an idea to add the instrument tree to part of style on tickets.mb.org?
- 17:21:41 [jozo]
- nikki: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Instrument_Tree/Requests isn'ts so promising
- 17:21:54 [hawke_1]
- jozo: There are a *lot* of one-off instruments.
- 17:22:09 [nikki]
- hawke_1: yes. but I don't know whether to go ahead with it or not
- 17:22:24 [Freso]
- nikki warp hawke_1: If I make a revised RFC and remove the "score" stuff (e.g., so it's "other db" for both), can I set the RFC expiration to, say, Sunday?
- 17:22:28 [hawke_1]
- nikki: Is there a downside, other than transferring the data?
- 17:22:49 [jozo]
- nikki: For one more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_guitar
- 17:22:51 [Freso]
- (I had planned to send out the RFV before leaving for the summit - but it's a good thing to come back to and send off, I guess.)
- 17:22:57 [nikki]
- well, we don't know if it will work. but it's clear the current system is not working either, the only way it can get any slower is if it stops entirely
- 17:23:07 [hawke_1]
- Freso: I wouldn’t see a problem with that.
- 17:23:29 [nikki]
- transferring the data isn't a problem, I already made a script to parse the page (because yes, writing scripts to parse the page is more fun than actually doing anything about the content of the page :( )
- 17:23:35 [jozo]
- nikki: And I've seen many moore
- 17:23:39 [hawke_1]
- nikki: Is it slow because no one cares, or because no one knows about it, or because there just aren’t many releases for a lot of these instruments?
- 17:24:12 [Freso]
- hawke_1: ... or because the instruments are a bit of a mess?
- 17:24:19 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Are they?
- 17:24:27 [Freso]
- I recall it so.
- 17:24:31 [nikki]
- hawke_1: for me it's largely because every time I load the page, I lose all motivation and go do something else
- 17:24:39 [jozo]
- nikki: One what I want is linking instruments to wikipedia
- 17:24:41 [Freso]
- * Freso used to be a rel. editor at one point, for adding instruments
- 17:25:14 [hawke_1]
- * hawke_1 notes that 5-string banjo should be added. Yay!
- 17:25:26 [hawke_1]
- and Baroque trumpet
- 17:25:28 [nikki]
- that's why tickets would work a lot better for me, I could have one or two open and work on them without feeling like I'm drowning in the contents of hte page
- 17:25:43 [jozo]
- nikki: Ok, shoud I add tickets?
- 17:25:49 [nikki]
- jozo: no, add them to that page
- 17:26:10 [Freso]
- jozo: The current process is through the WikiPage.
- 17:26:13 [jozo]
- nikki: thats confusing
- 17:26:21 [hawke_1]
- nikki: I can’t see a problem with changing to a ticket systme.
- 17:26:29 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:26:46 [jozo]
- nikki: "5-string violin" is in page for years...
- 17:27:17 [nikki]
- jozo: it would be confusing to use both at the same time. right now the process is to use the wiki page. if we decide to switch, then everything there will get moved to tickets
- 17:27:25 [hawke_1]
- jozo: No one has found or bothered to add the other two releases that need it.
- 17:27:40 [hawke_1]
- jozo: I add to it when I find a release with a “new” instrument.
- 17:27:41 [Freso]
- * Freso could probably find a few...
- 17:27:41 [DremoraLV]
- DremoraLV has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:27:47 [nikki]
- and regarding wikipedia links, I do add them to the descriptions (which we helpfully don't display), but see http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3674 too
- 17:28:28 [jozo]
- hawke_1: .... and other relations
- 17:28:51 [Freso]
- Does SubOptimalCredits still exist?
- 17:28:58 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Yes
- 17:29:04 [Freso]
- \o/
- 17:29:41 [nikki]
- does anyone other than hawke_1 have an opinion on tickets versus wiki page? :P
- 17:30:01 [hawke_1]
- does anyone at all feel like doing the work of migrating? ;-)
- 17:30:04 [jozo]
- hawke_1: ""new"" instuments?
- 17:30:11 [nikki]
- Freso: btw I think sunday would be fine
- 17:30:16 [hawke_1]
- jozo: Ones that are not in the instrument tree.
- 17:30:25 [hawke_1]
- but may or may not be proposed yet.
- 17:30:30 [nikki]
- hawke_1: I'm sure I can figure out how to submit the create ticket form :P
- 17:30:31 [jozo]
- hawke_1: Is that some relation about it?
- 17:31:11 [jozo]
- I wanta see some guidelines to add new instruments
- 17:31:24 [hawke_1]
- jozo: I mean, if I have a release with a credit that has an instrument that’s not in the tree, I always add it to the requests list.
- 17:31:40 [jozo]
- hawke_1: I have many :)
- 17:31:48 [Freso]
- nikki: +1 for tickets
- 17:32:23 [Freso]
- jozo: Go add!
- 17:32:33 [jozo]
- hawke_1: How I say to yoou?
- 17:32:41 [hawke_1]
- jozo: As for guidelines, it’s discussed on a case by case basis: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Instrument_Tree/Requests#Failed.2C_and_why
- 17:33:18 [jozo]
- hawke_1: add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_guitar
- 17:33:29 [hawke_1]
- jozo: Go for it. :-)
- 17:33:50 [jozo]
- hawke_1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromoog
- 17:34:07 [hawke_1]
- jozo: You can feel free to add these, and the releases that they appear on.
- 17:34:07 [Freso]
- Isn't that already in the list?
- 17:34:11 [Freso]
- The moog.
- 17:34:16 [Freso]
- *request list
- 17:34:20 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Memorymoog
- 17:34:21 [nikki]
- moog has been added
- 17:34:24 [jozo]
- Freso: the moog. but there is minimoog or something
- 17:34:33 [nikki]
- minimoog is there too iirc
- 17:34:45 [hawke_1]
- no minimoog
- 17:35:29 [nikki]
- minimoog is in the tree, I mean
- 17:35:44 [hawke_1]
- oh
- 17:36:14 [hawke_1]
- Yep, it is.
- 17:36:17 [hawke_1]
- moog and minimoog.
- 17:36:56 [jozo]
- hawke_1: octave violin (dont about hat)
- 17:37:01 [jozo]
- http://musicbrainz.org/artist/8dfd4eb1-69d7-400a-bbf5-3f1e91579edf/edits
- 17:37:10 [hawke_1]
- jozo: …yeah, you can edit the wiki.
- 17:37:17 [hawke_1]
- You don’t need to tell me.
- 17:37:51 [jozo]
- hawke_1: Editing wiki doesn't go anywhere
- 17:38:00 [hawke_1]
- jozo: What do you mean?
- 17:38:30 [LordSputnik]
- LordSputnik has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:38:49 [jozo]
- hawke_1: jozo> nikki: "5-string violin" is in page for years...
- 17:39:13 [reosarevok]
- jozo: they're only added when they get to 5 releases
- 17:39:25 [hawke_1]
- jozo: I can’t do anything more about that than you can: Edit the wiki and wait for someone to add it, once it has 5 releases.
- 17:39:27 [reosarevok]
- But if nobody adds any to the page, they'll never get to 5! :)
- 17:40:18 [hawke_1]
- I do wonder about all those that already have 5 releases and haven’t been added though. ;-)
- 17:40:42 [hawke_1]
- * hawke_1 wonders how long he will have to wait for “Computer hard drive ‘triangle’” to get 5 releases.
- 17:41:13 [jozo]
- reosarevok: And that goind to happen ever
- 17:41:18 [nikki]
- jozo: telling hawke_1 definitely won't get you anywhere, since he can't add them :P
- 17:41:26 [hawke_1]
- nikki: I can add them to the wiki!
- 17:41:31 [hawke_1]
- but I won’t since anyone can
- 17:41:51 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: some of the ones which have 5 are "not sure where to put these in the tree"
- 17:42:03 [jozo]
- nikki: Adding new instruments harm anything
- 17:42:14 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: So that’d be “decision required” essentially?
- 17:42:16 [reosarevok]
- And one or two are "isn't this the same thing as something we have already? :/"
- 17:42:38 [jozo]
- nikki: And is there some insturements used none or just ons?
- 17:42:42 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: My favorite: just mark it as decision required and hope it goes away, because no one can make the decision.
- 17:43:00 [Freso]
- jozo: You have two choices.
- 17:43:11 [Freso]
- jozo: 1) You do nothing and the instruments won't get added.
- 17:43:16 [jozo]
- Freso: Go away and?
- 17:43:33 [Freso]
- jozo: 2) You add the instruments to the WikiPage and wait for them to have five releases so that they're added.
- 17:43:39 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Five-string Banjo
- 17:43:47 [Freso]
- Anything else is just wasting time and energy.
- 17:43:49 [jozo]
- Freso: Then I do nothing
- 17:43:54 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Baroque Trumpet
- 17:43:54 [Freso]
- jozo: I figured.
- 17:44:10 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Cavaquinho
- 17:44:23 [kepstin-laptop]
- bah, I really should get a new laptop or laptop battery.
- 17:44:27 [kepstin-laptop]
- * kepstin-laptop disappears
- 17:44:28 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: ooh, baroque trumpet has loads
- 17:44:32 [jozo]
- Freso: take to look at page.... and when there is some instrument atted?
- 17:44:33 [reosarevok]
- Didn't see it :p
- 17:44:35 [Freso]
- * Freso needs to add more folk stuff again - it's been a while since I encounted an instrument not in the tree :/
- 17:44:44 [reosarevok]
- jozo: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Instrument_Tree/Recently_Added
- 17:44:53 [Freso]
- jozo: Take a look at that page - do any of the instruments appear of 5+ releases?
- 17:44:54 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: I think that’s a relatively new one, I added it when I started going through Naxos.
- 17:45:06 [reosarevok]
- Freso: a few do! I'll look into adding them :p
- 17:45:20 [Freso]
- jozo: ^ There you go! Stuff is happening and being added!
- 17:45:22 [jozo]
- reosarevok: Ok, I stand correcfted
- 17:45:43 [jozo]
- still wiki is wrong place (imho)
- 17:46:00 [hawke_1]
- jozo: We are agreeing with that, but the process hasn’t been changed yet.
- 17:46:02 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Kudüm
- 17:46:02 [reosarevok]
- Well, several of us want instruments to become actual entities
- 17:46:10 [reosarevok]
- But that needs coding time from devs
- 17:46:15 [demosdemon]
- demosdemon has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:46:19 [reosarevok]
- And so do other thousand things, so...
- 17:46:26 [jozo]
- reosarevok: Really coding?
- 17:46:34 [Freso]
- reosarevok: And a schema change, most likely.
- 17:46:42 [reosarevok]
- Freso: that certainly, yes
- 17:46:58 [Freso]
- reosarevok: Which means it's not happening before May at the very earliest. :)
- 17:47:10 [reosarevok]
- Oh, hawke_1: now I know
- 17:47:30 [reosarevok]
- I didn't add baroque trumpet because trumpet is under Valved brass, but baroque trumpets don't have valves, right?
- 17:47:34 [jozo]
- oh, rally i have to read more your code =)
- 17:47:40 [Freso]
- Why are some "Release 1" or "Release 2" etc. gone?
- 17:47:47 [reosarevok]
- Freso: in Recently added'
- 17:47:48 [Freso]
- Shouldn't they sort from 1 to 5?
- 17:47:52 [reosarevok]
- ?
- 17:47:55 [Freso]
- Ah, right.
- 17:47:59 [Freso]
- Yeah.
- 17:48:05 [Freso]
- * Freso goes to look at the proper page :p
- 17:48:08 [reosarevok]
- If so, because we leave the ones that doesn't have the actual info
- 17:48:15 [reosarevok]
- (and add rels to the ones we can)
- 17:48:20 [reosarevok]
- *that don't have
- 17:48:30 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: I kind of question the usefulness of “valved brass”
- 17:48:42 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: I kind of question the usefulness of the whole tree structure
- 17:48:44 [reosarevok]
- But it's what we have
- 17:48:45 [reosarevok]
- :p
- 17:48:49 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: +1
- 17:49:00 [reosarevok]
- Guess it's "natural brass"?
- 17:49:07 [hawke_1]
- I would just put it with trumpet
- 17:49:07 [reosarevok]
- Since it's called "natural trumpet" too...
- 17:49:15 [hawke_1]
- but hey that’s me
- 17:49:46 [jozo]
- I figured today that i can abuse using 'other instruments' :)
- 17:49:58 [reosarevok]
- "The trumpet was a natural brass instrument prior to about 1795"
- 17:50:06 [reosarevok]
- Fine then, natural brass
- 17:50:17 [hawke_1]
- Sounds good to me.
- 17:50:30 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: thankfully the new search in the rel editor pretty much ignores the tree :)
- 17:50:35 [hawke_1]
- Yep.
- 17:50:37 [jozo]
- meaning 'all other instruments'
- 17:50:41 [hawke_1]
- Too bad it also ignores ordering.
- 17:51:07 [Freso]
- jozo: Yep. Or just plain "performed". Feel free to fill in sub-optimal credits on https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Sub_Optimal_Credits
- 17:51:17 [hawke_1]
- * hawke_1 curses the Hmong flute and the piano accordion.
- 17:51:18 [jozo]
- And you can'd add esmes procuder and exuecutive producer for same person
- 17:51:32 [reosarevok]
- Tsk Freso: In these cases, you should add a "Sub Optimal Credits" section to the annotation for the entity
- 17:51:44 [jozo]
- Freso: "performed" sound too wrong
- 17:51:53 [hawke_1]
- Freso: That wiki says to put it in the annotation.
- 17:51:55 [reosarevok]
- (yes, that's changed, because ugh wiki )
- 17:52:15 [Freso]
- * Freso goes to actually read the page :D
- 17:52:30 [nikki]
- * nikki doesn't like misusing 'other instruments' like that
- 17:52:34 [hawke_1]
- Freso: The process works a lot better now. Except for the part where no one ever reads the annotation.
- 17:53:09 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: annotations are searchable though
- 17:53:25 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Yeah, but does anyone ever go back to find/fix the sub optimal credits?
- 17:53:31 [Freso]
- jozo: If someone's credited with "Portuguese guitar" and it doesn't exist in the tree yet, use "guitar" instead until it does.
- 17:53:31 [nikki]
- I actually wish we could just use the performed instrument relationship without being forced to select an instrument :/
- 17:53:33 [Freso]
- Etc.
- 17:53:37 [jozo]
- I've complety lost today about [unkonw],m [cristmas music] and so on
- 17:53:43 [Freso]
- nikki: +1
- 17:53:52 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: I have done it at some point when trying to find stuff to fill them up to five
- 17:54:17 [jozo]
- http://musicbrainz.org/release/5ed0b15a-dd8c-41f7-b508-f7e01754c0bf
- 17:54:26 [jozo]
- thats micsture abouat all
- 17:54:29 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: yet another thing for a mb dashboard…
- 17:54:49 [hawke_1]
- “suboptimal credits for your releases” (where ‘your’ = in your collection)
- 17:55:11 [jozo]
- nikki: I acree
- 17:56:45 [jozo]
- reosarevok: and 'horn' is wind instruments (i learned that last week)
- 17:57:14 [reosarevok]
- jozo: depends - "horn" is sometimes used for all the brass section, sometimes for cor anglais, sometimes for French horn :/
- 17:57:17 [reosarevok]
- That one's a pain
- 17:57:21 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: can you add the baroque trumpet rels?
- 17:57:40 [jozo]
- reosarevok: 'torvet' in finnish... (someone transalated that to horns)
- 17:58:11 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: I’d rather not, working on other stuff at the moment. But if nothing else I’ll get to it on the naxos releases when I do my second pass
- 17:58:40 [reosarevok]
- jozo: yeah. brass instruments. In jazz and stuff like that they sometimes call it "horn section"
- 17:58:53 [jozo]
- reosarevok: whit clarinet?
- 17:59:01 [reosarevok]
- hah, weird
- 17:59:06 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Or do you mean just for those releases in the instrument requests?
- 17:59:16 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: I meant that, but I can look into it, np
- 17:59:37 [hawke_1]
- kk
- 17:59:46 [reosarevok]
- jozo: what is usually called horn in classical releases for example is "käyrätorvi
- 17:59:46 [reosarevok]
- " apparently
- 18:00:04 [reosarevok]
- But yeah, it depends :(
- 18:00:23 [jozo]
- reosarevok: i know... i try ficure what its means in popular music
- 18:00:52 [jozo]
- reosarevok: I've have three or something releases saying "horn arrangemnt" or so....
- 18:02:00 [Freso]
- Clarinets and horns would all file under "blæsere" in Danish.
- 18:02:15 [Freso]
- I don't know if there's an equivalent term in English.
- 18:02:25 [Freso]
- "Blowers" doesn't seem applicable. :p
- 18:02:27 [hawke_1]
- nikki: BTW, I didn’t mean to imply that it was difficult to enter tickets for an instrument request, just that entering 250 tickets all at once is a daunting task and/or a bunch of busywork.
- 18:02:46 [hawke_1]
- Freso: “wind instruments”
- 18:03:12 [hawke_1]
- (I think)
- 18:03:16 [nikki]
- hawke_1: https://xkcd.com/208/ <- my approach
- 18:03:51 [hawke_1]
- nikki: i.e. script it?
- 18:03:53 [nikki]
- yes
- 18:04:08 [hawke_1]
- nikki: Hey, if it works for you, it works for me. :-)
- 18:04:09 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Yeah. :)
- 18:04:12 [reosarevok]
- ... so we have "cornett" and "cornet"?
- 18:04:14 [jozo]
- Freso: That's somethings similar.
- 18:04:45 [reosarevok]
- "Cornett (not to be confused with Cornet"
- 18:05:00 [reosarevok]
- Great, that might help if we showed the description
- 18:05:00 [Freso]
- nikki: :D
- 18:05:04 [reosarevok]
- Actually, it probably wouldn't
- 18:05:10 [jozo]
- basssooon.... no no no
- 18:05:38 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: If only we had some kind of way to add an annotation to the instruments… ;-)
- 18:05:55 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: we do have descriptions for them
- 18:05:58 [reosarevok]
- But we don't show them
- 18:06:02 [hawke_1]
- Also, if we could vote on them as a community, instead of all this bureaucracy.
- 18:06:29 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: I know, just pointing out that entities are obviously the way to go, as we all know
- 18:06:32 [Freso]
- Bureaucrazy!
- 18:06:44 [Freso]
- *Bureaucray
- 18:07:12 [jozo]
- Something what I want... You have to vote more
- 18:07:22 [jozo]
- (and do not point me)
- 18:07:48 [robmorrissey]
- robmorrissey has joined #musicbrainz
- 18:07:52 [reosarevok]
- I'd love to. But I don't have more hours in my day.
- 18:08:06 [jozo]
- I have done about 10% about last open edits... and votes....
- 18:08:33 [jozo]
- We needs more editors
- 18:08:54 [hawke_1]
- jozo: We need a better edit system. That’s coming in a few years, I think.
- 18:08:58 [Freso]
- We need more voters.
- 18:09:07 [Freso]
- Or that ^
- 18:09:13 [Freso]
- *And/or
- 18:09:17 [jozo]
- hawke_1: three or more...
- 18:09:23 [hawke_1]
- Freso: We need to make voting less necessary and/or daunting
- 18:09:38 [jozo]
- We need more editors
- 18:10:17 [jozo]
- Voting is side issue
- 18:11:07 [hawke_1]
- Agreed.
- 18:11:40 [hawke_1]
- 843 open edits for my subscribed entities? LordSputnik must be editing Abba.
- 18:11:49 [jozo]
- I wait day when my edits is less than my subscibed aritst...
- 18:11:57 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: :)
- 18:12:02 [reosarevok]
- Yeah, but editors don't grow on trees. I don't really know how to go and find more :p
- 18:12:14 [reosarevok]
- We're now indexed in google, which is a small step
- 18:12:16 [reosarevok]
- But...
- 18:12:17 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: it'll be beatles next week ;)
- 18:12:25 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Make editing easier.
- 18:12:30 [jozo]
- reosarevok: Someting is wrong... if disc..... has
- 18:12:39 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: I’m not subscribed to the Beatles.
- 18:12:49 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: that helps people stay, but first they need to come :p
- 18:12:55 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: oh, you're missing out there :P
- 18:13:08 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: though I think I've done more Abba than beatles
- 18:13:24 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: They have one release I care about: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.
- 18:13:35 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: ahh it's not that good :P
- 18:13:39 [hawke_1]
- :-p
- 18:13:44 [LordSputnik]
- abbey road is better
- 18:14:06 [LordSputnik]
- * LordSputnik listens to Sgt. Pepper
- 18:15:37 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: I don’t know that we have much trouble with new people, but more with people willing to stay and learn how things work.
- 18:15:52 [Freso]
- soehest++
- 18:16:03 [LordSputnik]
- ^
- 18:16:14 [reosarevok]
- Maybe - not a lot of new editors coming in my range of editing, but then, not that many people in Estonia :p
- 18:17:00 [jozo]
- hawke_1: Guidelines is...
- 18:17:23 [LordSputnik]
- We could reduce the voting period?
- 18:17:37 [jozo]
- I guiqt when I've done about 70000 edits ;)
- 18:18:16 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: That something to think
- 18:18:20 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: That would just make it so fewer edits are looked at.
- 18:18:34 [reosarevok]
- LordSputnik: if we're going to keep a voting period, this is OK
- 18:18:40 [nikki]
- we actually increased the voting period
- 18:18:43 [nikki]
- it used to be just one week
- 18:18:44 [reosarevok]
- I doubt people would be happier to wait 7 days rather than 14
- 18:18:58 [hawke_1]
- We could make it so that edits are auto-applied but can still be voted on after they are applied
- 18:19:02 [hawke_1]
- maybe even a period for each
- 18:19:07 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: Tha's too much to edit some release. Edit, whaita 14 days, and Oh, you make wrong, edit....
- 18:19:07 [LordSputnik]
- or maybe add another editor type below auto-editor but above normal?
- 18:19:30 [hawke_1]
- maybe 3 days to provisionally apply, and then 30 days to apply “permanently”?
- 18:19:32 [hawke_1]
- or something
- 18:19:44 [hawke_1]
- jozo: You’re right on that one.
- 18:19:55 [hawke_1]
- Most of it depends on NES though
- 18:20:20 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: then you'd need to fail all provisional edits that rely on an edit that failed before it became permanent
- 18:20:37 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Yes.
- 18:20:45 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Just like any other dependency.
- 18:21:08 [LordSputnik]
- hmm, it's frustrating enough as it is when edits fail due to dependencies
- 18:21:22 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: It wouldn’t make any effective difference.
- 18:21:53 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: It's bigger borbelm
- 18:21:56 [hawke_1]
- The only difference would be for tagging, and how it appeared on the site.
- 18:22:08 [hawke_1]
- The “failed for dependency” would happen the same as it does now.
- 18:22:16 [LordSputnik]
- mm ok
- 18:22:17 [nikki]
- I don't think it would work quite the same as it does now
- 18:22:22 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: it wouldn't
- 18:22:27 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: No?
- 18:22:32 [reosarevok]
- It would make it much more likely for edits to happen on top of other edits
- 18:22:43 [reosarevok]
- Now if two people edit the same, and one fails, the other passes
- 18:22:59 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: But also more likely for them to be applied in order, no?
- 18:23:20 [reosarevok]
- Maybe - I just say it wouldn't happen in the same way
- 18:23:24 [reosarevok]
- It's possible it would even out
- 18:23:25 [jozo]
- http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19403688 and http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19403687
- 18:23:28 [LordSputnik]
- we could add a "trusted editor" type, who would be able to auto-edit certain areas, but less than an auto-editor
- 18:23:48 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: No thank you. Fewer user classes please. Down with auto-editors!
- 18:23:55 [hawke_1]
- down with elitism!
- 18:24:00 [reosarevok]
- down with up!
- 18:24:28 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: could be based on some sort of reputation system?
- 18:24:46 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Maybe.
- 18:24:56 [jozo]
- I don'nts want to be autoeditor.... maybe then i've 100k edits so
- 18:25:01 [Freso]
- Off with their heads!
- 18:26:00 [hawke_1]
- Musicbrainz: Elitist, but not insular. ;-)
- 18:26:50 [jozo]
- I want popular
- 18:27:56 [CatCat]
- :/
- 18:28:14 [CatCat]
- i assure you hawke, that mb auto editors are not elitists
- 18:28:30 [CatCat]
- i get no-voted to oblivion all the time, being na uto doe notihng
- 18:28:31 [jozo]
- You're lusers ;)
- 18:28:32 [hawke_1]
- CatCat: I mean that in the nicest way, and not of the people of musicbrainz.
- 18:29:07 [CatCat]
- * CatCat still thinks his minty photon joke was funny
- 18:29:43 [CatCat]
- hey should make some after dinner months called that, shaped like flat uh photons?
- 18:29:48 [CatCat]
- ol make a laff
- 18:29:49 [hawke_1]
- musicbrainz as a system works such that some people “deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority”.
- 18:30:04 [CatCat]
- nope
- 18:30:14 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 disagrees
- 18:30:22 [CatCat]
- more like "make em aug iso we don't have to vote on all these edits the are correct anyway"
- 18:30:39 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: I would say that the existence of the autoeditor system makes that true.
- 18:30:50 [CatCat]
- * CatCat also disagrees
- 18:30:59 [hawke_1]
- However, the *people* of musicbrainz do not have a sense of entitlement, and are very very open to outside input.
- 18:31:01 [hawke_1]
- Anyway.
- 18:31:49 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: that's one way to look at it. I prefer to think of it as a trust thing.
- 18:32:07 [LordSputnik]
- More auto-editors -> less edits that need voting on
- 18:32:14 [hawke_1]
- ← sidetracking the conversation.
- 18:32:22 [CatCat]
- * CatCat with LordSputnik
- 18:32:53 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: Then look all my edits ;)
- 18:32:59 [LordSputnik]
- however the proportion of auto-editors to normal editors is rather small
- 18:33:25 [hawke_1]
- Sure, less edits that need voting — but how do you know the edits are right? You assume the people making them know what they are doing, and will use their power wisely.
- 18:33:34 [hawke_1]
- (this is almost always correct)
- 18:33:45 [LordSputnik]
- but most people will use it correctly
- 18:33:56 [jozo]
- I've cage almost none votes
- 18:34:01 [CatCat]
- or get yelled at
- 18:34:03 [CatCat]
- (me)
- 18:34:10 [LordSputnik]
- perhaps we could have a random quality control system
- 18:34:17 [CatCat]
- we do
- 18:34:23 [CatCat]
- i get caught in it enough times
- 18:34:35 [jozo]
- I dring more :(
- 18:34:47 [CatCat]
- uh...
- 18:34:54 [CatCat]
- also in three-four days time, there'll be a weird person speaking as Zaphodbeeblebrox in the chat, that's the woman that's looking after my cats.
- 18:34:54 [jozo]
- ;)
- 18:35:13 [CatCat]
- just to be OT
- 18:35:19 [CatCat]
- * CatCat goes off now
- 18:35:26 [jozo]
- but somethin I want is 5 days period or somethging
- 18:35:36 [jozo]
- 14 days is way more
- 18:36:25 [jozo]
- I can't touch to tracklist....
- 18:36:57 [jozo]
- ... cos i acn find more poroblemes...
- 18:37:33 [hawke_1]
- Yep…I think we all hate that.
- 18:38:14 [nikki]
- * nikki thinks the problem is something that can't really be solved by having more/fewer auto-editors nor by having a longer/shorter open edit period
- 18:38:14 [LordSputnik]
- Perhaps
- 18:38:21 [nikki]
- and presumably that's partly what NES is about
- 18:38:27 [LordSputnik]
- we could scale the voting period based on editor reputation?
- 18:38:27 [hawke_1]
- +1
- 18:38:39 [hawke_1]
- (to nikki)
- 18:38:45 [jozo]
- nikki: So?
- 18:38:47 [LordSputnik]
- haha :P
- 18:38:50 [CatCat]
- nikki <3
- 18:39:05 [hawke_1]
- * hawke_1 gets a 502 loading http://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/e2e16acc-18c7-3a1a-93d7-c7f60e928902
- 18:39:11 [hawke_1]
- Anyone else able to load it?
- 18:39:17 [CatCat]
- lemme see
- 18:39:21 [hawke_1]
- it’s only a 15-disc release…
- 18:39:48 [CatCat]
- oh cock
- 18:39:48 [LordSputnik]
- it has tons of annotation?
- 18:40:02 [jozo]
- 502 Bad Gateway
- 18:40:03 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Dunno, I can’t load it.
- 18:40:07 [CatCat]
- hawke: bad form in not saying it was 15 disc
- 18:40:09 [jozo]
- it's so normal
- 18:40:12 [CatCat]
- i woulda never laded it if i knew that
- 18:40:18 [hawke_1]
- hehe
- 18:40:18 [CatCat]
- well it also 502 Bad Gateway for me
- 18:40:20 [hawke_1]
- CatCat: Sorry
- 18:40:23 [LordSputnik]
- It loads in non-beta
- 18:40:38 [CatCat]
- * CatCat is not trying, godamn 15 disks
- 18:40:47 [jmvanel]
- jmvanel has joined #musicbrainz
- 18:40:56 [LordSputnik]
- deleted the annotation, anyway, might work slightly better now? :P
- 18:41:07 [CatCat]
- * CatCat not reloading
- 18:41:09 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Was the annotation anything important? :-p
- 18:41:24 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: if you consider horizontal lines important, then yes
- 18:41:27 [LordSputnik]
- :P
- 18:41:30 [CatCat]
- * CatCat finds that usually when it's HUGE it isnt
- 18:41:42 [kovacsur]
- beta still times out
- 18:41:48 [LordSputnik]
- yeah
- 18:41:48 [nikki]
- jozo: I think it needs to be easier to review things (i.e. more information displayed in fewer edits) while still being possible to selectively vote yes/no, and it needs to be easier to progressively edit something
- 18:42:03 [CatCat]
- + on progressive edits
- 18:42:07 [CatCat]
- (whatever hat measn)
- 18:42:14 [CatCat]
- * CatCat rolls nikki in chco
- 18:42:18 [CatCat]
- choco
- 18:42:23 [warp]
- hawke_1: yes, the server beta is on is a bit overloaded atm
- 18:42:29 [nikki]
- enter a release, notice a mistake and fix it, notice another mistake and fix it
- 18:42:32 [hawke_1]
- warp: kk
- 18:42:34 [nikki]
- right now you have to get it all right the first time
- 18:42:40 [CatCat]
- nikki: i like that
- 18:42:43 [CatCat]
- i really do
- 18:42:54 [nikki]
- that's something NES is apparently going to fix
- 18:42:57 [hawke_1]
- +1 nikki.
- 18:42:57 [CatCat]
- no more edits failing because of a space or a n extra "&"
- 18:43:09 [hawke_1]
- * hawke_1 afk
- 18:43:10 [nikki]
- although NES seems to have become the new NGS (will fix everything and give everyone a sparkly pony!)
- 18:43:16 [CatCat]
- XD
- 18:43:19 [warp]
- nikki: well, with NES we _can_ make such a system.
- 18:43:30 [warp]
- nikki: the first roll-out of NES will likely not do stuff like that.
- 18:43:51 [CatCat]
- can i have a cat with wings that can act as a transportation device instead of a sparkly horse?
- 18:44:26 [warp]
- the first production version of NES will have as much as possible the same interface as now, to avoid us trying to do too many things at once.
- 18:44:33 [kovacsur]
- CatCat, that will only be implemented in SNES.
- 18:44:48 [CatCat]
- zombiemusicbrainz
- 18:45:01 [CatCat]
- snes?
- 18:45:12 [CatCat]
- super next generation exist system?
- 18:45:15 [nikki]
- SNES is clearly what comes after NES :P
- 18:45:16 [nikki]
- yes
- 18:45:16 [CatCat]
- edit*
- 18:45:22 [nikki]
- well
- 18:45:27 [nikki]
- super new edit system, I guess
- 18:45:42 [CatCat]
- aha
- 18:45:49 [CatCat]
- well ok
- 18:45:54 [CatCat]
- * CatCat roll
- 18:46:36 [LordSputnik]
- maybe it should be possible to edit edits :P
- 18:46:47 [nikki]
- that's another thing that'll apparently be possible
- 18:46:53 [kepstin-work]
- LordSputnik: that's pretty much the point of what NES will allow
- 18:47:00 [CatCat]
- well thats incremental edits no?
- 18:47:09 [LordSputnik]
- kepstin-work: where's all this info about NES? :P
- 18:47:13 [kepstin-work]
- not editing edits directly, but stacking more edits into a merge request to be applied.
- 18:47:16 [nikki]
- in people's heads, mostly
- 18:47:34 [CatCat]
- i'm sure there is some "wiki page" or some such
- 18:47:37 [CatCat]
- tomfoolery
- 18:47:45 [nikki]
- yeah but since when were we any good at documentation? :P
- 18:47:50 [CatCat]
- :D
- 18:47:51 [CatCat]
- true
- 18:48:02 [CatCat]
- henche, "tomfoolery"
- 18:48:19 [LordSputnik]
- I'm not sure anyone's noticed my proposal update :/
- 18:48:28 [kepstin-work]
- mostly in ocharles' head, really.
- 18:48:39 [kovacsur]
- LordSputnik, I seriously doubt it will pass, whatever you do to it now :|
- 18:48:46 [LordSputnik]
- kovacsur: why?
- 18:48:46 [CatCat]
- you dawn, we know you like proposals, so we put a proposal in your propsal
- 18:49:02 [kovacsur]
- people want conflicting things, you can't please them all
- 18:49:18 [LordSputnik]
- have you seen how much i changed it?
- 18:50:05 [LordSputnik]
- there's really next to nothing controversial in there now
- 18:50:24 [kepstin-work]
- LordSputnik: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Recording_Style_Guidelines is the current version?
- 18:50:29 [LordSputnik]
- yes
- 18:51:15 [kepstin-work]
- hmm. you're right, nothing really controversial in there.
- 18:51:59 [LordSputnik]
- I sent an email out saying it was updated, but I don't know whether it got sent to everyone, I sent it in reply to my first message...
- 18:52:01 [CatCat]
- internet, thank you http://memegenerator.net/instance/22860155
- 18:52:26 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 18:53:22 [LordSputnik]
- kepstin-work: I'm leaving the controversial stuff to you in https://moqups.com/kepstin/1yWeVoBO
- 18:53:25 [LordSputnik]
- :P
- 18:53:29 [kepstin-work]
- LordSputnik: heh.
- 18:54:04 [LordSputnik]
- although https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Track_System_Redesign is also a work in progress
- 18:54:36 [kepstin-work]
- hmm. not sure whether it would be good to leave in the note about isrcs from the original
- 18:55:01 [CatCat]
- now i keep racing kepstin as "capsaicin" (as in that stuff inside pepper.)
- 18:55:13 [CatCat]
- reading not racing
- 18:55:19 [CatCat]
- fuck you spell check
- 18:55:20 [jozo]
- I've done hundred of edits what is relyign of edits... and so on
- 18:55:45 [kepstin-work]
- LordSputnik: do note that there are cases of recordings being done by a different "artist" which aren't considered covers.
- 18:56:10 [kepstin-work]
- and then the really fun case of self-covers ;)
- 18:56:14 [jozo]
- what is "cover"?
- 18:56:39 [jozo]
- self-covers and...
- 18:57:01 [kepstin-work]
- jozo: the term originates from an old practise in the US of having a white artist record a song done originally by a black artist, to cover/hide the original artist.
- 18:57:07 [jozo]
- is recording of translated sutff cover?
- 18:57:09 [LordSputnik]
- kepstin-work: what sort of recordings by other artists aren't covers? :P
- 18:57:23 [CatCat]
- david coverdale doing a version of a deep purple song he wrote
- 18:57:26 [kepstin-work]
- LordSputnik: when the two different artists are kind of the same.
- 18:57:27 [CatCat]
- while in deep purple
- 18:57:34 [jozo]
- kepstin-work: I've read somehing on wikipedia
- 18:57:37 [kepstin-work]
- solo vs. group is common, yeah
- 18:57:37 [dixoncx]
- dixoncx has joined #musicbrainz
- 18:57:49 [LordSputnik]
- kepstin-work: what, like an person writes a song, performs it as part of a group, then later does a solo recording?
- 18:57:55 [kepstin-work]
- jozo: the term means, in general, any time a song is played by an artist other than the original.
- 18:57:59 [kepstin-work]
- LordSputnik: or the other way :)
- 18:58:19 [LordSputnik]
- kepstin-work: ok, good point, i'll take that into consideration :P
- 18:58:25 [jozo]
- kepstin-work: Is translated version cover?
- 18:58:37 [g-ram]
- g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
- 18:58:40 [dixoncx]
- Hi all... How to add multiple artists to a track ?
- 18:58:43 [LordSputnik]
- kepstin-work: we can probably trace the original artist's "member of..." relationships and use that to correct that case
- 18:58:45 [kepstin-work]
- jozo: only if its sung by a different artist. if it's the same artist, then not a cover.
- 18:59:01 [kepstin-work]
- LordSputnik: don't make it that hard. this stuff cannot be correctly inferred.
- 18:59:12 [kepstin-work]
- just let people say "this is a cover" "this is not a cover"
- 18:59:17 [CatCat]
- wow it's like i'm not even talking.
- 18:59:21 [LordSputnik]
- kepstin-work: but it's not automated :(
- 18:59:22 [jozo]
- kepstin-work: Say in English again
- 18:59:23 [kepstin-work]
- what about the case when the original isn't in mbz?
- 18:59:24 [LordSputnik]
- kepstin-work: :P
- 18:59:42 [LordSputnik]
- dixoncx: you'll need to use artist credits
- 18:59:53 [kepstin-work]
- LordSputnik: automated will inevitably be wrong.
- 18:59:57 [kepstin-work]
- we let people edit for a reason
- 19:00:19 [CatCat]
- wait who said automated? that's a bad idea
- 19:01:06 [LordSputnik]
- dixoncx: if you go to the tracklist tab, then click the "credits" link next to the artist, you'll be able to add two artists to one track that way
- 19:01:21 [jozo]
- kepstin-work: I've some Finniish artist song Beatles in finnish, is it cover cos it Beatles, or it not song it first ing Finnish?
- 19:01:24 [jozo]
- ah
- 19:01:37 [LordSputnik]
- jozo: it's a cover, because the beatles didn't record it
- 19:01:37 [g-ram]
- g-ram has joined #musicbrainz
- 19:01:38 [dixoncx]
- LordSputnik: i will try..:)
- 19:01:46 [LordSputnik]
- dixoncx: let me know if you get stuck :)
- 19:02:08 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: Then I've have to change many many...
- 19:02:47 [LordSputnik]
- jozo: yup, how many?
- 19:02:55 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: >100
- 19:03:15 [LordSputnik]
- jozo: what do you have to change? relationships to works?
- 19:03:17 [Freso]
- STYLE-160 is updated.
- 19:03:30 [nitrate__]
- nitrate__ has joined #musicbrainz
- 19:03:54 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: I dont like ther 'cover'
- 19:04:13 [reosarevok]
- It also depends
- 19:04:24 [reosarevok]
- Is it a *version* in Finnish of the Beatles song?
- 19:04:35 [reosarevok]
- Or a song with the same music and different lyrics in Finnish?
- 19:04:35 [jozo]
- yeah
- 19:04:41 [LordSputnik]
- Freso: +1'd
- 19:04:51 [reosarevok]
- (it seems Estonians at least liked to take Western music and sing something completely different on top)
- 19:05:26 [kepstin-work]
- * kepstin-work notes that for a translated version, you should always make a new work.
- 19:05:41 [reosarevok]
- Yes, he's doing it from what I've seen
- 19:05:47 [jozo]
- kepstin-work: And its cover?
- 19:05:52 [reosarevok]
- But it's not a terrible question, actually, yes
- 19:06:10 [reosarevok]
- Is the first version of that actually a cover?
- 19:06:25 [reosarevok]
- * reosarevok solves that by editing classical and rap where that doesn't happen :)
- 19:06:26 [kepstin-work]
- man, tricky question :)
- 19:06:41 [kepstin-work]
- what, people don't cover rap songs? ;)
- 19:06:43 [jozo]
- I just found estonian song..... that is covered many finnish
- 19:06:57 [Freso]
- LordSputnik: :)
- 19:07:01 [reosarevok]
- kepstin-work: I've seen some people do it, but... it's kinda sad :p
- 19:07:23 [jozo]
- actually original lyrics is estonian, then translated to russian, and then to finnish
- 19:07:30 [Vorpal]
- Vorpal has joined #musicbrainz
- 19:07:45 [reosarevok]
- wow
- 19:07:47 [reosarevok]
- Nice
- 19:07:56 [Freso]
- reosarevok: I'm just waiting for someone to upload a video of MC Clemens live-covering Rockers by Choice's "Ama'r er nr. 1".
- 19:08:08 [Freso]
- reosarevok: Don't say it doesn't happen. ;)
- 19:10:05 [reosarevok]
- It *does*, it's just very uncommon
- 19:10:11 [reosarevok]
- (I do have a couple examples)
- 19:10:48 [Freso]
- :)
- 19:11:02 [Freso]
- I think trad. and classical are pretty safe though.
- 19:11:17 [Freso]
- "Cover" in those genre contexts doesn't really make sense.
- 19:11:46 [jozo]
- ?
- 19:11:51 [jozo]
- What is cover?
- 19:12:22 [Freso]
- jozo: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/What_Is_A_Cover
- 19:12:27 [reosarevok]
- A very silly concept
- 19:12:33 [reosarevok]
- But people seem to like it :(
- 19:12:33 [jozo]
- Freso: again
- 19:13:14 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: natural horn and baroque trumpet are in
- 19:13:16 [jozo]
- Freso: refer wikipedia
- 19:13:28 [Freso]
- jozo: If you want to know what a cover is in the context of MusicBrainz, read that page.
- 19:14:12 [Freso]
- jozo: Eh? If you want to know what a cover is by Wikipedia's definition, go look it up. Don't expect me to do it for you.
- 19:14:27 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Excellent.
- 19:15:38 [jozo]
- Freso: 20:57 < jozo> is recording of translated sutff cover?
- 19:16:04 [Freso]
- jozo: I don't know. What do you think?
- 19:16:21 [Freso]
- * Freso would be fine with dropping the notion of covers all together
- 19:16:43 [CatCat]
- nja
- 19:16:46 [Freso]
- Esp. with recordings and work-relationships, we can trace the lineage of songs quite nicely.
- 19:16:55 [CatCat]
- it's pretty necessary with pop/rock/rap/foo music
- 19:17:02 [Freso]
- CatCat: ^
- 19:17:06 [jozo]
- Freso: 21:01 < jozo> kepstin-work: I've some Finniish artist song Beatles in finnish, is it cover cos it Beatles, or it not song it first ing Finnish?
- 19:17:08 [hawke_1]
- Freso: +1
- 19:17:09 [CatCat]
- in trad and jazz and such it's pointless
- 19:17:35 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Yay! You agree with me on something! :D
- 19:17:41 [Freso]
- * Freso celebrates
- 19:17:47 [hawke_1]
- Freso: We agree on a lot, I think. :-)
- 19:17:52 [Freso]
- Probably. :)
- 19:17:55 [reosarevok]
- I really don't have an answer for jozo's question - I doubt we have ever defined covers well enough for that :p
- 19:18:10 [kepstin-work]
- jozo: a cover version is when a song is performed by a different artist than the original. Usually.
- 19:18:10 [Freso]
- jozo: "Freso | jozo: I don't know. What do you think?"
- 19:18:18 [LordSputnik]
- jozo: can you link me to the recordings?
- 19:18:18 [hawke_1]
- jozo: The argument could be made for either side.
- 19:18:23 [murk]
- murk has joined #musicbrainz
- 19:18:39 [hawke_1]
- personally I hate the cover attribute so I would say it is not a cover.
- 19:19:35 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: I can... Do you really want?
- 19:19:45 [LordSputnik]
- jozo: yeah, show me :)
- 19:20:26 [CatCat]
- god stop being interesting in 3 channels people , i'm trying to go to bed
- 19:20:54 [hawke_1]
- Hmm, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19523248
- 19:20:59 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: http://musicbrainz.org/work/b6cc9c35-da67-4086-9179-244d691b0c97
- 19:21:08 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: http://musicbrainz.org/work/18e137c6-6360-47ad-839a-9fedd17b8a9e
- 19:21:33 [Freso]
- CatCat: Just go to bed and read the backlog in the morrow.
- 19:21:50 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: http://musicbrainz.org/work/e1077b89-90d5-4050-84c3-72f83ad2b2a3
- 19:21:58 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: http://musicbrainz.org/work/b06e1d3f-9632-438e-89ee-4caf0fc8c085
- 19:22:07 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: and so on
- 19:22:16 [krusty_ar_]
- krusty_ar_ has joined #musicbrainz
- 19:22:27 [LordSputnik]
- I wouldn't use cover
- 19:22:39 [LordSputnik]
- if they were the first artist to record the finnish translation
- 19:23:01 [Freso]
- hawke_1: I'm tempted to make a style proposal to drop "cover". I'm not sure if I'm thick skinned enough to handle the cross fire though. :p
- 19:23:23 [hawke_1]
- Freso: It would definitely be a hard one to get through.
- 19:23:45 [hawke_1]
- Freso: I think the last time I remember it being discussed, there was some weird corner case that people brought up
- 19:23:56 [hawke_1]
- Where you couldn’t determine cover from the first performance or something
- 19:24:07 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: That is what is use for covering...
- 19:24:29 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: http://aanitearkisto.fi/ is good start of ficuring it :)
- 19:24:31 [kepstin-work]
- hawke_1: well, trivial thing to consider is the case when the original version isn't in mbz; all we have are cover versions.
- 19:24:52 [LordSputnik]
- jozo: I can't read it :P
- 19:24:59 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: Then someone who cares about the cover attribute should add the original version. :-p
- 19:25:12 [kepstin-work]
- hawke_1: what if the original was never recorded?
- 19:25:20 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: It's finnish... but if you want you can read it ;)
- 19:25:28 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: Then it can’t be a cover version, can it?
- 19:25:33 [mat_]
- hum, when editing a work, hitting enter in any field seems to remove/add the iswc field, for me, is it doing it too for someone else ?
- 19:25:35 [hawke_1]
- There are no cover versions in that case.
- 19:25:38 [kepstin-work]
- hmm, I suppose :)
- 19:25:59 [hawke_1]
- But I mean, some people even consider re-recordings to be cover versions
- 19:26:00 [Freso]
- mat_: There's a ticket for that!
- 19:26:02 [hawke_1]
- even by the same artist.
- 19:26:15 [kepstin-work]
- hawke_1: well, the special case of 'self-covers'
- 19:26:23 [LordSputnik]
- jozo: in each case, the artist who originally recorded the finnish version should be non-cover, and all other artists to record the finnish version should have cover recordings
- 19:26:23 [hawke_1]
- Anyone care to opine and/or comment on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/19523248 ?
- 19:26:32 [mat_]
- Freso, ah, ok, good :-)
- 19:26:46 [kepstin-work]
- hawke_1: I already did.
- 19:26:46 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: I meant even the exact same artist — not a new recording by the composer or something.
- 19:26:52 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: You hit my point :)
- 19:27:21 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: Oh, so you did. And LordSputnik voted.
- 19:27:28 [jozo]
- LordSputnik: And for tihs I dry my best
- 19:28:10 [hawke_1]
- jozo: All you can ever do is try your best. If it’s wrong, someone else will eventually fix it.
- 19:28:18 [jozo]
- CAn someone sink mi?
- 19:28:28 [Freso]
- mat_: Huh. Or perhaps there's not. nikki?
- 19:29:06 [Freso]
- nikki: "mat_ | hum, when editing a work, hitting enter in any field seems to remove/add the iswc field, for me," - I thought I saw this in a ticket, but I can't find that ticket now. Did I imagine this?
- 19:29:23 [mat_]
- Freso, nikki, neither can I :-)
- 19:29:28 [jozo]
- hawke_1: I said week ago or so).... I dint do that then someone fix after then years
- 19:29:37 [jozo]
- íf
- 19:30:30 [jozo]
- iswc-net is so wrong
- 19:31:16 [Freso]
- Oh, a music database being wrong??
- 19:31:23 [v6lur]
- v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
- 19:31:23 [Freso]
- Who would've thought...
- 19:31:26 [jozo]
- yeah
- 19:31:31 [kepstin-work]
- I've seen a few cases when translated versions of songs don't get new ISWCs - that's annoying :/
- 19:32:03 [kepstin-work]
- particularly since in the JASRAC db, they might put the translator credit on the ISWC for the original song :/
- 19:32:10 [Freso]
- Someone noted the same ISWC being applied to different works the other day - but also different ISWCs for the same work.
- 19:32:13 [Freso]
- \o/
- 19:32:44 [kepstin-work]
- different iswcs is easier to explain - accidental re-registration due to different regions being out of sync
- 19:32:47 [jozo]
- okey, i've seen composer, writer, lyricist, arraerr, meeeseed
- 19:35:40 [jozo]
- And you did's want referense?
- 19:36:18 [jozo]
- (ha, I did't remeber)
- 19:37:48 [jozo]
- kepstin-work: i dont rust iwrc either
- 19:38:22 [dixoncx]
- In http://musicbrainz.org/release/add, What is Release information - Script: ?
- 19:38:54 [kepstin-work]
- dixoncx: the type of writing used for the titles on the release.
- 19:39:06 [kepstin-work]
- e.g. English, French, etc. use "Latin" script.
- 19:39:09 [CallerNo6]
- dixoncx: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Release#Language_and_script
- 19:39:35 [jozo]
- haha
- 19:39:38 [dixoncx]
- <kepstin-work>, Got it..
- 19:39:54 [dixoncx]
- <CallerNo6>, i will look through it :)
- 19:40:21 [jozo]
- If vyou assk something like that... you are moron
- 19:40:47 [jozo]
- about 99% dont know
- 19:40:51 [CallerNo6]
- hm, that wiki page actually isn't as helpful as it could be.
- 19:41:32 [kepstin-work]
- jozo: please don't insult other people in the channel. We try to help new users understand our terminology, particularly if English isn't their native language.
- 19:41:33 [CallerNo6]
- http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/release#Script is a little better
- 19:44:22 [jozo]
- kepstin-work: Sorry
- 19:45:01 [noobie]
- hy
- 19:45:36 [LordSputnik]
- jozo: it's dixoncx you should say sorry to
- 19:45:41 [LordSputnik]
- noobie: hey :)
- 19:45:48 [noobie]
- :)
- 19:45:59 [jozo]
- dixoncx: Sorry
- 19:46:09 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: Wow, yeah it is. I wonder if it would go over well to move that definition list over to the style guideline
- 19:47:19 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: 5-string banjo added
- 19:47:26 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: thanks
- 19:47:26 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: or at least intertwingle them a bit.
- 19:48:26 [CallerNo6]
- http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Caller_number_six/sandbox4#Intertwingle
- 19:48:41 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: Yeah…or something. I’ve always found it weird how our “definition” pages (like release) and our Style guidelines are so disconnected though.
- 19:49:03 [hawke_1]
- But I guess it would be a bit long if we tried to explain everything and give style guidance in the same place.
- 19:49:26 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: lol, nice
- 19:49:49 [CallerNo6]
- That's not the most current draft. Working on it slowly. :-)
- 19:50:41 [dixoncx]
- <jozo>: Sorry , i am new to MB, and doc seems hard to understand. Also i didnt know there is wiki page before <CallerNo6> pointed it..
- 19:51:18 [LordSputnik]
- dixoncx: you might want to read through http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Beginners_Guide if you haven't already found it :)
- 19:52:00 [LordSputnik]
- anyone know what library Picard uses to read metadata from files?
- 19:52:31 [ianmcorvidae]
- mutagen
- 19:52:51 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Also used by Quod Libet/Ex Falso
- 19:53:11 [dixoncx]
- <LordSputnik>: Am reading that..
- 19:53:23 [LordSputnik]
- dixoncx: great :)
- 19:53:52 [LordSputnik]
- ah it's written in python...
- 19:53:53 [LordSputnik]
- ok
- 19:54:03 [LordSputnik]
- time to find an alternative for C
- 19:54:59 [hawke_1]
- As in you want to find a tag library written to use with C?
- 19:55:32 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: as in i've already found one :P
- 19:55:40 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: taglib
- 19:55:44 [hawke_1]
- taglib, yep.
- 19:56:11 [LordSputnik]
- think i'm going to make something to mass-update all my library based on existing mbids
- 19:56:16 [jozo]
- örör
- 19:56:28 [LordSputnik]
- (download new metadata/cover art/info periodically)
- 19:56:58 [jozo]
- ö-ör
- 19:58:10 [kepstin-work]
- * kepstin-work usually does that by loading everything into picard and resaving it periodically
- 19:58:38 [LordSputnik]
- so do i, but it takes ages/sometimes doesn't work
- 19:59:00 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Beets?
- 19:59:10 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: huh?
- 19:59:12 [noobie]
- indexed search on beta broken?
- 19:59:23 [LordSputnik]
- noobie: lots of stuff on beta is broken atm
- 19:59:34 [LordSputnik]
- noobie: apparently it's under a lot of stress for some reason
- 19:59:41 [noobie]
- sounds great
- 19:59:46 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: http://beets.radbox.org/
- 20:00:42 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: is it linux-only?
- 20:01:13 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: No idea
- 20:01:24 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: seems to be
- 20:01:30 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Nope. Also works on Mac OS X. ;-)
- 20:01:40 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: fine then, unix only :P
- 20:01:42 [hawke_1]
- Oh, windows too
- 20:01:43 [hawke_1]
- http://beets.readthedocs.org/en/latest/guides/main.html
- 20:01:53 [hawke_1]
- Just a little harder on Windows it seems
- 20:02:00 [LordSputnik]
- "Installing beets on Windows can be tricky."
- 20:02:11 [LordSputnik]
- I'll write a cross platform, command line tool :P
- 20:03:16 [hawke_1]
- It looks not-that-tricky to me, though i admit I’ve never done it.
- 20:03:32 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:04:27 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: it doesn't look too bad, but it seems to be a media player too, as far as I can tell, and I already have itunes for that
- 20:04:51 [hawke]
- hawke has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:05:03 [LordSputnik]
- plus if I write my own I can add more things to it :P
- 20:05:27 [hawke_1]
- It’s optionally an mpd daemon, yeah.
- 20:05:33 [hawke_1]
- or something
- 20:05:39 [hawke_1]
- I dunno, I don’t understand mpd
- 20:06:08 [LordSputnik]
- brb, going to ubuntu
- 20:09:04 [LordSputnik]
- LordSputnik has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:10:53 [hawke_1]
- That was quick
- 20:12:01 [nikki]
- Freso: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5538
- 20:12:16 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: it's only a reboot :P
- 20:12:33 [Freso]
- mat_: ^
- 20:12:38 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Also not as quick as I thought — missed the timestamps. :-D
- 20:14:07 [mat_]
- Freso, nikki, great :-)
- 20:16:54 [function1]
- need guidance. if there exists an arist in brainz already called john doe, and i have a track credited to 'john doe and group' is that a new artist? alias? can't make it two separate credits...
- 20:17:25 [LordSputnik_]
- LordSputnik_ has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:17:34 [reosarevok]
- function1, http://musicbrainz.org/doc/How%20to%20Use%20Artist%20Credits
- 20:17:46 [LordSputnik_]
- ubuntu crashed :/
- 20:19:30 [Bakura]
- Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:20:12 [function1]
- reosarevok: sorry, by 'Group' i did not mean that generically (like john doe). literally 'group'. 'Rev. Gresham and group' is on the label, and Rev. Gresham exists
- 20:20:25 [reosarevok]
- Oh, heh
- 20:20:30 [reosarevok]
- Hmm
- 20:20:35 [function1]
- its like 'john doe and his band' except even more generic...
- 20:20:39 [reosarevok]
- Yeah
- 20:20:47 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: opinion?
- 20:21:12 [CallerNo6]
- function1: is it a compilation? Those tend to get silly with track credits.
- 20:21:27 [function1]
- yeah compilation
- 20:21:36 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: The ways I’ve seen it done would be like “Rev. Gresham as rev. Gresham and Group”
- 20:22:07 [hawke_1]
- and also “Rev. Gresham” with a following join phrase of “and Group”
- 20:23:19 [hawke_1]
- function1: I assume it’s like the semi-common “and friends” thing — where it’s not even a band per se but just some arbitrary bunch of people, with some tracks having one person, other tracks having another?
- 20:24:09 [function1]
- hawke_1: yeah i assume. 'group' is even in lower case. and there's a book that comes with this release, probably documentation.
- 20:25:00 [function1]
- CallerNo6: what is that 'as' construction? do i put in the 'artist credited on this release' that 'rev as rev with group' literally?
- 20:25:54 [hawke_1]
- function1: On the release editor, there’s a little >> expansion thing that lets you add artist credits…
- 20:26:19 [reosarevok]
- function1: when we say that, we mean "Artist in MB as Credit
- 20:26:20 [reosarevok]
- "
- 20:26:26 [hawke_1]
- on the tracklist editor, it’s “credits” on each individual track.
- 20:26:38 [reosarevok]
- (so, in this case, Rev. Gresham credited as Rev. Gresham and Group)
- 20:28:14 [function1]
- got it thanks
- 20:30:17 [Freso]
- jozo: I like how you were saying we need more editors - then as soon as a new editor actually comes along and tries to understand the system, you call them a moron.
- 20:32:11 [hawke_1]
- Freso: Obviously he meant that we need editors who don’t understand the system and are afraid to ask questions about it. ;-)
- 20:32:50 [Freso]
- hawke_1: Of course.
- 20:34:22 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1, cavaquinho added
- 20:42:20 [LordSputnik|AFK]
- hawke_1: taglib working quite well
- 20:42:26 [LordSputnik|AFK]
- got it displaying track artist
- 20:42:30 [hawke_1]
- cool
- 20:51:03 [reosarevok]
- And kudüm
- 20:51:31 [function1]
- also, if the same artist is marked on the cover in multiple forms (aliases? brady "doc" and brady "doc" barnes) would i vary the 'artist credited on this release' or just use the default name (brady "doc") for all tracks on the release and just put an alias on the artist page? seems 'brady "doc"' is closer to artist intent
- 20:52:08 [Freso]
- function1: Use a different AC.
- 20:52:29 [Freso]
- function1: The AC should generally reflect the way they're actually credited.
- 20:52:38 [Freso]
- (AC = Artist Credit)
- 20:55:19 [dixoncx]
- dixoncx has left #musicbrainz
- 20:57:28 [function1]
- ok
- 21:02:26 [mat_]
- ah, that's a funny one, the add work page as two fields for iswc, one named iswc, and one named iswcs
- 21:06:42 [function1]
- k, 'richard and elula moss' on the cover gets credited to brainz artists "richard moss" and "elula moss", but i'm thinking the artist credit for richard should be expanded to 'richard moss' as well, so the credit string reads 'richard moss and elula moss' contrary to what was on the cover?
- 21:07:16 [reosarevok]
- I'd probably use Richard Moss as Richard, really
- 21:07:23 [reosarevok]
- No need to change it from what's on the cover IMO
- 21:07:32 [reosarevok]
- (other people's opinion might vary)
- 21:09:29 [hawke_1]
- I agree with what reosarevok just said.
- 21:09:33 [function1]
- AC wiki page makes provision for 'name variation,' but this is just a linguistic shorthand for listing ppl with common last names, rather than a 'variation' like above ("doc" vs "doc" barnes), so thats my argument/opinion
- 21:09:34 [hawke_1]
- but that happens a lot
- 21:09:59 [hawke_1]
- function1: Honestly, either way would probably be acceptable
- 21:10:34 [hawke_1]
- I tend to go with “as on cover” because if someone needs to find who “richard" actually is, they can do so pretty easily
- 21:10:51 [function1]
- i spend too much time overthinking these things. sometimes i just give up and dont finish the input
- 21:10:51 [hawke_1]
- while finding out what it said on the cover is not so easy.
- 21:11:19 [function1]
- yeah i like preserving whats on the cover
- 21:11:42 [Freso]
- * Freso usually sticks pretty much 1:1 to what's on the cover for these things, since AC's will provide the proper linking/id'ing.
- 21:13:07 [function1]
- and i suppose i could get picard to tag it in an expanded way as well
- 21:16:01 [djpretzel]
- djpretzel has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:19:04 [Freso]
- function1: Yep.
- 21:19:10 [Freso]
- function1: There's actually a function for that.
- 21:19:14 [Freso]
- Or a checkbox.
- 21:19:54 [Freso]
- Settings -> Metadata -> Use standardised artist names
- 21:20:01 [Freso]
- (Or whatever they are in English...)
- 21:21:42 [function1]
- okay i now if the cover says 'Joe and John' should the join phrase be converted to '&
- 21:21:58 [function1]
- i thought this was a no brainer but now im confused
- 21:22:19 [function1]
- cant even find it on the wiki
- 21:23:43 [CallerNo6]
- I don't know of any guideline that suggests we change "and" to "&", although it /does/ have the benefit of being less english-centric.
- 21:24:08 [CallerNo6]
- (slightly)
- 21:24:20 [Freso]
- function1: I usually don't.
- 21:24:40 [Freso]
- function1: I usually leave it just as it is displayed.
- 21:24:53 [fissl]
- fissl has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:24:54 [Freso]
- Other people still use the old guideline of converting to an ampersand.
- 21:24:57 [kovacsur]
- CallerNo6, not all languages use &, so it doesn't help with that at all
- 21:25:02 [function1]
- and this is a backwoods americana album ;)
- 21:25:07 [Freso]
- I'm not sure if there's a guideline in that regard.
- 21:25:17 [function1]
- so NGS generally favors 'whats on the cover'
- 21:25:23 [andreypopp]
- andreypopp has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:25:32 [function1]
- or allows for it anyway
- 21:25:37 [CallerNo6]
- kovacsur: I did say "slightly" :-)
- 21:25:44 [kepstin-work]
- there used to be a guideline, back pre-ngs when 'Foor & Bar' and 'Foo and Bar' were different artists.
- 21:25:51 [Freso]
- Only for regular track/release/release group credits.
- 21:26:04 [kepstin-work]
- the idea was to have as few duplicate artists as possible, so the 'and' got normalized
- 21:26:44 [function1]
- yeah thats the guideline i remembered
- 21:27:15 [kovacsur]
- CallerNo6, fair enough :)
- 21:27:52 [fissl]
- hi
- 21:28:13 [fissl]
- wouldn't it be better to link wikidata instead of wikipedia?
- 21:28:46 [reosarevok]
- Most people don't even know what wikidata is
- 21:28:53 [kepstin-work]
- fissl: for what kind of link?
- 21:29:01 [function1]
- never heard of it
- 21:29:06 [reosarevok]
- I mean, I have only *heard* of it, I'm opening it for the first time :)
- 21:29:27 [fissl]
- wikidata now provides an index of interlingual wikipedia links per topic
- 21:29:48 [reosarevok]
- fissl: can you get to the wikidata page from the wikipedia one?
- 21:29:53 [reosarevok]
- (programatically)
- 21:30:00 [fissl]
- should be possible
- 21:30:09 [reosarevok]
- If so, it could be reasonable to make a bot that did it
- 21:30:29 [kepstin-work]
- * kepstin-work notes that you can fairly easily get the interwiki links for a page given the language-specific wikipedia url anyways, so that doesn't buy us anything...
- 21:30:35 [reosarevok]
- I expect most people will keep using wikipedia, so we should keep linking to that
- 21:30:49 [fissl]
- http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11036
- 21:30:57 [reosarevok]
- kepstin-work: wikidata is supposed to be machine-readable info though
- 21:31:03 [reosarevok]
- Which probably makes sense as a link
- 21:31:14 [CallerNo6]
- sounds neat
- 21:31:23 [kepstin-work]
- reosarevok: the mediawiki api returns interwiki links in a machine-readable format.
- 21:31:27 [reosarevok]
- Unsure if it is *now*, but AFAIK that was the plan
- 21:31:44 [reosarevok]
- I mean, AFAIK the plan was for machine-readable *info* to be there
- 21:31:45 [ianmcorvidae]
- yup, that's how the new wikipedia-extract feature works
- 21:31:46 [reosarevok]
- Not just links
- 21:33:52 [kepstin-work]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=Feist&prop=langlinks
- 21:34:14 [kepstin-work]
- that looks machine-readable to me :)
- 21:34:24 [reosarevok]
- for links, sure :p
- 21:34:37 [reosarevok]
- If links are all wikidata can offer as of now, then yeah, little use
- 21:34:54 [ianmcorvidae]
- kepstin-work: the point, ultimately, is to have things like the contents of templates be machine-readable in a concrete way
- 21:35:10 [ianmcorvidae]
- but yes, for just links it's easy enough
- 21:35:21 [kepstin-work]
- hmm. how do you find the wikidata page for a wikipedia subject, anyways?
- 21:35:28 [Bakura]
- Bakura has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:36:41 [kepstin-work]
- "what you will find is a page that lists the language links for a specific topic, i.e. it lists all the articles on the different language editions of Wikipedia that are about the same topic. [...] As of now, that's all. Nothing is happening with the language links yet, and you also cannot add any other form of data to the items."
- 21:36:57 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: https://gist.github.com/5d4f2fe09a6e7cbe9d00
- 21:37:08 [kepstin-work]
- they say they plan to add more stuff, of course...
- 21:38:59 [fissl]
- kepstin-work: search function^^
- 21:40:02 [kepstin-work]
- fissl: tried it on a couple random things, didn't find anything. I guess nobody made pages for the stuff I tried yet.
- 21:40:26 [kepstin-work]
- they really should be doing automated importing of the language links to get started :/
- 21:40:56 [fissl]
- i think that is the plan
- 21:41:14 [fissl]
- get a rid of the article based interwiki links
- 21:41:16 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Seems like a start, eh?
- 21:41:52 [kepstin-work]
- hmm. actually, they do have one nice feature in the initial release - language-marked aliases.
- 21:42:43 [kepstin-work]
- * kepstin-work should edit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Technical_proposal#Optional_extensions_to_phase_1 to add 'MBID' to their list of external identifiers ;)
- 21:42:46 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: definitely does, although that's only FLAC support atm... next thing is to bring in libmb
- 21:43:07 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Why only FLAC?
- 21:43:27 [reosarevok]
- kepstin-work, you should
- 21:43:34 [reosarevok]
- :p
- 21:44:03 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: I'm using an old version of taglib, so it's harder to read tags flexibly
- 21:44:38 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: plus I was just messing around really , so didn't try to make it work for all three to start with
- 21:44:40 [reosarevok]
- kepstin-work, maybe contact https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_(WMDE)
- 21:44:47 [Leftmost]
- Leftmost has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:45:30 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Fair enough
- 21:45:30 [function1]
- so seems like we should have something similar to this 'artist credit' granularity for track titles as well. eg when one recording has two different songs or tracks on it (necessitating the literal '/' between names, altering the bullet point i see on the cover instead)
- 21:46:06 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: technically it works with ogg too - it's reading Xiph comment tags atm
- 21:46:43 [fissl]
- my last contribution: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14005 ^^
- 21:46:49 [LordSputnik]
- hawke_1: http://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisComment those
- 21:47:01 [hawke_1]
- LordSputnik: Nod.
- 21:48:09 [function1]
- though i guess mbrainz doesnt attempt to make some idealized abstraction of 'song' the way it does 'artist'... persons are relatively more staticly defined
- 21:48:10 [LordSputnik]
- anyway, i'm off now, see you all :)
- 21:48:17 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:49:16 [reosarevok]
- function1: well, we just relate the two works to the recording
- 21:49:41 [reosarevok]
- (which are the "idealised abstraction" of songs)
- 21:50:03 [reosarevok]
- Actually, what we sadly lack *is* its equivalent for "person2
- 21:50:05 [reosarevok]
- *"
- 21:50:25 [CallerNo6]
- word
- 21:51:23 [function1]
- oh shit, each instance of 'title1 / title2' on a cover (as one recording) should have related works?
- 21:51:23 [reosarevok]
- we don't link works to parts of the recording title, though, as we do with artists + credits. that's true
- 21:51:38 [reosarevok]
- function1: well, in theory every recording which has been composed should :p
- 21:51:59 [reosarevok]
- (work vs. expression levels)
- 21:52:38 [reosarevok]
- Well, or work/expression vs. manifestation, I guess
- 21:52:44 [reosarevok]
- (man, FRBR is confusing)
- 21:53:02 [function1]
- yeah. what percentage of 'title1 / title2' instances have those relationships? 2%
- 21:53:05 [function1]
- FRBR?
- 21:53:19 [derwin]
- functional records fo mumble mumble
- 21:53:28 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 chuckles
- 21:53:33 [kepstin-work]
- function1: that's nothing special - most *single-song* recordings are missing work relationships too :)
- 21:53:43 [reosarevok]
- function1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records
- 21:53:59 [function1]
- oh know, the librarians have been thinking about this for years
- 21:54:17 [function1]
- oh no
- 21:54:21 [reosarevok]
- Yep, they have
- 21:54:23 [reosarevok]
- Mostly thinking :p
- 21:54:44 [reosarevok]
- Much more thinking than implementing, from what I've seen :(
- 21:55:03 [function1]
- okay, but what i am going to be sure to do is have a recording of a hymn linked to a 'work'
- 21:55:45 [function1]
- would it be so hard to have some 'guess' function to link a new track to a work when doing the input, creating new work if necessary?
- 21:56:06 [reosarevok]
- For classical music at least, yes
- 21:56:12 [reosarevok]
- For popular music, probably not very
- 21:56:22 [DremoraLV]
- DremoraLV has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:56:31 [reosarevok]
- There's a script for batch-relating to works from an artist's recording page
- 21:56:50 [hawke_1]
- And another for relating to works from the release page
- 21:56:56 [hawke_1]
- and the relationship editor
- 21:57:00 [noobie]
- it would be nice if the track parser would detected & and vs. collaborations
- 21:57:05 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: I'd argue for pop music the latter is more useful
- 21:57:10 [reosarevok]
- latter?
- 21:57:13 [reosarevok]
- The first one
- 21:57:18 [reosarevok]
- The one from recordings page
- 21:57:21 [hawke_1]
- former. :-)
- 21:57:37 [reosarevok]
- The former might have been *your* former :p
- 21:57:42 [hawke_1]
- Oh, true.
- 21:57:51 [reosarevok]
- I mean, how often do artists have two songs of the same title?
- 21:58:03 [reosarevok]
- (unless they're [untitled]. or Schubert)
- 21:58:04 [hawke_1]
- No idea.
- 21:58:24 [ianmcorvidae]
- I feel like there's a database query for this :P
- 21:58:30 [nikki]
- I can think of a few where the difference is the lyrics language
- 21:58:38 [nikki]
- ianmcorvidae: that's more a query for things that need merging :P
- 21:58:45 [ianmcorvidae]
- heh
- 21:58:53 [reosarevok]
- nikki: sure, but usually that changes the title too...
- 21:58:58 [reosarevok]
- (not always, of course)
- 21:58:59 [ianmcorvidae]
- heh, fair
- 21:59:17 [nikki]
- reosarevok: I know. I can still think of a few where the titles are the same but the lyrics are different
- 22:00:07 [reosarevok]
- Sure. But in general relating to works from recording lists is still quicker and pretty safe :)
- 22:00:09 [function1]
- google should be doing all of this input work. or someone should give a grant to LOC. manhattan project style
- 22:00:45 [hawke_1]
- function1: Not if you want it done right.
- 22:00:51 [hawke_1]
- heh
- 22:00:55 [hawke_1]
- not that we do it right either.
- 22:00:59 [reosarevok]
- :)
- 22:01:05 [nikki]
- reosarevok: oh, sure, I'm not trying to argue that it's not, I was just expanding your list a little bit :)
- 22:01:08 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 22:02:02 [hawke_1]
- function1: Not if you want it done in a truly open way, that will continue for the foreseeable future?
- 22:02:40 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: admittedly, a combination of machine input and user review would be kinda nice
- 22:03:00 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Yeah…that’s what we’ve been trying to build label data feeds for, right?
- 22:03:12 [reosarevok]
- I meant for works, ATM
- 22:03:17 [hawke_1]
- Ah
- 22:03:18 [reosarevok]
- But yes, for releases there's that
- 22:03:40 [CallerNo6]
- I'm curious to see how good the labels' data is/are.
- 22:04:04 [reosarevok]
- CallerNo6: UMG's samples are surprisingly decent
- 22:04:35 [CallerNo6]
- we want information!
- 22:04:49 [reosarevok]
- when do we want it?
- 22:04:58 [nikki]
- yesterday
- 22:05:03 [reosarevok]
- Yes, pretty much
- 22:05:10 [reosarevok]
- But it will have to wait a bit more than that
- 22:05:34 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1, write to the NML
- 22:05:46 [reosarevok]
- "It's me again! What about you give me all your metadata!"
- 22:05:53 [hawke_1]
- hahaha
- 22:06:33 [hawke_1]
- based on their web stuff, their metadata is not what we have, since they’re a little more classical-focused than we are.
- 22:06:34 [fissl]
- good night
- 22:06:44 [hawke_1]
- (they have stuff grouped by work, generally)
- 22:06:52 [reosarevok]
- How's that a bad thing?
- 22:06:57 [reosarevok]
- They have track info
- 22:06:59 [reosarevok]
- night fissl
- 22:07:04 [reosarevok]
- Track info linked to works
- 22:07:07 [function1]
- all i really want are tags. and the immortality of my hard data entry
- 22:07:21 [hawke_1]
- * hawke_1 is out, back later
- 22:07:32 [reosarevok]
- They do not have as-on-cover titles, but that's easily "solved" by adding them as low quality by default :p
- 22:07:42 [reosarevok]
- Enjoy!
- 22:07:42 [hawke_1]
- yep
- 22:08:06 [Freso]
- function1: https://musicbrainz.org/release/7c943301-8d9d-4da5-8e9d-f8797a0bcee5 :D
- 22:09:25 [function1]
- Freso: well done :)
- 22:09:29 [function1]
- how long did that take?
- 22:11:11 [function1]
- and was all that information actually on the physical product?
- 22:13:36 [Freso]
- Freso has joined #musicbrainz
- 22:14:07 [Freso]
- * Freso checks chatlog to see which of his messages made it through...
- 22:14:21 [Freso]
- None, apparently.
- 22:14:34 [Freso]
- "reosarevok | There's a script for batch-relating to works from an artist's recording page" - link?
- 22:14:38 [Freso]
- Some of the works I cross-referenced with the recording in the TheSession.org database.
- 22:14:44 [Freso]
- function1: Mostly, yes. And not too long, really. The relationship editor is pretty good at such stuff.
- 22:14:55 [Freso]
- Some of the works I cross-referenced with the recording in the TheSession.org database.
- 22:15:02 [Freso]
- But otherwise, it's what is on the physical release.
- 22:15:29 [Freso]
- - and then I got disconnected.
- 22:15:34 [Freso]
- Yay for awesome sucky connection! \o/
- 22:16:18 [reosarevok]
- Freso: one sec
- 22:16:31 [reosarevok]
- Oh, here
- 22:16:32 [reosarevok]
- http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/119544
- 22:16:46 [reosarevok]
- Unsure if it works on https
- 22:16:53 [reosarevok]
- Probably not since it's not updated
- 22:20:34 [Freso]
- bitmap: ^ Go update! :p
- 22:43:51 [function1]
- 'guess sort name' doesnt work?
- 22:45:34 [Freso]
- Freso has joined #musicbrainz
- 22:46:47 [reosarevok]
- function1, where?
- 22:47:10 [reosarevok]
- In the Add Missing Entities tab?
- 22:47:57 [reosarevok]
- If so, it "works" - kind of. It pretty much copies the names since it doesn't know if it should do Person or Group order, IIRC
- 22:49:46 [function1]
- yeah. but there's also a button for copy names... so they do the same thing? i at least expected <last word>, <rest of string>
- 22:52:46 [reosarevok]
- I imagine Guess turns "The Name" into "Name, The"
- 22:52:49 [reosarevok]
- But I haven't tried
- 22:53:09 [reosarevok]
- I mostly avoid using that tab and create all the artists outside of it
- 22:54:36 [function1]
- before even starting the release? or can you just skip it
- 22:55:13 [nikki]
- * nikki notes that http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-4186 is probably the most relevant ticket
- 22:55:21 [function1]
- oh my session timed out and i lost everything.
- 22:55:35 [function1]
- :(
- 23:07:13 [derwin]
- oof.
- 23:09:13 [Freso]
- Freso has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:16:52 [function1]
- is there a way i can do the input more piecemeal? add a release without any tracks, log off, come back later, add 1 cd at a time?
- 23:22:32 [nikki]
- not really. you would need to at least do the first cd
- 23:25:41 [murdos]
- murdos has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:28:44 [function1]
- or at least the first track on the first cd?
- 23:28:49 [uptown]
- uptown has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:31:18 [nikki]
- that wouldn't really work properly
- 23:33:56 [function1]
- what can i do? session expires before i can get everything in
- 23:34:12 [function1]
- or maybe it was just wireless disconnection
- 23:34:46 [nikki]
- what are you trying to add anyway?
- 23:35:02 [function1]
- a 4cd compilation
- 23:35:20 [function1]
- most artists are not in the db
- 23:35:54 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 was going to say, add all the relevant artists first.
- 23:37:08 [CallerNo6]
- function1: are you using the track parser?
- 23:41:19 [ijabz]
- ijabz has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:42:59 [function1]
- i tried typing all the titles in manually into the parser, but they weren't added to the new disc. freedb exists but is messy, and either way i have to edit the artist credits
- 23:43:38 [reosarevok]
- function1: when you say the session expires, what's what happens?
- 23:43:45 [reosarevok]
- The session is supposed to last pretty long :/
- 23:44:02 [function1]
- i just got thrown to the login page
- 23:44:09 [reosarevok]
- :/
- 23:44:15 [reosarevok]
- I've never had that happen
- 23:44:29 [function1]
- yeah and i had been clicking on other pages while editing
- 23:44:36 [nikki]
- me neither
- 23:54:05 [function1]
- well, before i asked, i had created a release with one cd and one track just to have something saved. should i kill that release and start over? or edit it to add tracks? ive messed up
- 23:55:58 [reosarevok]
- Well, since it's there already, add a disc :p
- 23:56:33 [CallerNo6]
- I'm not sure, but the one track might be confusing the track parser.
- 23:56:38 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 goes to experiment
- 23:57:42 [function1]
- i tried to add all the other tracks to the first disc, but couldn't get past the next step, it demanded some reconciliation with the 'change' in the first track that was already there and the existing recording entry from when i had first created the track
- 23:58:06 [function1]
- no combination of check boxes would allow me to pass