IRC log of musicbrainz on 2013-03-20
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 00:00:41 [reoafk]
- reoafk has joined #musicbrainz
- 01:23:53 [JoeLlama]
- JoeLlama has joined #musicbrainz
- 01:38:08 [MutantPlatypus]
- MutantPlatypus has joined #musicbrainz
- 01:40:36 [Prophet5]
- Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
- 02:04:52 [Acka]
- Acka has joined #musicbrainz
- 02:14:20 [reosarevok]
- hawke_, the idea of removing part of set rels is to first merge the discs and then remove :p
- 02:14:34 [reosarevok]
- (about Edit #21438881 where the bonus discs aren't being merged into anything)
- 02:14:43 [reosarevok]
- (and all others for those discs)
- 02:42:11 [Acka]
- Acka has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:11:45 [zag2]
- zag2 has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:11:45 [zag2]
- zag2 has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:12:28 [peaveyman_]
- peaveyman_ has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:13:00 [phunyguy_]
- phunyguy_ has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:13:31 [MutantPlatypus]
- how can I move AcoustIDs? I think I incorrectly merged two recordings and need to move the AcoustIDs to the right one
- 03:16:14 [MutantPlatypus]
- hawke_?
- 03:21:18 [pxb]
- pxb has joined #musicbrainz
- 03:26:03 [MutantPlatypus]
- well, in case someone sees this a knows how to MOVE fingerprints, the relevant recordings are http://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/8a143d2c-10ea-435e-bf2a-462c3c7da7b7/fingerprints and http://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/6196fa3f-31d7-43f0-b91a-93c6c78fd78d
- 03:59:25 [JeanPierre]
- How does new data get added to the musicbrainz database?
- 03:59:33 [JeanPierre]
- And who relies what is the 'correct' tagging, just the most common one?
- 03:59:56 [ianmcorvidae]
- the data is added and curated by editors
- 04:00:04 [ianmcorvidae]
- by way of a voting system
- 04:01:05 [JeanPierre]
- Ahh
- 04:01:14 [JeanPierre]
- so it's not completely algorithmic without human intervention?
- 04:01:16 [derwin]
- JeanPierre: and there are editorial standards to which things "must" conform
- 04:01:32 [derwin]
- and no, it's almost all human, there's some bots but humans review their actions too, etc.
- 04:01:36 [JeanPierre]
- So basically if music is "obscure" enough it won't get added because none of the editors knows it, or how does it work?
- 04:01:50 [ianmcorvidae]
- well, it's not like there's a limit on who can be an editor
- 04:02:04 [derwin]
- more or less, though there are efforts to bulk import from different sources in order to lessen that
- 04:02:06 [JeanPierre]
- Ahh, so it's sort of like a wiki operating on community consensus?
- 04:02:07 [ianmcorvidae]
- so it tends to be that we have more "obscure" music than other databases of similar sorts
- 04:02:11 [ianmcorvidae]
- yeah
- 04:02:17 [derwin]
- it is most similar to a wiki in editorial style, yes
- 04:02:18 [ianmcorvidae]
- (discogs sometimes has more, but)
- 04:02:42 [JeanPierre]
- Hmm, gut feeling tells me that making it completely algorithmic with crawlers who say scour last.fm or simply monitor the listening habighs of volunteirs works better?
- 04:02:57 [derwin]
- JeanPierre: in my experience, if it's not in mb you can import it from discogs, itunes, bandcamp, beatport or junodownload..
- 04:03:19 [JeanPierre]
- True, I suppose.
- 04:03:21 [derwin]
- JeanPierre: mb is focused on the quality of data, and the bots only do "safe" things for bots to infer, etc.
- 04:03:27 [ianmcorvidae]
- working fully automatic doesn't usually work, because the quality is pretty low
- 04:03:35 [JeanPierre]
- Hmm, is it?
- 04:03:41 [ianmcorvidae]
- yes
- 04:03:42 [JeanPierre]
- I guess it's been researched into.
- 04:03:45 [derwin]
- JeanPierre: there are scripts and etc. which allow mostly-automatic import from those sites, a minimum of human interaction
- 04:04:00 [derwin]
- and yeah, key is that mb wants good quality
- 04:04:41 [JeanPierre]
- Hmm, how does musicBRAAINZ deal with artists changing names?
- 04:04:57 [JeanPierre]
- Does it consider them different projects simply with the same members or does it also apply it retrocactively?
- 04:05:16 [ianmcorvidae]
- it depends
- 04:05:38 [ianmcorvidae]
- some name changes also accompany deliberate stylistic changes, and those tend to be new artists in the DB, where simple name changes usually don't
- 04:06:39 [JeanPierre]
- Ahh
- 04:06:45 [JeanPierre]
- so it's community consensus again on that?
- 04:07:04 [ianmcorvidae]
- the whole system is community consensus + style guidelines, yes :)
- 04:08:09 [JeanPierre]
- And like, how does it deal with different performances of say a single orchestral piece.
- 04:08:24 [JeanPierre]
- Where usually even though the piece itself is in the public domain, the orchestra holds copyright to that specific performance
- 04:08:29 [ianmcorvidae]
- well, we have a variety of entities
- 04:08:53 [ianmcorvidae]
- in that particular case, we'd handle it by having a Work for the piece, and Recordings for each of the performances (er, well, recordings, but usually they match up)
- 04:09:07 [ianmcorvidae]
- recordings are in turn linked to to releases by way of tracks
- 04:09:43 [ianmcorvidae]
- it's somewhat technical (oriented to database schemas, rather than the more human models), but you might find https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Database/Schema interesting
- 04:09:47 [JeanPierre]
- Ahh, and who is listed as the 'artist' then or does it have separate field for composer and performing artist?
- 04:10:07 [JeanPierre]
- Also, I take it you guys define an RDF scheme?
- 04:10:20 [ianmcorvidae]
- we ... sort of do RDF. it's a bit complex on that regard
- 04:10:43 [ianmcorvidae]
- however, yes, we use a general relationship system to store things like composer, performer, etc.
- 04:10:49 [JeanPierre]
- What's the complex part?
- 04:10:56 [JeanPierre]
- You can just define an rdfs right?
- 04:11:03 [ianmcorvidae]
- (re relationships: see https://musicbrainz.org/relationships)
- 04:11:13 [ianmcorvidae]
- what's complex is that there's already schemas out there for music stuff
- 04:11:19 [derwin]
- JeanPierre: many of your questions are discussed at great length in this very channel :)
- 04:11:28 [ianmcorvidae]
- so we partially support that (mo, the music ontology primarily)
- 04:11:36 [JeanPierre]
- derwin, well, that is obviously why I'm here.
- 04:11:45 [ianmcorvidae]
- we don't really have anyone dedicated to keeping our RDF stuff kept in line though, so the code has bitrotted somewhat
- 04:11:48 [derwin]
- I'm just saying, you're asking good questions :)
- 04:11:54 [JeanPierre]
- Well, I was originally here because I couldn't handle the glory of picard but database and semantics is a hobby of mine.
- 04:11:58 [ianmcorvidae]
- there's a slowly-moving thing to have there be RDF dumps made from the DB
- 04:11:59 [JeanPierre]
- Ahh, you just use mo.
- 04:12:02 [JeanPierre]
- Yeah, I'ver used mo in the past.
- 04:12:15 [ianmcorvidae]
- we store more than mo knows how to, and not everything maps perfectly cleanly
- 04:12:22 [JeanPierre]
- Ahhh
- 04:12:33 [JeanPierre]
- But like, you use a triplestore to store it right I gather?
- 04:12:34 [ianmcorvidae]
- so it's not exactly 1-1 or anything, but we do support some assorted RDF things :)
- 04:12:37 [ianmcorvidae]
- no
- 04:12:40 [ianmcorvidae]
- our DB is postgresql
- 04:12:50 [ianmcorvidae]
- that wiki page I mention is describing tables
- 04:12:51 [JeanPierre]
- Hmm..
- 04:12:56 [JeanPierre]
- Yeah, that's true.
- 04:13:12 [ianmcorvidae]
- https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/-/images/5/52/ngs.png is the core bits and https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/-/images/9/92/ngs-ars.png has some of the relationship-based stuff
- 04:13:16 [JeanPierre]
- Dunno, seems to me that for a project like this outputting clean RDF is quite handy.
- 04:13:31 [JeanPierre]
- bbl, need to take a dump.
- 04:14:02 [ianmcorvidae]
- we have a long history with RDF, but it hasn't ever been part of our low-level system
- 04:15:33 [sivoais]
- sivoais has joined #musicbrainz
- 04:20:49 [kepstin-laptop]
- be easier to do if we made our own rdf ontology which was just a direct mapping of our data structure, of course.
- 04:21:22 [ianmcorvidae]
- in our copious spare time ;)
- 04:21:28 [ianmcorvidae]
- (but yes, I've had that thought)
- 04:21:35 [kepstin-laptop]
- but that loses some of the benefits of rdf; it just becomes a different format of custom xml :)
- 04:22:12 [ianmcorvidae]
- well, not quite :P but
- 04:22:21 [kepstin-laptop]
- the problem with rdf and mo and stuff is that it seems to be trying to be perfect rather than good enough
- 04:22:32 [kepstin-laptop]
- where musicbrainz's database is going the other way
- 04:22:45 [ianmcorvidae]
- XML isn't very good at talking about semantics
- 04:23:25 [ianmcorvidae]
- so even our own ontology would be a bit more meaningful than plain XML since we could talk more deeply about what our predicates mean
- 04:25:03 [kepstin-laptop]
- be easier than mapping our current relationships into the similar-but-not-quite-the-same mo stuff, anyways
- 04:26:34 [kepstin-laptop]
- of course, then we'd have rdf ontology updates every 6 months coinciding with our schema changes; and even more often than that as ARs get added/removed/changed in the style list.
- 04:27:09 [ianmcorvidae]
- we have updates to our current XML schema more often than that :)
- 04:27:17 [ianmcorvidae]
- er, well, not for ARs, but
- 04:28:38 [kepstin-laptop]
- kepstin-laptop has joined #musicbrainz
- 04:30:06 [kepstin-laptop]
- our AR structure is kind of fun too; at first glance they look like RDF triples, but then you realize that they have attributes
- 04:30:20 [ianmcorvidae]
- heh
- 04:31:32 [kepstin-laptop]
- and there keep being people saying that they want to make ars to link 3 things together :)
- 04:31:51 [ianmcorvidae]
- what's fun is sometimes our attributes just designate subclasses of predicates and sometimes they're actually things that you'd attach to a node
- 04:32:15 [ianmcorvidae]
- (e.g. executive producer vs. performed {instrument})
- 04:32:29 [kepstin-laptop]
- and then there's the ones that support combining multiple subclasses of predicates
- 04:32:33 [kepstin-laptop]
- associate co-producer :)
- 04:32:42 [ianmcorvidae]
- yup!
- 04:32:42 [JeanPierre]
- Hmm
- 04:32:50 [kepstin-laptop]
- executive associate co-producer!
- 04:32:59 [kepstin-laptop]
- what does that even mean.
- 04:32:59 [ianmcorvidae]
- (but that one would still be a class hierarchy among the predicates in RDF)
- 04:33:05 [JeanPierre]
- I guess if I started this project I would've based it on some RDF schema as its core database model yeag
- 04:33:45 [kepstin-laptop]
- JeanPierre: it started like "cddb is taking our public data and making it not public! we need to whip up a database for our music, quick!" :)
- 04:34:00 [kepstin-laptop]
- * kepstin-laptop may be paraphrasing slightly.
- 04:34:10 [ianmcorvidae]
- that's more freedb and cdindex (which... sorta became MB)
- 04:34:14 [JeanPierre]
- Haste seldom produces the msot refined of results I guess.
- 04:34:57 [ianmcorvidae]
- it's worth noting that the commonly-used RDF specs appeared several years *after* MB :P
- 04:36:17 [kepstin-laptop]
- http://musicontology.com/#term_musicbrainz_guid is a nice handy piece of mo :)
- 04:36:35 [kepstin-laptop]
- lets go go from mo to be able to pull real data out of musicbrainz ;)
- 04:36:41 [kepstin-laptop]
- lets you go *
- 04:36:42 [derwin]
- http://linkedbrainz.c4dmpresents.org/ ?
- 04:37:12 [ianmcorvidae]
- derwin: yeah, that's using our semi-maintained rdfa stuff + an older version of the still-not-really-complete RDF dump code
- 04:39:27 [kepstin-laptop]
- last update on the linkedbrainz stuff is 2 years old, it probably doesn't even work against the current schema...
- 04:39:45 [ianmcorvidae]
- there's been work in the interim
- 04:39:51 [ianmcorvidae]
- just not really public :P
- 04:40:12 [ianmcorvidae]
- barry norton has been doing some stuff on rika with some of the relational DB to RDF tools
- 04:42:55 [kepstin-laptop]
- but yeah, mo just looks like it was made by starting with the musicbrainz data model, then having a few people outside of musicbrainz go through it and say "oh, we could do that better, lets change it!"
- 04:43:57 [kepstin-laptop]
- tries to be so general that it's even more difficult to use than musicbrainz :/
- 04:44:04 [ianmcorvidae]
- hah
- 04:47:27 [kepstin-laptop]
- instead of saying "a release has tracks", they go "a release is a type of a musical manifestation, a signal group is a special case of a musical expression containing multiple signals, and a musical expression can be manifested to become a musical manifestation"
- 04:47:47 [kepstin-laptop]
- er, "can be published" i think
- 04:50:00 [kepstin-laptop]
- although that just really goes all the way back down to the initial 'embodiment', which represents a manifestation that embodies an expression.
- 04:50:17 [djpretzel]
- djpretzel has joined #musicbrainz
- 04:50:28 [ianmcorvidae]
- that all sounds like standard FRBR
- 04:50:37 [kepstin-laptop]
- why, that's because it is.
- 04:50:47 [kepstin-laptop]
- but it does make it rather hard to say that
- 04:50:53 [ianmcorvidae]
- true :)
- 04:50:55 [kepstin-laptop]
- 'a release has tracks' :)
- 04:52:39 [kepstin-laptop]
- with rdf they're trying too hard to define the initial axioms, and it ends up showing through the higher levels in confusing ways
- 04:53:15 [kepstin-laptop]
- it's like the classic example of having to create a universe as the first step to making an apple pie :)
- 04:53:51 [ianmcorvidae]
- well
- 04:53:55 [ianmcorvidae]
- it *is* a prerequisite ;)
- 04:54:17 [kepstin-laptop]
- yes, but I already have a perfectly good universe that helpfully has premade apples
- 04:54:23 [ianmcorvidae]
- haha
- 04:54:45 [kepstin-laptop]
- I don't want to care how to make a universe. I just want to know that I take 8 apples, peel them, and chop them into slices.
- 04:55:05 [JeanPierre]
- Well, RDF obviously does more than just define music ontologies.
- 04:55:17 [JeanPierre]
- And having a general technology helps if you want to expand to film later on
- 04:55:30 [kepstin-laptop]
- * kepstin-laptop still thinks they're going at it backwards
- 04:55:35 [JeanPierre]
- As does a universe give you more than apples, it also gives you RDF.
- 04:55:39 [JeanPierre]
- Oh hush, you know nothing.
- 04:55:55 [ianmcorvidae]
- having studied RDF for a number of years, I tend to agree with kepstin :P
- 04:56:14 [kepstin-laptop]
- we first had apples, then we figured out how apples grew from trees, then we determined how fruit work in general, then ...
- 04:56:21 [ianmcorvidae]
- starting from defining an ontology is a good way to only talk about the things that are generally true, when people rarely care about them
- 04:59:39 [kepstin-laptop]
- the core ontology stuff is mostly used by the people working on a sort of core knowledgebase for ai research, as far as I can tell :/
- 05:01:05 [kepstin-laptop]
- which seems kind of silly; I don't think any true ai will come with a prebuilt knowledgebase of how everything in the universe works, it would have to learn things via observing their behaviour like anyone else :)
- 05:01:44 [ianmcorvidae]
- determining if an observed entity matched a definition was proved uncomputable ages ago :P
- 05:02:00 [ianmcorvidae]
- one of my professors in college moved out of KR entirely after that, moved over to genetic algorithms
- 05:02:16 [ianmcorvidae]
- whenever I talked about RDF with him he always brought that up :P
- 05:03:06 [kepstin-laptop]
- science goes "hmm, i think i know how this works, i think i know how that works, i wonder if they're related somehow" rdf goes "this is how everything works. Oh, that doesn't quite fit? um, well..."
- 05:03:54 [paskasyovahullu]
- That's not really how physics works though.
- 05:04:11 [paskasyovahullu]
- Physics is more like 'This will work exactly as the model praedicts or the entire model is bullshit and we start over'
- 05:04:20 [paskasyovahullu]
- And the model must of course describe THE ENTIRE UUUUNIVEERSE
- 05:04:34 [ianmcorvidae]
- which works, arguably, in physics and nowhere else :P
- 05:04:51 [paskasyovahullu]
- Physics is then again the only empirical science where stuff actually makes sense and adds up
- 05:05:01 [paskasyovahullu]
- In all the others nothing adds up
- 05:05:08 [kepstin-laptop]
- but even then, in physics you have subcomponents of the model which are sufficiently complete as to be useful to do work by themselves.
- 05:05:34 [paskasyovahullu]
- They're still consistent with the whole and you can't change the subcomponents by changing the whole
- 05:05:40 [paskasyovahullu]
- Well, that's the idea case
- 05:05:57 [paskasyovahullu]
- in practice, nothing adds up and the entire thoery has pretty much been disproven at this point, people just have no idea where to look next
- 05:06:02 [kepstin-laptop]
- and figuring out the grand unified theory of everything is done by thinking up a theory that fits all of the existing observed consistent behaviour.
- 05:06:21 [kepstin-laptop]
- until new behaviour pops up, and they throw it out and start again.
- 05:06:55 [kepstin-laptop]
- meanwhile, the rest of us find that e.g. quantum theory describes electron behaviour well enough to build faster smaller computers, so we do that.
- 05:07:49 [kepstin-laptop]
- you'll know that e.g. string theory is a success once components of it are used to make smaller faster computers ;)
- 05:08:18 [paskasyovahullu]
- I wouldn't even call string theory physics at this point
- 05:08:34 [paskasyovahullu]
- For some reason it gets like so much media attention while like 50 physicists worldwide or something work on it
- 05:08:42 [kepstin-laptop]
- it has a cool name
- 05:08:56 [kepstin-laptop]
- so it's memorable
- 05:09:21 [paskasyovahullu]
- Adagio for String Theory
- 05:10:59 [kepstin-laptop]
- don't they have to keep adding more dimensions to string theory to make it consistent? iirc, they're up to Super String Theory now :)
- 05:12:01 [paskasyovahullu]
- I have no idea, I don't know the exact maths behind it.
- 05:12:26 [paskasyovahullu]
- What I do know is that it's tantamount to saying everything is controlled by purple unicorns on a microscopic scale because String Theory currently has no praedictive value.
- 05:12:31 [kepstin-laptop]
- does anyone? :)
- 05:13:04 [kepstin-laptop]
- yeah, unless a theory can be tested somehow, it's useless :/
- 05:13:14 [kepstin-laptop]
- never will be come not-just-a-theory :)
- 05:15:08 [paskasyovahullu]
- Well, maybe it can one dat, but you can say that about everytthing.
- 05:15:12 [kepstin-laptop]
- this is why stuff like the higgs boson is cool; people made a theory, said "hey, you know, this predicts x, lets see if we can find a way to observe that"
- 05:15:38 [paskasyovahullu]
- Quantum gravity is a bit of a shady thing usually. Anything gravity is actually, SWE is all sort of nicely mapped out but everything related to gravity is pretty shady
- 05:16:04 [paskasyovahullu]
- Yap, that's why physics is a science and sociology is a pseudoscience tantamount to horoscopes I always say.
- 05:16:06 [paskasyovahullu]
- And then people get mad.
- 05:16:40 [ianmcorvidae]
- sociology is at least trying :P
- 05:16:47 [ianmcorvidae]
- (as opposed to horoscopes, I mean)
- 05:17:58 [paskasyovahullu]
- Well, trying what?
- 05:18:08 [paskasyovahullu]
- They aren't exactly trying to get an overreaching praedictive model.
- 05:18:15 [kepstin-laptop]
- sometimes you have to build massive underground particle accelerator rings going into multiple countries to attempt to observe x, but when has that stopped us? :)
- 05:18:31 [paskasyovahullu]
- sociology and psychology for a large part are just common sense sold as academica.
- 05:24:57 [kepstin-laptop]
- https://musicbrainz.org/release/81cbd36a-3215-42f2-873e-0ae6841fa09d is of course a music release that uses the well-known image from the LHC as seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson as an album cover :)
- 05:26:15 [kepstin-laptop]
- well, that's an image from a simulation
- 05:26:32 [kepstin-laptop]
- but still. my attempt to bring things full circle back to music ;)
- 05:28:39 [paskasyovahullu]
- Hmm
- 05:28:51 [paskasyovahullu]
- so you people are actually interested in music and not just the tech behind databases and semantics?
- 05:31:43 [kepstin-laptop]
- a good number of musicbrainz contributors tend to fall more on the librarian/archiving side of things - where we're trying to collect data and figure out how to semantically store the info.
- 05:31:53 [kepstin-laptop]
- the databases and tech is merely incidental
- 05:32:23 [kepstin-laptop]
- and there are a fair number of people who listen to, enjoy, and even occasionally produce music :)
- 05:33:35 [kepstin-laptop]
- basically, the musicbrainz database is slowly designed as people unfamiliar with database design and tech try to convince the developers what changes they need to represent the data as we best understand it now.
- 05:35:20 [kepstin-laptop]
- so it's somewhat adhoc and constantly in flux.
- 05:36:10 [kepstin-laptop]
- a while back, we ended up adding a general 'triplet'-style relationship system so these constant changes wouldn't be as difficult to replicate to synchronized databases due to schema changes
- 05:36:45 [kepstin-laptop]
- and apparently there's a general object attribute system coming up soonish for similar reasons... initially on works only, i think.
- 05:40:33 [kepstin-laptop]
- so where the rdf specs sit a bunch of experts down and ask them "what do you think is needed to represent everything", we do it where a bunch of community members argue amongst eachother until we can iterate a step that's good enough to cover our needs for the time being, and repeat as necessary
- 05:43:38 [kepstin-laptop]
- we take pride in our label as a community of "walking edge-case generators" who can at a moments notice provide counter examples when people try to model things in ways which are too general or insufficiently general :)
- 05:48:28 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 05:51:25 [VxJasonxV]
- yikes
- 05:51:29 [VxJasonxV]
- http://musicbrainz.org/artist/a7e3c900-1c91-444c-9fce-77d230e5791b/edits
- 05:51:42 [VxJasonxV]
- anyone have any idea what's with all the (seemingly?) superfluous disambig. edits?
- 05:52:35 [ianweller]
- maybe future edits to fix the track names?
- 05:53:10 [hawke_]
- Enthusiastic application of soundtrack style.
- 05:53:16 [hawke_]
- Not sure about “ringtone” though
- 05:55:16 [hawke_]
- Gonna vote no on the ringtone ones.
- 06:02:58 [hawke_]
- what the shitting christ? http://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/60ae382a-a1b2-4a5a-9505-fcbacb6def7b/fingerprints
- 06:10:59 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 06:12:30 [Leftmost]
- Oh god. The linked recordings.
- 06:12:40 [Leftmost]
- Most of them have two.
- 06:12:55 [Leftmost]
- It's like someone dumped their entire collection into one recording in picard and submitted.
- 06:13:34 [hawke_]
- That’s kinda what I’m guessing happened
- 06:26:19 [hawke_]
- Meh. I find it so hard to positively identify release countries anyway.
- 06:26:41 [luks]
- the ean country code doesn't say much about the release country
- 06:26:50 [hawke_]
- (@ Leftmost’s [off]’d comment, for the log)
- 06:27:10 [luks]
- it's not so uncommon for an UK label to use a UK barcode for their US-specific release
- 06:27:58 [Leftmost]
- Probably a bit more unusual for CBS to do so. Especially since I'm holding the US release in my hands with its nice, neat UPC.
- 06:28:38 [Leftmost]
- It looks like the EAN corresponds to a later Sony re-release anyhow.
- 06:28:47 [Leftmost]
- I can't really find anything to confirm, though.
- 06:33:55 [warp]
- goodmorning!
- 06:35:22 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 06:38:53 [TheLastProject]
- TheLastProject has joined #musicbrainz
- 06:50:25 [derwin]
- hey, luks, is there some way to see my submissions on acoustid.org?
- 06:50:31 [derwin]
- also, "re"
- 06:53:00 [luks]
- derwin: not easily, no
- 06:58:21 [warp]
- * warp pokes hawke_ in an edit note.
- 07:04:01 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 07:12:04 [Leftmost]
- Wow. Legacy International releases must have been done on a shoestring.
- 07:14:50 [Leftmost]
- hawke_, a release at last to question my dedication to crediting as on release.
- 07:15:24 [Leftmost]
- It has no artist credited at all, but a later re-release apparently gives credits.
- 07:18:34 [bandtrace]
- bandtrace has joined #musicbrainz
- 07:25:06 [Freso]
- Freso has joined #musicbrainz
- 07:26:28 [VxJasonxV]
- I'm starting to come to a realization that I'm /too/ much of a perfectionist with my music
- 07:26:34 [VxJasonxV]
- I don't want to put it in my library without tagging it in MBz
- 07:26:40 [ianmcorvidae]
- heh
- 07:26:42 [VxJasonxV]
- but as a DJ, this creates a problem
- 07:26:43 [ianmcorvidae]
- I've been doing that for years
- 07:26:51 [ianmcorvidae]
- but I suppose I'm not a DJ :)
- 07:27:03 [VxJasonxV]
- I don't want to sporge up MBz with junk data just because I have a file from an artist.
- 07:27:12 [Leftmost]
- I never put it in my library without tagging it with picard.
- 07:27:14 [VxJasonxV]
- I know that's the point of unofficial/bootleg/etc., but I hate adding data without proof
- 07:27:26 [VxJasonxV]
- any suggestions?
- 07:27:44 [VxJasonxV]
- my laziness side is taking over, because I have to add the vast majority of releases/singles that I come across.
- 07:27:53 [VxJasonxV]
- just like I had to add all my old Japanese VAs
- 07:28:33 [Freso]
- Anybody want to properly CSG-ify https://musicbrainz.org/release/5dcf3dbe-32b6-4751-b824-45d3194e9b5c ?
- 07:29:29 [Freso]
- VxJasonxV: Scan or take pictures of the things you add. Do it right and you can up to CAA and there's your proof *and* you improve the CAA.
- 07:29:39 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 07:37:20 [VxJasonxV]
- 100% digital
- 07:37:25 [VxJasonxV]
- and cover art is so often never part of it
- 07:37:50 [VxJasonxV]
- I'm talking like straight from an artist: "Hey guys, check out my song!" Artist - Title (MASTER).WAV
- 07:37:55 [VxJasonxV]
- and how all the links go to mediafire
- 07:37:58 [VxJasonxV]
- y'know
- 07:38:01 [Leftmost]
- Standalone recordings.
- 07:41:04 [Leftmost]
- Ugh. I can't find any proper evidence of the reissues of this release which DO credit artists.
- 07:41:16 [Leftmost]
- Beyond a cover and some Amazon tracklistings.
- 07:53:41 [gmk1]
- gmk1 has joined #musicbrainz
- 07:57:34 [ianmcorvidae]
- Leftmost: listening to that umedo ando music now, good stuff :)
- 07:57:46 [ianmcorvidae]
- Leftmost: as I recall you were the one who pointed me at that
- 07:59:32 [Leftmost]
- Yep.
- 07:59:38 [Leftmost]
- Glad you like it. I think it's pretty cool.
- 08:04:14 [Leftmost]
- Could I get votes on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/21447644 please?
- 08:25:53 [UmkaDK]
- UmkaDK has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:26:04 [UmkaDK]
- Hi everyone! :)
- 08:30:40 [UmkaDK]
- People, has anyone heard anything about the work on adding GPG signatures to the replication changelogs??
- 08:31:14 [ianmcorvidae]
- it was mostly done... more than a year ago, I think, but it hasn't actually happened because the person working on it hasn't been around
- 08:32:29 [ianmcorvidae]
- at least as I recall
- 08:32:52 [ianmcorvidae]
- http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBH-153 is the ticket for that
- 08:33:16 [UmkaDK]
- ianmcorvidae: Thanks! That's kind off good new and bad news at the same time...
- 08:33:39 [UmkaDK]
- ianmcorvidae: give me two secs, I'll look through the ticket
- 08:33:56 [ianmcorvidae]
- no updates to it in more than a year :/
- 08:37:19 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:37:50 [ianmcorvidae]
- years old but https://github.com/metabrainz/musicbrainz-server/compare/6a00461...mbh-153 is the server-side parts (undoubtedly out of date, but seems fairly straightforward, I guess)
- 08:38:39 [ianmcorvidae]
- https://github.com/pecastro/musicbrainz-server/commit/f68c7575192a348dcdc386404b7e56b5084a49ea is more complex but is the other end
- 08:39:06 [ianmcorvidae]
- anyway, the status is those patches need to be updated, tested, and reviewed :)
- 08:39:55 [UmkaDK]
- Hmmm ... yee, It looks like it's been a while since anyone touched it.
- 08:40:50 [UmkaDK]
- Do you think anyone is still working on it? (or is likely to?)
- 08:41:20 [ianmcorvidae]
- I don't know of anyone working on it, no, both the people who worked on those patches haven't been around MB in recent years
- 08:41:58 [ianmcorvidae]
- if it's something you want, what would be best is for you to work on it, of course :)
- 08:42:23 [UmkaDK]
- Lol!! :) Of course!!
- 08:42:35 [jesus2099]
- jesus2099 has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:42:50 [jesus2099]
- MutantPlatypus: http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2013/2013-03/2013-03-19.html#T20-08-26-691041 « Is there a script to add the same note to a bunch of edits at once? I search userscripts but didn't find one... :( »
- 08:43:33 [jesus2099]
- It’s called ELEPHANT EDITOR (I don’t like the name any more, Freso(?) suggested NEVAH FORGIT, I like it more) http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/94629
- 08:43:56 [UmkaDK]
- I guess I could have a look at updating the patches and bringing them into the latest distribution. But it will largely depend on my employer.
- 08:44:53 [ianmcorvidae]
- UmkaDK: the other thing I'd recommend is at least voicing your (or your employer's, if that's the case) desire for it to be fixed, on the ticket
- 08:45:20 [UmkaDK]
- ... if they give me the time to work on it then sure thing, if not then I might ask them to make a follow up request!
- 08:45:26 [ianmcorvidae]
- the main reason nobody's worked on it is that it was something that the BBC wanted -- and two of their people were working on it, but it didn't finish up and apparently they haven't done it again :)
- 08:45:36 [jesus2099]
- is MutantPlatypus here ? ELEPHANT EDITOR has 10 last edit notes memory and auto-paste handy for edit batches on the same stuff
- 08:45:58 [UmkaDK]
- ianmcorvidae: they still want it ;)
- 08:46:42 [ianmcorvidae]
- UmkaDK: ah, is that who you're with? you could, I suppose, go find Dave and/or Paolo and ask them about their bits of the patch, if so :)
- 08:47:35 [ianmcorvidae]
- (probably pecastro especially, I think dave's bit is mostly dealt with and just needs updating)
- 08:48:10 [jesus2099]
- wow it was Freso indeed, I should consult yo ueach time I want a userjs name ! REVEAL SEKRIT PERSON was sounding awesome as well !
- 08:48:15 [UmkaDK]
- ianmcorvidae: Thanks man!! I'll try to do just that! I'll also update the ticket so it doesn't look abandoned.
- 08:49:50 [jesus2099]
- * jesus2099 is waiting for his first Blu-spec CD2 !
- 08:53:23 [luks]
- it's just a regular CD with different manufacturing process, isn't it?
- 08:54:15 [luks]
- I don't think that should be considered a separate medium format
- 08:55:01 [luks]
- it's more of an attribute, like the material used to make a record
- 08:56:39 [reosarevok]
- reosarevok has joined #musicbrainz
- 08:57:07 [luks]
- * luks wonders why labels don't just sell nicely packaged flash cards at this point
- 08:58:51 [luks]
- heh "Fully compatible with standard CD players, Blu-spec CD2 completely alters the experience of music."
- 08:59:13 [ianmcorvidae]
- heh
- 08:59:22 [ianmcorvidae]
- one side or the other of this sentence is unclear on some concepts
- 08:59:50 [Leftmost]
- It could be Red Book compatible with additional data added somehow.
- 09:00:00 [luks]
- it's just "cleaner"
- 09:00:07 [jesus2099]
- luks: sounds so cool, indeed ! :)
- 09:00:07 [Leftmost]
- Though likely it's snake oil.
- 09:00:10 [luks]
- http://www.blu-speccd2.jp/img/caption2_table1.png
- 09:01:10 [jesus2099]
- we do have HQCD or HDCD already… missing Blu-spec CD, Blu-spec CD2, SHM-CD, etc. (added to Hawke’s format wiki page by Rachel-kazeneko and I)
- 09:01:14 [Leftmost]
- Music is certainly a different experience when you pay twice as much for it for no reason.
- 09:01:40 [jesus2099]
- the price does not change, Leftmost :)
- 09:02:43 [luks]
- but you need to buy the albums you already have, because the new forums is better! :)
- 09:02:55 [luks]
- er, *format
- 09:03:00 [Leftmost]
- A different manufacturing process shouldn't be a new medium, really.
- 09:03:01 [jesus2099]
- ha I wouldn’t do that of course, it’s for a new one in my case
- 09:03:18 [jesus2099]
- Leftmost: it should because it provides new power sensations
- 09:04:29 [luks]
- it's kind of sad that there is technology to sell completely lossless music, even to play it, but companies are still thinking of new lossy formats
- 09:05:19 [jesus2099]
- hey what.
- 09:05:24 [jesus2099]
- it’s a CD, it’s lossless
- 09:05:37 [luks]
- no, it's not, different CD drivers will give you different output
- 09:05:37 [jesus2099]
- * jesus2099 would never buy lossy compression
- 09:05:51 [ianmcorvidae]
- it's better than an mp3, but CDs are not lossless :P
- 09:05:56 [luks]
- if it was lossless, you wouldn't need Blu-spec CD2
- 09:05:57 [jesus2099]
- erh
- 09:06:04 [jesus2099]
- digitalisation, ok
- 09:06:11 [jesus2099]
- but then every format is lossy
- 09:06:20 [jesus2099]
- because of the wires in the recording studio etc.
- 09:06:40 [luks]
- well, yes, but there are some standards of what is considered high quality audio
- 09:06:45 [jesus2099]
- CD is lossless
- 09:06:54 [jesus2099]
- raw
- 09:07:10 [luks]
- if you get different audio at different times, it's not lossless
- 09:07:21 [jesus2099]
- I don’t want to change my HIFI so I’m happy with them not inventing new medium yet
- 09:07:33 [jesus2099]
- how I get different audio at different time ?
- 09:07:51 [luks]
- the only point of Blu-spec CD2 is that it's easier for CD drivers to read the audio
- 09:07:56 [luks]
- so you get less errors
- 09:08:27 [luks]
- with regular CDs, you get a lot of errors and have to parts of the CD multiple times to get the right output
- 09:08:36 [jesus2099]
- cool, anyway I just don’t really care, if it had been a normal CD I would have still bought this one :)
- 09:08:53 [jesus2099]
- so isn’t it cool BSCD2, luks according to what you say ?
- 09:09:10 [jesus2099]
- wow their acronym also sounds like BULLSHIT CD2
- 09:09:21 [luks]
- maybe, I don't remember when was the last time I used a CD, so it doesn't affect me :)
- 09:09:27 [warp]
- jesus2099 :)
- 09:09:27 [jesus2099]
- despite the name, having less error sounds cool ;)
- 09:10:21 [jesus2099]
- luks: maybe the errors are when you driver is too sensible that makes it jumps sometimes… when you hit your HIFI furniture, etc.
- 09:10:24 [ianmcorvidae]
- I've used them as a medium to rip once :P
- 09:10:59 [Cook879]
- Cook879 has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:11:08 [jesus2099]
- BSCD2 ? it’s brand nexw
- 09:17:42 [Leftmost]
- Both of the libraries near me have copies of Jesus Christ Superstar, both are the same release, neither of them plays. The universe must hate me.
- 09:17:54 [reosarevok]
- Yes
- 09:18:06 [reosarevok]
- For wanting to listen to musicals
- 09:18:21 [Leftmost]
- But it's Jesus Christ Superstar! It's great!
- 09:19:38 [reosarevok]
- Meh
- 09:21:10 [jesus2099_]
- jesus2099_ has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:21:29 [jesus2099_]
- Leftmost: maybe it’s a CCCD (copy control cd) or something like that !
- 09:21:43 [Leftmost]
- Nope, just scratched to hell.
- 09:22:21 [Leftmost]
- One of them has visible holes through it.
- 09:22:30 [Leftmost]
- Or at least visible holes in the data layer.
- 09:22:34 [reosarevok]
- Ouch
- 09:22:51 [reosarevok]
- And they still offer it?
- 09:22:58 [reosarevok]
- Naisss
- 09:22:59 [Leftmost]
- Don't think anyone had reported it.
- 09:23:16 [Leftmost]
- It's my impression that people get a CD that doesn't work, they just return it and move on.
- 09:26:47 [reosarevok]
- :(
- 09:27:53 [hanno]
- hanno has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:28:49 [peaveyman]
- peaveyman has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:29:56 [Leftmost]
- Leftmost has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:29:56 [Leftmost]
- Leftmost has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:34:00 [Leftmost]
- Is it wrong that I feel a slight rush of excitement thinking about buying a copy of a CD because I might get a release I haven't seen before?
- 09:42:33 [Cook879]
- Cook879 has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:44:45 [reosarevok]
- YES
- 09:44:48 [reosarevok]
- Maybe? Dunno
- 09:45:42 [reosarevok]
- Only if you can't afford it :p
- 09:52:57 [v6lur]
- v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
- 09:53:55 [Leftmost]
- I can't afford all the albums I want, but the ones I do afford...
- 10:01:53 [drsaunders]
- drsaunders has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:07:48 [djpretzel]
- djpretzel has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:20:14 [Freso]
- jesus2099: :)
- 10:21:47 [Freso]
- UmkaDK: You're with the BBC?
- 10:21:57 [Leftmost]
- Pre-existing opera releases are a pain to edit.
- 10:22:53 [Leftmost]
- New ones are too, but old ones especially so.
- 10:22:53 [reosarevok]
- Leftmost: s/Pre-existing//
- 10:22:57 [reosarevok]
- Oh, ok
- 10:23:22 [Freso]
- Anybody want to properly CSG-ify https://musicbrainz.org/release/5dcf3dbe-32b6-4751-b824-45d3194e9b5c ?
- 10:23:23 [jesus2099]
- jesus2099 has joined #musicbrainz
- 10:23:31 [jesus2099]
- MutantPlatypus:
- 10:23:33 [jesus2099]
- woops
- 10:23:51 [Leftmost]
- Freso, I'll volunteer.
- 10:23:55 [jesus2099]
- hawke_: I released your rec.merges (I have no time to check booklet before 1 day, when the oldest pass)
- 10:24:34 [Leftmost]
- Let me finish up this release of Le nozze di Figaro.
- 10:25:13 [Freso]
- Leftmost: \o/
- 10:26:58 [Leftmost]
- Oh god, did I just volunteer to edit recording artists?
- 10:27:22 [ianmcorvidae]
- write a userscript for it and help everyone out :P
- 10:27:50 [Leftmost]
- It'd take one hell of a userscript.
- 10:28:08 [ianmcorvidae]
- go look at some of bitmap's? :P
- 10:28:37 [Leftmost]
- It'd require Ajax calls to the web service, most likely. :-P
- 10:28:49 [ianmcorvidae]
- his scripts do a lot of that :P
- 10:28:58 [Leftmost]
- Make him do it then. :-P
- 10:29:15 [ianmcorvidae]
- psh, I want him adding more relationship editor features
- 10:29:21 [ianmcorvidae]
- or fixing the release editor
- 10:29:24 [ianmcorvidae]
- or any of our other forms :P
- 10:32:10 [Leftmost]
- ...or making a mass recording editor!
- 11:11:47 [Leftmost]
- Does MB do sponsorships for time travel?
- 11:13:22 [voiceinsideyou]
- voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
- 11:14:09 [Jozo]
- Jozo has joined #musicbrainz
- 11:41:21 [Freso]
- I don't we have the funds.
- 11:44:23 [Leftmost]
- On a similarly fantastic note, I think people should start giving MeB endowments of large music collections.
- 11:44:51 [Leftmost]
- We can properly enter the data and come back to it in future if guidelines or understandings or legalities change.
- 11:45:16 [Freso]
- I think the music collections should be given to the IA...
- 11:45:27 [Freso]
- Which could then let MeB poke at their collections.
- 11:45:46 [Leftmost]
- Fair enough, as long as at least well-respected editors are still given access.
- 11:46:12 [ianmcorvidae]
- it'd need to reside somewhere physically anyway
- 11:46:15 [ianmcorvidae]
- presumably?
- 11:46:28 [ianmcorvidae]
- if that's going to happen, the IA is probably the only option
- 11:46:30 [Leftmost]
- Yes. I was hoping for an endowment also of a large building for that purpose.
- 11:46:35 [ianmcorvidae]
- haha
- 11:46:58 [Leftmost]
- I should donate my music collection to IA when I die.
- 11:47:47 [Leftmost]
- Or just to nikki and reosarevok.
- 12:11:27 [Mineo]
- or you could find a way to live forever
- 12:14:37 [Leftmost]
- Why would I want that?
- 12:16:51 [Freso]
- So you could ADD ALL THEW MUSIC! to MB, even in the future.
- 12:16:56 [Freso]
- *THE
- 12:20:22 [Leftmost]
- It'd take me eternity just to get all the data we have now in shape. :-P
- 12:20:44 [Leftmost]
- Okay, there are some seriously, seriously mangled opera releases in the database.
- 12:20:46 [Freso]
- See? Already one reason for living forever.
- 12:20:58 [Freso]
- Leftmost: Did you look at the Mozart Effect one yet?
- 12:22:08 [Leftmost]
- Not yet, though it mostly seems straightforward apart from editing recording artists.
- 12:23:24 [Leftmost]
- http://musicbrainz.org/release/bdc3f18e-1ece-4293-80cc-dc7f2e0e72bf started out okay, then was "standardized" to be completely and utterly wrong.
- 12:25:47 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 12:29:29 [Manu404]
- Manu404 has joined #musicbrainz
- 12:30:49 [Manu404]
- Hi guys ! I come from the documentation and i'm looking after the full xml schema definition to consume the webservice. Is there any kind of wsdl exposed ?
- 12:31:02 [nikki]
- wsdl?
- 12:32:03 [Manu404]
- XML definition of the webservice (wsdl is the basic mechanism in SOA to describe webservice to the world, WebService Description Language)
- 12:32:10 [nikki]
- maybe http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/browser/mmd-schema/trunk/schema/musicbrainz_mmd-2.0.rng is what you want?
- 12:32:58 [Leftmost]
- Freso, guessing you don't have a higher res picture of the back.
- 12:33:09 [Freso]
- Leftmost: Unfortunately not.
- 12:33:13 [UmkaDK_]
- UmkaDK_ has joined #musicbrainz
- 12:33:37 [Freso]
- But I still have the library copy of the release, if there's anything you can't read.
- 12:33:52 [Manu404]
- Hey thank's nikki , not a compliant WSDL but this file can do the job too ! Really thank you for your help, hope I haven't ask a stupid question or miss something in the wiki ^^
- 12:33:59 [Freso]
- All ARs that can be deduced from the cover have already been added though.
- 12:34:37 [Leftmost]
- Just wondering if there are periods in the catalog numbers and whether the various rondos have colons after them.
- 12:35:20 [Freso]
- "K.527"
- 12:35:34 [Leftmost]
- That way for all of them?
- 12:36:01 [UmkaDK_]
- Freso: Sorry, only just saw your message... Nope, I'm with Kite but we've taken over the MusicBrainz build for the BBC.
- 12:36:17 [Freso]
- 2 doesn't have a colon, 6 does, 7 doesn't, 10 "Rondo à la Turk", 11 does.
- 12:36:23 [Freso]
- Leftmost: Yeah.
- 12:39:37 [Leftmost]
- Freso, don't know if you're aware of https://musicbrainz.org/release/88e01806-9114-4906-b159-b6e905d03d28 or know whether it should be merged.
- 12:42:21 [Leftmost]
- Freso, does https://musicbrainz.org/edit/21450011 look right, based on the tracklist?
- 12:46:02 [Freso]
- Leftmost: I'm aware of it (I placed "my" release in its release group and reused its recordings after all), and it shouldn't be merged - check the labels.
- 12:46:50 [Freso]
- Leftmost: Oh... it should be as on the cover?
- 12:47:08 [Leftmost]
- New CSG doesn't specify anything about formatting tracks, which seems far more sensible to me.
- 12:47:21 [Freso]
- Oh. Okay.
- 12:47:28 [Freso]
- Then I could've done it myself. :x
- 12:47:41 [Freso]
- The "From"'s shouldn't be lowercased?
- 12:47:52 [reosarevok]
- Theoretically, no
- 12:47:53 [Leftmost]
- I don't know of any guideline that says they should, so I didn't.
- 12:48:18 [reosarevok]
- I generally lowercase them because I don't consider them parts of the title
- 12:48:45 [Freso]
- The cover has them lowercased, Leftmost... :p
- 12:48:46 [Leftmost]
- The recording artists still need to be edited, which I can do, though I don't know if the name edits will conflict.
- 12:48:57 [reosarevok]
- Yes
- 12:49:02 [reosarevok]
- Well
- 12:49:02 [Leftmost]
- Freso, English capitalization guidelines say capitalize every damn thing. :-P
- 12:49:05 [reosarevok]
- Maybe not actually?
- 12:49:10 [reosarevok]
- Leftmost: guidelines for titles
- 12:49:19 [reosarevok]
- Arguably, there are two titles in there, joined by a "from"
- 12:49:20 [Freso]
- I just approved the edit.
- 12:49:42 [reosarevok]
- (arguably there's only one, too - I just like it more without the cap :p)
- 12:49:46 [Leftmost]
- Freso, can you approve the recording edits or make someone tell me that they're wrong?
- 12:49:56 [Freso]
- Leftmost: They're wrong!
- 12:50:04 [Freso]
- Oh, sorry.
- 12:50:11 [Freso]
- Someone tell Leftmost they're wrong.
- 12:50:21 [Leftmost]
- I said have someone do it because you're completely untrustworthy.
- 12:50:33 [Freso]
- >_>
- 12:50:38 [Freso]
- Slander!
- 12:50:41 [Leftmost]
- Everyone else is just suspicious.
- 12:50:43 [Leftmost]
- Libel, really.
- 12:50:50 [Freso]
- Psh.
- 12:51:02 [Leftmost]
- I am not a slanderer.
- 12:51:05 [Freso]
- Statistics!
- 12:51:06 [Leftmost]
- I am a printer of libels.
- 12:52:13 [Freso]
- * Freso is gonne go lowercase the from's.
- 12:52:22 [Leftmost]
- You do that.
- 12:52:28 [Jozo]
- http://musicbrainz.org/release/1104257e-3260-4c74-a3af-bc6fc6117a16 http://www.discogs.com/release/3932449 ... grih .. "Edit relationships" align same way as discogs.. Looks ugly :/
- 12:54:20 [Leftmost]
- Ahh, search. Its best guess for "The Skurfs" (a local surf rock band) is Johannes Brahms.
- 12:54:42 [jesus2099]
- jesus2099 has joined #musicbrainz
- 12:54:48 [Freso]
- Sounds legit.
- 12:54:49 [jesus2099]
- Freso: what’s MeB ?
- 12:55:00 [Leftmost]
- MetaBrainz
- 12:55:00 [jesus2099]
- nikki: funny side effect of hide artist name if same same : http://musicbrainz.org/artist/4a599679-8463-4587-839b-c87a4765f03b/open_edits :)
- 12:55:00 [Freso]
- jesus2099: MetaBrainz
- 12:55:08 [jesus2099]
- ah ok :)
- 12:55:27 [reosarevok]
- Leftmost: you mean they're not the same???
- 12:55:43 [Freso]
- "NES" is http://nes.willfixeverything.com/
- 12:55:46 [Leftmost]
- There's an oddly active surf rock scene here...
- 12:56:26 [Leftmost]
- An hour and a half from the closest beach and ten from the closest beach that isn't on a lake.
- 12:56:55 [reosarevok]
- Well, since they can't surf, they have to rock more :p
- 12:57:53 [reosarevok]
- "Achille-Claude Debussy"? Chandos, you're trying too hard
- 12:58:09 [Freso]
- Leftmost: The recordings should be named like the tracks?
- 12:58:26 [reosarevok]
- Freso: nobody knows
- 12:58:36 [reosarevok]
- (there's no recording guideline yet)
- 12:58:44 [Leftmost]
- Freso, that's what I've been doing.
- 12:58:47 [Leftmost]
- the world's penultimate "ski - surf" band makes the world's second "ski - surf" record and claims throne to the "skurf" genre!!!
- 13:00:10 [Leftmost]
- The rarified air at this altitude makes people a little nuts, I think.
- 13:00:21 [reosarevok]
- hah https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/caf0b0cc-744f-4db6-8b81-8abd3808ca43
- 13:00:24 [reosarevok]
- (via nikki)
- 13:00:45 [Leftmost]
- Animated cover art?
- 13:00:53 [nikki]
- it's not the first I've seen
- 13:01:01 [nikki]
- but it's hilarious anyway
- 13:04:58 [Freso]
- Huh. Beta's supporting non-JPEG cover art uploads?
- 13:05:18 [nikki]
- hm
- 13:05:19 [nikki]
- ?
- 13:05:51 [Freso]
- The GIFs.
- 13:06:00 [nikki]
- they're cover art relationships
- 13:06:15 [Freso]
- Oh.
- 13:06:41 [nikki]
- clearly you need to vote for http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5911 :P
- 13:07:49 [Freso]
- I likely already have.
- 13:08:12 [nikki]
- no you haven't :P
- 13:08:16 [Mineo]
- it's likely jira will make that a certain yes or no
- 13:08:25 [Freso]
- I hadn't!
- 13:08:32 [Mineo]
- shame on you!
- 13:09:26 [Leftmost]
- Freso has no shame.
- 13:09:34 [Freso]
- Indeed.
- 13:09:36 [Freso]
- I'm a Dane.
- 13:09:46 [Freso]
- We don't do that whole... "shame" thing.
- 13:10:09 [Leftmost]
- It's true. They invaded Britain for a while, then just up and left after putzing about for a while.
- 13:10:14 [voiceinsideyou]
- voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
- 13:10:35 [Leftmost]
- The heck is that? Who invades, doesn't conquer the peoples already there, then leaves?
- 13:13:17 [nikki]
- danes, apparently
- 13:14:00 [Mineo]
- maybe they don't fully understand how sightseeing works
- 13:14:12 [Leftmost]
- To split or not to split? Opinions solicited: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/5c9b6ea5-8b52-45ef-bedd-a9fd5afff48e
- 13:14:32 [nikki]
- it's kinda depressing that we're adding more releases than we can add cover art for
- 13:14:42 [reosarevok]
- Huh?
- 13:14:46 [reosarevok]
- What you mean?
- 13:14:51 [v6lur]
- v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
- 13:14:58 [nikki]
- the graph of releases without cover art is going up
- 13:15:06 [reosarevok]
- It'd be depressing if we weren't adding releases! :p
- 13:15:15 [nikki]
- which I guess can only mean we're adding releases faster than we're adding any form of cover art :P
- 13:15:19 [reosarevok]
- And not everybody has scanners :p
- 13:15:25 [nikki]
- sooo? that's including amazon!
- 13:15:31 [rjmunro]
- rjmunro has joined #musicbrainz
- 13:15:33 [reosarevok]
- "Recording venue Royal Concert Hall, Glasgow; 10–12 October 2011 and 7–9 February 2012"
- 13:15:36 [reosarevok]
- * reosarevok grumbles
- 13:15:49 [reosarevok]
- Too hard to say what was recorded when :(
- 13:15:58 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: split
- 13:16:22 [Freso]
- Oh, god.
- 13:16:25 [Freso]
- http://satwcomic.com/german-sparkle-party
- 13:16:31 [Freso]
- >_>
- 13:16:39 [Leftmost]
- That's my instinct. I will split.
- 13:19:03 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: I leave without inserting dates in similar situations
- 13:19:25 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: so do I, usually, but it's still annoying
- 13:20:00 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 13:20:34 [Jozo]
- (and I don't trust wikipedia about recording dates in general)
- 13:24:54 [Jozo]
- On pop-music release dates of singles can give something (sometimes ISRC can be pretty good indicate recording year)... Otherwise it's pretty hard finding correct recording date
- 13:30:45 [Jozo]
- Is there somewhere said that you should not vote against if style guide says edit is correct?
- 13:32:53 [warp]
- Jozo: not afaik.
- 13:32:56 [warp]
- Jozo: https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Code_of_Conduct
- 13:33:28 [Jozo]
- warp: I just read it two or three times.. :)
- 13:34:05 [Freso]
- http://satwcomic.com/monster
- 13:36:48 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: they're guidelines, not rules. So, they're generally there for a reason but they don't need to be followed strictly if there's a clear reason not to
- 13:36:57 [Leftmost]
- I tend to not touch people I don't know, save to shake hands. People I don't know very well hugging me is always bizarre.
- 13:37:31 [warp]
- * warp hugs Leftmost
- 13:38:32 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: So it's your personal opinion not to vote.... Other auto-editors seems do same
- 13:39:35 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: so, you can vote against guidelines as long as you give a clear, reasoned indication of why, I'd say
- 13:40:05 [Freso]
- warp: :D
- 13:40:37 [reosarevok]
- heh
- 13:40:39 [reosarevok]
- "In Italy, everybody hug everybody. That's why, when I went to England, people thought that I was creepy :C"
- 13:42:08 [Leftmost]
- Heh, in Ireland practically no one hugs anyone. I lived with a French guy and an Irish guy, and there were a bunch of Italians, French people, Spanish people... the Irish guy was pretty uncomfortable with the cheek-kissing and hugging.
- 13:42:54 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 13:43:32 [Freso]
- Heh.
- 13:43:42 [Freso]
- We don't do the cheek-kissing in Denmark.
- 13:43:54 [Leftmost]
- I didn't live with any Danes, thank god. :-P
- 13:44:09 [Freso]
- But being of Portuguese descend, it was part of my upbringing, so I don't get freaked out by it. :p
- 13:44:14 [Freso]
- *descent ?
- 13:44:16 [Jozo]
- Does anyone know anything about Distribution Codes? http://musicbrainz.org/edit/21358353 reaplied http://musicbrainz.org/edit/21443643 and http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Distribution_Codes
- 13:44:18 [Leftmost]
- There was one Swede in the apartment complex, but he was weird.
- 13:44:43 [Freso]
- No, he was Swedish. No need to use both adjectives.
- 13:44:54 [reosarevok]
- Leftmost: admittedly, cheek-kissing also freaks out Southern men :p
- 13:45:08 [reosarevok]
- (when done to them by another man, that is :p)
- 13:45:10 [Freso]
- Haha. nikki: http://satwcomic.com/worthless
- 13:45:17 [Freso]
- reosarevok: :p
- 13:45:33 [warp]
- all the kissing and hugging of those southern cultures takes some getting used to indeed.
- 13:46:14 [Leftmost]
- Southern meaning Southern Europe?
- 13:46:33 [warp]
- Leftmost: and south america I guess.
- 13:46:50 [Jozo]
- Oh, cheek. http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek =)
- 13:47:14 [Leftmost]
- When I hear "Southern men", I think "men from the (American) South".
- 13:47:26 [Leftmost]
- Cheek-kissing would definitely not go over well there.
- 13:49:28 [nikki]
- Freso: yeah, I saw it :P
- 13:51:50 [Freso]
- nikki: I just recalled our looking at coins in Burger King. :p
- 13:51:56 [nikki]
- :D
- 13:54:51 [Jozo]
- So noone really knows anythig about Distribution Codes? Or can give some link to debate using them on musicbrainz as catalog number?
- 13:54:53 [Leftmost]
- I don't recognize all of these flags. Some of them are weird.
- 13:57:24 [nikki]
- Jozo: looking at a few of mine, I found three with those thingies, all three have F: PM 515 but the UK: bit is totally different each time
- 13:57:29 [Freso]
- Leftmost: What flags?
- 13:58:35 [Leftmost]
- Freso, in the satw comics.
- 13:59:08 [Freso]
- Leftmost: Well, without a specific comic, it's hard to tell you. :)
- 13:59:38 [Leftmost]
- Don't take all of the fun out of it.
- 13:59:46 [Leftmost]
- http://satwcomic.com/moby-is-a-dick <- The left two.
- 14:00:06 [Leftmost]
- Oh, second from left is the Faroe Islands, apparently.
- 14:01:15 [Freso]
- Svalbard, Faroe Isles, Greenland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland
- 14:01:38 [Leftmost]
- Svalbard. That doesn't even sound Nordic.
- 14:01:49 [Freso]
- Huh? It sounds very Nordic.
- 14:02:04 [nikki]
- stupid wikipedia
- 14:02:11 [nikki]
- flag of svalbard redirects to flag of norway
- 14:02:32 [Leftmost]
- Yeah, I can't find any mention of that flag on Wikipedia.
- 14:02:44 [Leftmost]
- Freso, are all Danes gullible? :-P
- 14:02:45 [Freso]
- nikki: Well, Svalbard is a part of Norway. :p
- 14:02:56 [Leftmost]
- The flags of Norway article doesn't show it either, though.
- 14:03:02 [nikki]
- Freso: so the comic is wrong and svalbard doesn't have its own flag? :P
- 14:03:06 [Freso]
- Leftmost: I was told "gullible" wasn't in a dictionary, so I never looked up that word.
- 14:03:11 [Freso]
- nikki: No.
- 14:03:30 [Freso]
- nikki: Just like Bornholm has its own flag, but it's still a part of Denmark.
- 14:03:49 [reosarevok]
- I mean, even cities have their own flags :p
- 14:03:50 [Leftmost]
- Freso, fix Wikipedia, then!
- 14:03:52 [nikki]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Bornholm is not a redirect to flag of denmark :P
- 14:03:59 [Freso]
- Indeed.
- 14:04:03 [Freso]
- Curious.
- 14:04:52 [Leftmost]
- And Bornholm's flag shows up in the Nordic cross flags article.
- 14:05:05 [nikki]
- flag of denmark should redirect to flag of the eu, obviously, since denmark's part of the eu >:P
- 14:05:05 [Leftmost]
- And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flags_of_Denmark
- 14:05:59 [nikki]
- it's not even on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flags_of_Norway :(
- 14:06:06 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: You are from Denmark?
- 14:06:26 [Freso]
- https://duckduckgo.com/?q=svalbard+flag+!gi
- 14:06:34 [Leftmost]
- I am not, no.
- 14:06:46 [xplt]
- xplt has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:07:00 [Freso]
- He's a merikuhn.
- 14:07:27 [Leftmost]
- That is way too many vowels. You've never heard a 'Mer'c'n speak, have you?
- 14:09:10 [xplt]
- Is MusicBrainz for Android dead?
- 14:09:20 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_Islands -- but this one you recognize ;)
- 14:10:02 [reosarevok]
- xplt: shouldn't be
- 14:10:08 [nikki]
- * nikki sorta knew that one
- 14:10:09 [reosarevok]
- Is it?
- 14:10:15 [nikki]
- I've definitely not seen the svalbard one before though
- 14:11:54 [xplt]
- reosarevok: I'm just guessing by viewing amount of open tickets and date of the latest update in the Google Play store *shrug*
- 14:12:14 [reosarevok]
- oh, you mean as in not-being-developed, not as in fully dead?
- 14:12:18 [reosarevok]
- That I don't know
- 14:12:31 [reosarevok]
- Might very well be :7
- 14:12:32 [reosarevok]
- *:/
- 14:13:10 [nikki]
- Jozo: I checked the three I found and all three are in mb with the UK: part as the catno
- 14:13:14 [Jozo]
- Oh, there is two person and three releases from Åland. (I have to add more on someday)
- 14:13:50 [Leftmost]
- I know a lot of weird stuff for a 'Mer'c'n.
- 14:13:58 [Jozo]
- nikki: Is "UK:" part different than assumed catalog number?
- 14:14:05 [nikki]
- hm?
- 14:14:05 [xplt]
- reosarevok: :-/
- 14:14:33 [Jozo]
- nikki: catalog number printed on CD on left/right side.
- 14:15:11 [Jozo]
- nikki: I have many EMI or other major labels European releases... I can compare them someday.
- 14:15:28 [nikki]
- all three have something based on the barcode on the spine. two have the uk part as well, one also has the F: (and also D: ) parts
- 14:15:50 [nikki]
- no, wait, the D: part is not there, it's just a section of the barcode
- 14:15:50 [Jozo]
- We have too many European releases set to released one European country...
- 14:16:12 [Jozo]
- +one
- 14:17:23 [Jozo]
- nikki: I think Distribution Code indicates only countries where release may released.
- 14:18:24 [Jozo]
- I have two Guano Apes different releases in my hand. Both have "F: BM150"
- 14:19:07 [Jozo]
- BM150 is some local BMG company or so... (i think)
- 14:20:16 [v6lur]
- v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:20:17 [Manu404]
- hi guys, got anither little question, what's the difference between the title contained within Recording and the title contained within the release of the release-list ? :/
- 14:20:25 [Manu404]
- another* sorry
- 14:21:23 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:22:10 [Manu404]
- for instance, recording 62f25878-1d05-4316-a52c-a7e34dd09313 have "Min Maskin" as recording title and "Fred" as release title, in the wikipedia discography, only Fred is mentioned, so what is "Min maskin" ? (in that case it appear that it's a song, but why as release title ?)
- 14:24:05 [reosarevok]
- Manu404, Min maskin is the recording (track) and Fred is the release
- 14:26:18 [reosarevok]
- Manu404: each recording can be in one or more releases
- 14:30:17 [Jozo]
- Manus is mentioned often as work publisher on Finnish releases. Is it some local thing or some more international?
- 14:31:42 [Dorky]
- Dorky has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:32:14 [reosarevok]
- No idea
- 14:32:54 [reosarevok]
- I haven't heard of it, but I don't usually check work publisher info
- 14:35:29 [lao_TOPY23]
- lao_TOPY23 has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:37:32 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: http://www.discogs.com/label/Manus+%282%29 "While often credited as a publisher on Finnish releases, it's not an actual publisher. "manus" (from "manuscript", usually in lower case) means that the song doesn't have a publisher. All the rights of these songs belong to the original writers of the song."
- 14:37:38 [Jozo]
- discogs is wonderful
- 14:37:44 [reosarevok]
- heh :)
- 14:38:42 [TheLastProject]
- TheLastProject has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:42:36 [Jozo]
- (I still try figure publishing thing... That manus thing on discogs give more indications that in general sleeve speaks on work publishers... not recording)
- 14:46:41 [Leftmost]
- reosarevok, any suggestions for how to cut down a long list of performers into the important ones for a classical recording?
- 14:50:39 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 14:51:54 [Leftmost]
- Remind me to add CDs from TOC from now on.
- 14:52:55 [reosarevok]
- Leftmost: not really. Is it for opera?
- 14:53:19 [reosarevok]
- (because usually there not every performer appears in every recording anyway which makes it trickier but shorter)
- 14:53:24 [Leftmost]
- No, just a composer-centric release with two full performer listings for each group of tracks.
- 14:53:46 [Leftmost]
- Can I get votes or an approve on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/21451631 so I can add the TOC to the release?
- 14:54:42 [Jozo]
- I have left composers off it list is too long... And performer is on cover Bigger.
- 14:55:24 [Jozo]
- four or five composer is too much to me
- 14:55:39 [Leftmost]
- In this case the composer is the only person on the cover. It's just that there are two sets of performers listed on the back, one seven performers long and the other eleven.
- 14:57:06 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: For long recording credits I have no opinion... see what I have done today http://musicbrainz.org/recording/754c67e7-71f4-4592-a708-97e7aa373bf0
- 14:58:00 [Leftmost]
- Eek.
- 15:00:08 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: one verse (or smaller) sung by one person.
- 15:02:37 [hawke_1]
- hawke_1 has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:04:36 [hawke]
- hawke has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:08:00 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: http://musicbrainz.org/statistics/languages-scripts Estonian is behind Finnish (compared percentage to released and works)... You have to do something ;) I'm happy when Finnish has over 10000 works...
- 15:09:08 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: Well, we're lacking lots of works, certainly. Releases though are trickier, we don't lack *that* many :p
- 15:09:19 [reosarevok]
- I mean, we lack lots of course, but not the easy ones to find, usually :)
- 15:10:55 [Jozo]
- my personal target is get over 10k Finnish works in this year. After 100k I would say majority of Finnish works are listed....
- 15:11:29 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:11:53 [hawke_1]
- Freso: that “Music for the Mozart Effect” one should be OK, if you copied the existing one.
- 15:12:21 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: I’m going to cancel those edits and re-evaluate now that I know some are remasters.
- 15:19:16 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: the other 'music for the mozart effect' is on a different label.
- 15:20:00 [Leftmost]
- I've seen plenty of mis-entered labels and didn't know about the release, hence why I asked.
- 15:22:45 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: All good. I would just have been annoyed if the release I entered was merged into a Danish one. (Not that I’m sure it’s not Danish itself, but…)
- 15:22:45 [jesus2099]
- jesus2099 has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:22:52 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: Looks like you won voting ('cos no-one dare vote)... I still think we have to figure what tracklist really is.
- 15:23:15 [jesus2099]
- hawke: well if I remember, the remasters were already merged into “my” non-remaster recordings (maybe i’m wrong)
- 15:23:48 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: on one of those specific recordings yes, but I don’t want to make the problem worse.
- 15:24:01 [hawke_1]
- I will look at the dates of the releases…ideally we could find the date of the remaster.
- 15:24:04 [jesus2099]
- yes ok, (great news actually) :)
- 15:24:36 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: can you maybe find the ISRCS that are missing?
- 15:24:52 [jesus2099]
- missing from my discs ?
- 15:25:10 [Jozo]
- jesus2099: You've edited Mark Knopfler and you're not auto-editor. Give vote http://musicbrainz.org/edit/21422088
- 15:25:10 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: like GBAYC0000001 which is duplicate…
- 15:25:33 [jesus2099]
- ez
- 15:26:05 [jesus2099]
- jozo what ?
- 15:26:46 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: and GBAYC8701817 as well.
- 15:26:49 [Jozo]
- jesus2099: Is Leftmost's edit correct or am I really lost ;)
- 15:27:46 [jesus2099]
- hawke_1: http://musicbrainz.org/edit/11053798
- 15:27:52 [Leftmost]
- The vote is currently set to fail, so it seems that majority opinion is against me.
- 15:28:02 [jesus2099]
- … is the source
- 15:28:15 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: Oh, yuck
- 15:28:18 [kepstin-work]
- Jozo: leftmost's edit is technically correct according to a literal reading of a guideline that he recently introduced.
- 15:28:35 [jesus2099]
- hawke_1: same here http://www.minc.gr.jp/minc-bin/cat_lst1?CAT1=TOCE&CAT2=55721
- 15:28:37 [jesus2099]
- it’s very rare
- 15:28:51 [kepstin-work]
- Jozo: the people voting no are saying that this is a bit of a special case, and shouldn't follow the literal reading of the rule
- 15:28:57 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: This is why I don’t trust ISRC. :-/
- 15:28:58 [Jozo]
- kepstin-work: 15:30:45 < Jozo> Is there somewhere said that you should not vote against if style guide says edit is correct?
- 15:29:23 [Leftmost]
- Jozo, why is this a big deal? The votes are already against me, so why are you concerned about people not voting?
- 15:29:47 [jesus2099]
- hawke_1: I said very rare
- 15:29:55 [jesus2099]
- but acoustid , track times mistakes are far from rare :
- 15:29:56 [jesus2099]
- :)
- 15:30:04 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: Because it has a big impact on what I think and what edits I make
- 15:30:05 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: That is true, but they are easy to see at least! :-D
- 15:30:31 [kepstin-work]
- stupid musicbrainz server not letting me subscribe to comments on an edit without voting or commenting
- 15:30:35 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: the discussion can be important, I don’t think the votes are.
- 15:30:41 [jesus2099]
- Jozo: leftmost: I don’t relaly understand the edit but according to the release there are Mark Knopfler tracks and Dire Straits tracks…
- 15:30:51 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: If I follow guide literally I have correct many releases...
- 15:31:09 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: you can abstain to subscribe still.
- 15:31:19 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: or do you not want to abstain even?
- 15:31:20 [kepstin-work]
- hawke_1: I thought that was disabled
- 15:31:30 [Leftmost]
- hawke_1, sure, but it seems like the issue at hand is votes, not discussion.
- 15:31:30 [kepstin-work]
- in a recent server update
- 15:32:05 [jesus2099]
- even if the back cover is not complete about that… I think we should take info from booklet in such situations (but was already blocked from doing so btw) http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/87/40/59bcc0a398a0c35fc4461210.L.jpg // http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/bc/86/d67eb220dca08c6ab7838010.L.jpg
- 15:32:11 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: I thought they decided to keep it as it was for now because of jesus2099 and my outcry…
- 15:32:30 [Leftmost]
- jesus2099, the booklet says literally nothing about who performed what.
- 15:32:35 [kepstin-work]
- hawke_1: well, I know for sure that commenting will subscribe me :)
- 15:32:45 [jesus2099]
- yes but now it’s true that I’m ok with removing this subscription on abstain, more than OK actually
- 15:32:52 [kepstin-work]
- Leftmost: so, in that case we use other sources that provide that information
- 15:32:58 [jesus2099]
- kepstin-work: really ?
- 15:32:59 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: I like to know what people think this particular case... That why I recommend to vote
- 15:33:05 [jesus2099]
- commenting subscribes ?
- 15:33:22 [Leftmost]
- kepstin-work, I understand that's what people want to do. I'm not arguing the point any further. I'm responding to jesus's suggestion to use the booklet.
- 15:33:27 [kepstin-work]
- jesus2099: yes, commenting on an edit will cause to to receive futher emails for that edit.
- 15:34:02 [Leftmost]
- I have literally zero interest in pursuing the edit, or really the discussion, any further. I understand the objections and what people are suggesting. I think it's incorrect, but I understand.
- 15:34:31 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: I would be more behind it if we had the option to tag/view the recording artists in place of track artists.
- 15:34:47 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: It would actually be pretty interesting to be able to do that.
- 15:34:52 [jesus2099]
- hawke_1: foo_mlusicbrainz does that (but it’s a bug) :)
- 15:35:13 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: didn’t beets have a similar bug?
- 15:35:14 [Leftmost]
- As far as tagging, picard could be made to do it, I believe. I haven't recommended that because I think it could cause other problems and it doesn't seem to be what people usually want.
- 15:35:28 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: Picard could definitely be made to do it, there was a beta which did.
- 15:35:31 [jesus2099]
- hawke_1: I don’t know beets :)
- 15:35:36 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: (optionally)
- 15:35:37 [Leftmost]
- I mean by means of scripting.
- 15:35:47 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: oh, that I don’t know about.
- 15:35:53 [jesus2099]
- this feature if any should always be a setting
- 15:36:01 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: 100% agreed.
- 15:36:20 [jesus2099]
- cool, yay :)
- 15:38:12 [Leftmost]
- At this point, I'm just tired of the discussion. I know people object, and they're free to show that with their votes or discuss it in the edit, but I'm stepping out of it. I have no doubt the edits will be voted down, I understand why they will be, I disagree, that's it.
- 15:45:29 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: I understand you, but I think we need another abstraction level for doing what you want... Or we have define that tracklist is something that release really says (without any corrections)
- 15:46:02 [nikki]
- kepstin-work: abstaining still works, unless you're one of the handful of editors explicitly excluded in the code :P
- 15:46:06 [HSOWA]
- [03:16] hawke_reosarevok: I wouldn’t mind “created art used on” or something like that.
- 15:46:07 [HSOWA]
- +
- 15:46:26 [kepstin-work]
- nikki: ah, so it's magic now? :/
- 15:46:44 [kepstin-work]
- * kepstin-work dislikes magic.
- 15:46:49 [nikki]
- not really
- 15:47:32 [kepstin-work]
- where "magic" means "operates according to rules that are difficult to determine via external observation"
- 15:47:37 [HSOWA]
- jesus script
- 15:47:52 [HSOWA]
- the scripts that make you go "jesus!!"
- 15:47:54 [nikki]
- kepstin-work: but you have no access to anyone else's email, so you don't know whether or not they're receiving emails
- 15:49:00 [kepstin-work]
- true; I also haven't abstained on any edits since that change went into the server, so I didn't know that it was reverted.
- 15:49:29 [nikki]
- I mean, there's nothing stopping someone from changing their preferences to never receive emails for votes
- 15:49:37 [nikki]
- of course, that's not very useful :/
- 15:54:38 [HSOWA]
- up and left after putzing about for a while.
- 15:54:47 [HSOWA]
- hey no the norwegians did it first but was fought back
- 15:54:55 [HSOWA]
- oh wait maybe the danes did too? idk
- 15:54:57 [HSOWA]
- nevermind
- 15:56:03 [HSOWA]
- oh man freso jsut discovered satw?
- 15:56:04 [HSOWA]
- lol
- 15:56:42 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:57:00 [HSOWA]
- [14:44] LeftmostThere was one Swede in the apartment complex, but he was weird.
- 15:57:01 [HSOWA]
- [14:44] FresoNo, he was Swedish. No need to use both adjectives.
- 15:57:04 [HSOWA]
- XD
- 15:58:00 [HSOWA]
- [15:02] Fresonikki: Well, Svalbard is a part of Norway. :p
- 15:58:10 [HSOWA]
- yes and it's actually called Spitsbergen
- 15:58:18 [voiceinsideyou]
- voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
- 15:58:22 [nikki]
- aww
- 15:58:28 [nikki]
- svalbard sounds more dramatic
- 15:59:12 [Leftmost]
- Much moreso.
- 15:59:30 [Leftmost]
- I imagine giant bears and people with beards when I hear Svalbard.
- 15:59:32 [HSOWA]
- silly
- 15:59:36 [HSOWA]
- now i am where yo uare
- 15:59:36 [nikki]
- Leftmost: yeah!
- 15:59:41 [HSOWA]
- hello for mthe past schollback
- 15:59:53 [Jozo]
- Leftmost: http://musicbrainz.org/release/ff2281a4-c60c-4859-931e-d397456e9eef ... can i introduce another release. It's live consert from church. Front says all participants and back cover only defines what they do. I listed all tracks and add correction performance relations and changed to track/recordind artist according... What you think?
- 16:00:09 [HSOWA]
- there are no polarbears on spitsbergen!
- 16:00:11 [HSOWA]
- i think...
- 16:00:18 [Leftmost]
- HSOWA, that's not dramatic at all!
- 16:00:27 [nikki]
- false advertising :(
- 16:00:32 [HSOWA]
- puh
- 16:00:55 [Jozo]
- (and some others may comment is this classical release or not :)
- 16:01:26 [jesus2099]
- jesus2099 has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:01:28 [Leftmost]
- Jozo, I may have to discuss it later. I'm not really in the appropriate headspace to deal with it right now.
- 16:01:35 [reosarevok]
- HSOWA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Svalbard_polar_bear_attack
- 16:01:52 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: there are a few others like this — can you make a wiki page maybe, and we can see how they all look?
- 16:02:03 [jesus2099]
- kepstin-work: oh you’re right, it’s a setting ! ☑ When I add a note to an edit, mail me all future notes for that edit.
- 16:02:12 [Leftmost]
- See, that's what I want to think when I think about Svalbard.
- 16:02:15 [Leftmost]
- Crazed polar bears.
- 16:02:22 [HSOWA]
- reosarevok: well i've never been there :D
- 16:02:24 [reosarevok]
- Leftmost: starving, crazed polar bears
- 16:02:34 [jesus2099]
- nikki: well isn’t the siomplest stuff to content everyone would be : ☐☑ When I abstain on an edit, mail me all future notes for that edit.
- 16:02:37 [HSOWA]
- also yea polar bears are insane they will attack witotuh provocation so stay away
- 16:03:00 [Leftmost]
- Also, Tromsø has a master's program I periodically consider applying to...
- 16:03:13 [jesus2099]
- HSOWA: I KNOW YOU YOU ARE !
- 16:03:17 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: There is lot of... I just give one (very rare) release... I don't want it to listed any wiki :)
- 16:03:18 [jesus2099]
- (nowà
- 16:03:20 [jesus2099]
- (now)
- 16:03:30 [reosarevok]
- jesus2099: yes! A POLAR BEAR!
- 16:03:41 [reosarevok]
- (was that it)
- 16:03:44 [jesus2099]
- more like polar cat
- 16:03:51 [nikki]
- jesus2099: send us a patch if it's that simple to implement :P
- 16:03:54 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: I would say it is, but maybe see what ListMyCDs thinks of it too :)
- 16:04:18 [jesus2099]
- i did not say simple to milpement, i said simple simple
- 16:04:31 [jesus2099]
- isn’t it like the other two options ?
- 16:04:31 [Leftmost]
- I discovered that the university library here has a bunch of Sibelius.
- 16:04:35 [Leftmost]
- I'm going to have to enter it all.
- 16:04:38 [nikki]
- jesus2099: well then you're talking to the wrong person. I'm not against an option
- 16:04:44 [reosarevok]
- Oh, a good ol' SMOP
- 16:04:44 [jesus2099]
- nikki: I mean isn’t it as simple as the two other options ?
- 16:04:48 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: I just wish for a way to handle them consistently: take a look at http://musicbrainz.org/release/0583d6b5-56bc-463c-8773-ba094378eb1b
- 16:04:56 [reosarevok]
- jesus2099: we like options. Developers don't like options :p
- 16:05:00 [HSOWA]
- option \o/
- 16:05:10 [jesus2099]
- nikki: i’m not stalking, i just saw those options they seem quite alike
- 16:05:14 [HSOWA]
- jesus2099: was it not obvius fro mthe start :DDDD
- 16:05:15 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: review other Raimo Luokomaa / Hämeenlinnan Mieskuoro releases too... (Raimo Luokomaa was opera singer on past..)
- 16:05:17 [jesus2099]
- alike what we wanted
- 16:05:36 [HSOWA]
- :O holiczarp beta https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/caf0b0cc-744f-4db6-8b81-8abd3808ca43
- 16:05:36 [jesus2099]
- HSOWA: no, i had to whois yuou
- 16:05:41 [HSOWA]
- :O
- 16:05:49 [HSOWA]
- Y U NO NOW ME
- 16:06:09 [Leftmost]
- Anyone mind voting http://musicbrainz.org/edit/21451631 so I can add the disc ID? I can give links to the newspaper article that gives the title if desired.
- 16:06:35 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: I personally know Raimo... I can ask her opinion too.. =)
- 16:06:47 [nikki]
- HSOWA: that release is the same on the main server too, it's just that I'm on beta by default :P
- 16:07:00 [HSOWA]
- * HSOWA seesm moving gif on beta
- 16:07:05 [HSOWA]
- that wont work on main will it?
- 16:07:22 [jesus2099]
- does
- 16:07:24 [reosarevok]
- HSOWA: it will, it's an URL
- 16:07:28 [reosarevok]
- (not CAA)
- 16:07:31 [HSOWA]
- o_O
- 16:07:38 [HSOWA]
- thats insane
- 16:07:43 [HSOWA]
- but how can an url be.. oh yea
- 16:07:46 [HSOWA]
- but yea
- 16:07:52 [HSOWA]
- shoudl alow in the CAA gif
- 16:07:55 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: why is it not a different release from the 8 track version?
- 16:08:09 [Leftmost]
- hawke_1, there's no eight-track CD version.
- 16:08:11 [reosarevok]
- HSOWA: we will. Maybe in May? Maybe later'
- 16:08:15 [reosarevok]
- But we will :)
- 16:08:16 [HSOWA]
- \o/
- 16:08:19 [HSOWA]
- may is warm
- 16:08:27 [Leftmost]
- The case only lists eight tracks, but there are nine on the CD.
- 16:08:27 [HSOWA]
- i hopw for a 17 may release day
- 16:08:29 [hawke_1]
- ah, the 8 track one is digital only, and there is a 'CD bonus track'?
- 16:08:33 [Leftmost]
- Yeah.
- 16:08:34 [HSOWA]
- that'd be cool
- 16:08:36 [hawke_1]
- heh
- 16:08:49 [Leftmost]
- That's what I get from entering from tracklist instead of TOC.
- 16:08:51 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: 'CD Bonus track' lives on into the digital age. :-D
- 16:09:00 [HSOWA]
- hawke: of course
- 16:09:01 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: or does the digital one have 9 too?
- 16:09:05 [jesus2099]
- * jesus2099 prefers bonus trucks
- 16:09:06 [Leftmost]
- Digital has 8.
- 16:09:15 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: digital has 9
- 16:09:25 [jesus2099]
- * jesus2099 but not like digital downloard music
- 16:09:25 [Leftmost]
- It does? Lor', I'm losing it.
- 16:09:28 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: “Immediate download of 9-track album”
- 16:09:30 [jesus2099]
- downlord
- 16:09:40 [hawke_1]
- they must have a hidden track there.
- 16:09:41 [nikki]
- HSOWA: it seems you also need to vote for http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-5911 ;)
- 16:09:50 [hawke_1]
- Gotta watch out for those on bandcamp…so subtle :-/
- 16:09:59 [Leftmost]
- I didn't know Bandcamp had that feature.
- 16:10:16 [Leftmost]
- Well, guess I'd better modify that release too.
- 16:11:08 [Leftmost]
- I'll wait 'til that edit passes so I can reuse the recording.
- 16:12:00 [jesus2099]
- Leftmost: this is why I create SAR/NAT beforehand, usually :)
- 16:13:38 [HSOWA]
- night199uk: nope
- 16:13:41 [HSOWA]
- * HSOWA has already
- 16:13:45 [HSOWA]
- ugh
- 16:13:47 [HSOWA]
- nikki:
- 16:13:53 [HSOWA]
- so now nikki is nitabtab
- 16:13:55 [nikki]
- ah
- 16:13:57 [HSOWA]
- :(
- 16:13:57 [Freso_laptop]
- Freso_laptop has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:14:16 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: Do you think “RE” on this ISRC page means 'remastered'? http://www.scpp.fr/SCPP/Accueil/REPERTOIRE/Catalogue/Choix_catalogue/BasePhonogrammes/tabid/81/language/en-US/Default.aspx?Dec=00110310148201
- 16:16:16 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: hmm, but that has a start date of 2008, and your release is from 2004.
- 16:16:32 [hawke_1]
- Why do ISRCs have to be so goddamn useless? :-/
- 16:17:21 [Leftmost]
- Because they weren't invented by us.
- 16:17:24 [JonnyJD_]
- hawke_1: That is because you think you can use these for something they are not meant for?
- 16:17:39 [hawke_1]
- JonnyJD_: ?
- 16:17:45 [Leftmost]
- You can't even really use them for what they're meant for.
- 16:17:49 [CallerNo6]
- CallerNo6 has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:17:51 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: http://musicbrainz.org/release/d576af3c-8e65-48e2-95d8-0d45011e58f9 is much better example to classical or not... Front and back cover included
- 16:18:19 [hawke_1]
- JonnyJD_: they are meant for exactly what I am trying to use them for: identifying recordings. :-p
- 16:18:21 [JonnyJD_]
- Well, when an ISRC is on an disc you can look that up and give money to the person who wrote that song.
- 16:18:39 [Leftmost]
- Anyone ever dealt with Legacy International releases? Are they really as crappy as they seem?
- 16:18:40 [bandtrace]
- bandtrace has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:18:51 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: heh. I'd normally say "yes" for choral music, but I see they don't even credit composers
- 16:18:58 [reosarevok]
- Tricky
- 16:19:02 [JonnyJD_]
- You can not actually use them to tell "what" kind of recording it is and probably also not reliably to separate different recordings
- 16:19:28 [kepstin-work]
- JonnyJD_: except, you know, that there's no way to actually look up who to send money to from an isrc :)
- 16:19:48 [Leftmost]
- Or even usually who issued the ISRC to ask them.
- 16:19:58 [JonnyJD_]
- True, I never understood that part either.
- 16:20:10 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:20:15 [JonnyJD_]
- But that is done by MB now
- 16:20:24 [Leftmost]
- Not reliably.
- 16:20:29 [kepstin-work]
- (except in countries like japan, which require isrcs to be centrally registered and expose them in a public searchable website)
- 16:20:51 [JonnyJD_]
- there are the same ISRCs for completely different songs?
- 16:21:08 [kepstin-work]
- JonnyJD_: occasionally by accident that happens
- 16:21:17 [kepstin-work]
- JonnyJD_: far more common are multiple ISRCs for the same song.
- 16:21:28 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: my edit notes say "sleeve", so sleeve tells something more.... (I do not have this release in my hand just now)
- 16:21:33 [JonnyJD_]
- multiple for the same song are no problem (in the original sense)
- 16:22:02 [kepstin-work]
- a single isrc referring to multiple songs only happens due to a mistake by the isrc assigner
- 16:22:08 [JonnyJD_]
- do we have proof that ISRCs attached to different songs are not simply mistakenly attached?
- 16:22:24 [JonnyJD_]
- true, but it doesn't hurt in the original lookup intent
- 16:22:38 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: no — if that happens, the second one is invalid.
- 16:23:01 [CallerNo6]
- reosarevok: I give up. I can't read a simple wiki page and form a sensible thought anymore (if I ever could). So I'm not going to mess up the RFV for release group types. But here's what I think is the problem:
- 16:23:05 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: which makes ISRC still useless.
- 16:23:31 [kepstin-work]
- JonnyJD_: for north american releases, it is impossible to get proof that a single isrc attached to multiple songs is a mistake without contacting the person that assigned them and getting a copy of the record of assigned isrcs that they are supposed to be keeping.
- 16:23:34 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: “an ISRC is invalid if…- it is the same as the code assigned to a different recording”
- 16:23:35 [JonnyJD_]
- hawke_1: Sorry, but only because something is not perfect, doesn't make it useless
- 16:23:57 [CallerNo6]
- reosarevok: the existing guideline says (to me) "a VA soundtrack /might/ arguably be a compilation, but is better described as "soundtrack".
- 16:23:57 [hawke_1]
- JonnyJD_: I didn’t say it did.
- 16:24:16 [hawke_1]
- JonnyJD_: I just said ISRC is useless, not that it’s imperfect.
- 16:24:40 [hawke_1]
- acoustID is imperfect. MBID is imperfect. ISRC is useless.
- 16:24:48 [CallerNo6]
- reosarevok: while the new guidelines says (to me): "A VA soundtrack is (among other things), a compilation, full stop".
- 16:25:09 [JonnyJD_]
- hawke_1: sorry, but no.
- 16:25:30 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: the fact that it’s attached to multiple songs is proof that it is a mistake.
- 16:25:33 [kepstin-work]
- hmm. the compilationness of a given release should be completely independent of its soundtrackness
- 16:25:44 [JonnyJD_]
- Obviously I wouldn't implement ISRC reading if I was thinking ISRCs are useless.
- 16:26:02 [kepstin-work]
- hawke_1: yeah, but you don't know where the mistake happened. it could have been an assignment mistake, could have been a typo by the mastering engineer.
- 16:26:53 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: it doesn’t matter where the mistake was made — the second one is invalid. :-) Of course, deciding which is 'the second one' is harder to say.
- 16:27:20 [reosarevok]
- CallerNo6: no, I'm saying that a VA release which is a movie soundtrack (soundtrack) and that is made of pre-released songs (compilation) should be marked as both
- 16:27:23 [hawke_1]
- JonnyJD_: Well, that’s a different question: ISRCs are relevant chunks of metadata on CDs and therefore maybe worth keeping in MB.
- 16:27:49 [hawke_1]
- JonnyJD_: but that doesn’t mean they’re useful. ;-)
- 16:27:58 [JonnyJD_]
- It's not a different question. You said they are useless. Not they are useless for what you are trying to do (what I said)
- 16:28:15 [reosarevok]
- CallerNo6: I don't see what's the strange part of that - it fills the soundtrack and compilation requisites, so it's both things
- 16:28:25 [kepstin-work]
- reosarevok: you shouldn't have to state that explicitly in the soundtrack section
- 16:28:38 [Freso_laptop]
- CallerNo6! Y u no be in #musicbottle ? D:
- 16:28:40 [CallerNo6]
- reosarevok: does it? I never considered your example a compilation
- 16:28:48 [JonnyJD_]
- But probably we have a different understanding of useless. I take the mathematical approach. Useless means of exactly 0 use.
- 16:28:57 [reosarevok]
- kepstin-work: it's not a soundtrack section, is style for RG secondary types
- 16:29:00 [hawke_1]
- JonnyJD_: then nothing is useless.
- 16:29:21 [JonnyJD_]
- Depending on the model, but overall: yes.
- 16:29:28 [CallerNo6]
- reosarevok: but if that doesn't seem weird to anybody else, then no further objection from me
- 16:29:29 [JonnyJD_]
- Nothing is black and white
- 16:29:33 [kepstin-work]
- reosarevok: right, so there should be a part on the soundtrack type saying how to tell if something's a soundtrack, then a part on the compilation type saying how to tell if something's a compilation?
- 16:29:35 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: Which guideline?
- 16:29:39 [kepstin-work]
- * kepstin-work goes and re-reads the proposal
- 16:29:54 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: the RG type proposal
- 16:29:58 [reosarevok]
- kepstin-work: that's on http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type
- 16:30:10 [Jozo]
- I trust ISRCs on Finnish releases much...
- 16:30:25 [kepstin-work]
- reosarevok: ah, the part that we're discussing is just an example
- 16:30:27 [kepstin-work]
- looks fine to me
- 16:31:09 [CallerNo6]
- Freso_laptop: because IRC makes me late to work :-)
- 16:31:48 [Jozo]
- What I want see is comment on add ISRC edits to tell which release (discID, barcode, software)
- 16:32:07 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 knows that we're not /supposed/ to infer rules from guideline examples, but realistically that's how a lot of people learn.
- 16:32:16 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: “a various artists soundtrack using pre-released music” seems clear to me…
- 16:32:25 [hawke_1]
- that 'pre-released music' makes it a compilation.
- 16:32:47 [jesus2099]
- jesus2099 has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:32:50 [reosarevok]
- Well, his example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_Dogs#Soundtrack which I guess feels album-ish, but that's mostly because of the whole dialogue snippets thing
- 16:32:55 [kepstin-work]
- Jozo: a lot of isrcs are added semi-programatically via webservice; i wonder if we even support putting submitting edit notes with those edits
- 16:33:00 [jesus2099]
- hawke: I haven’t really looked at it yet but no problem of date, as it’s a 88 ISRC
- 16:33:14 [jesus2099]
- don’t pay attention to starting date
- 16:33:27 [JonnyJD_]
- Jozo: I would at least like if the user agent is added to ISRC submissions
- 16:33:52 [Jozo]
- kepstin-work: I've seen mostly only submissions from CDs
- 16:33:53 [jesus2099]
- I’d like it too ! like it was for PUID
- 16:33:56 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: Hmm, but older ISRCs use date of performance…
- 16:34:09 [jesus2099]
- yes, date of recording
- 16:34:27 [kepstin-work]
- Jozo: any time you see an isrc add edit with multiple isrcs together in one edit, it was done programatically via the webservice, instead of using the website to enter them.
- 16:34:29 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: so it could be a remaster issued with a backdated ISRC. :-/
- 16:34:30 [JonnyJD_]
- Jozo, jesus2099: there is a ticket for that?
- 16:34:30 [jesus2099]
- actually recent ISRC use date of recording… older ISRC used to use date of registering
- 16:34:43 [nikki]
- JonnyJD_: I'd like it if we could actually add edit notes when submitting them, but apparently that has to wait until post-nes :(
- 16:34:45 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: no, that’s backwards.
- 16:34:45 [jesus2099]
- remasters generally have new date…
- 16:34:49 [kepstin-work]
- jesus2099: it's the other way around :)
- 16:35:19 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: that's where I disagree. I guess I set the bar higher for compilation-ness.
- 16:35:20 [jesus2099]
- in france ISRC used to have ISRC creation year… now they are using recording year, like they always did in Japan for instance
- 16:35:20 [kepstin-work]
- jesus2099: current isrc standards say to use date of registration. it was poorly defined before, and some people used to use date of recording instead.
- 16:35:45 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: Well, per the definition 'compilation' means 'previously released material'.
- 16:35:48 [jesus2099]
- I only talk of what I’ve seen in my discs…
- 16:35:48 [Leftmost]
- http://satwcomic.com/epic-battle is fantastic.
- 16:35:52 [Jozo]
- JonnyJD_: barcode is included most CDs metadata... Do you extract it now or you like to do it on future?
- 16:35:59 [jesus2099]
- http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099/collections
- 16:36:05 [ruaok]
- ruaok has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:36:07 [ruaok]
- ruaok has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:36:18 [nikki]
- jesus2099: japan doesn't use the date of recording for newer isrcs
- 16:36:24 [jesus2099]
- it’s easy to spot this on compilations for instance… and btw I’m glad they do use recording date
- 16:36:36 [JonnyJD_]
- Jozo: Barcode = MCN and is enabled on Linux, Windows and Mac (in libdiscid)
- 16:36:49 [murk]
- murk has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:36:50 [Jozo]
- nikki: nor any other counrtry in general... that changed 2000 or so....
- 16:37:04 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: don’t forget that old-assigned ISRCs are reused even on new releases…
- 16:37:07 [JonnyJD_]
- Jozo: MCN was added together with ISRC reading to libdiscid
- 16:37:11 [nikki]
- Jozo: I know
- 16:37:11 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: what definition?
- 16:37:20 [Leftmost]
- Huh, really, JonnyJD_? Any simple code to test it?
- 16:37:39 [jesus2099]
- hawke_1: I’m takling of dates far before CD or ISRC even exists
- 16:37:48 [JonnyJD_]
- Leftmost: build libdiscid from source and start "discisrc"
- 16:38:27 [Freso_laptop]
- CallerNo6: Y u no answer me?
- 16:38:32 [nikki]
- kepstin-work: I thought the standard said to use recording dates before? (rather than it being poorly defined)
- 16:38:36 [JonnyJD_]
- Leftmost: I think that feature is also added in mb-discid (ruby) already, but no in python-discid
- 16:39:06 [jesus2099]
- like http://musicbrainz.org/release/8c836f4f-a2dc-4a82-a4c8-a9ced3ac310d
- 16:39:08 [Freso_laptop]
- CallerNo6: Oh, you did.
- 16:39:09 [Leftmost]
- Thanks.
- 16:39:12 [Freso_laptop]
- CallerNo6: :(
- 16:39:13 [jesus2099]
- 1976 ISRC on fairly recent release
- 16:39:39 [kepstin-work]
- jesus2099: but the isrc was allocated before the change in rules
- 16:39:40 [jesus2099]
- that’s great↗
- 16:39:53 [Freso_laptop]
- CallerNo6: Do you want me to alias Alex -> CallerNo6, or CallerNo6 -> Alex on https://www.ohloh.net/p/MusicBottle ?
- 16:39:54 [Jozo]
- jesus2099: It's not remastered?
- 16:39:58 [jesus2099]
- when ? fo you have examples ? that’s a pity if it’s true
- 16:40:15 [jesus2099]
- kepstin-work: ↗
- 16:40:28 [kepstin-work]
- jesus2099: look up that isrc on the music forest db, and you'll see that the same recording was probably released at some earlier date
- 16:40:35 [kepstin-work]
- and would have been assigned an isrc then
- 16:41:03 [jesus2099]
- 1989 http://musicbrainz.org/release/49ed1d02-321a-4360-bdb7-df6a5b005014
- 16:41:15 [jesus2099]
- AND NOW LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ! 1948 http://musicbrainz.org/release/0a6226bf-5ccc-480b-83d2-1bf33a3f3c08
- 16:41:24 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: the one quoted here: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Clarification-about-release-type-album-or-compilation-td1058173.html
- 16:41:27 [jesus2099]
- kepstin-work: when did the “rule” so called changesd ?
- 16:42:00 [jesus2099]
- I have not seen yet whet you say but maybe I’ll see it sooner or later… if so, ☞ pity
- 16:42:01 [jesus2099]
- :)
- 16:42:06 [jesus2099]
- * jesus2099 got to go
- 16:42:17 [hawke_1]
- jesus2099: It was around …maybe 2004?
- 16:42:18 [Leftmost]
- Ooh, we have 15 releases from Andorra.
- 16:43:02 [Jozo]
- jesus2099: on 2000 general rules changed.... see ISRC official definion on some pdf...
- 16:43:07 [Leftmost]
- Aww, and none of them seem to be in Catalan.
- 16:43:43 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: ah. Thanks. I still disagree (too broad for my taste), but like I said, if I'm the only one who feels that way then I'll shut up.
- 16:43:50 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:46:07 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: of course, that definition doesn’t appear anywhere now, which kind of bothers me. :-/
- 16:49:07 [hawke_1]
- (just because I’ve been relying on it and I can’t find it now)
- 16:49:56 [hawke_1]
- Less so because it makes compilation an 'I know it when I see it' thing.
- 16:50:25 [Jozo]
- btw. Is Singles Collection release collection or not collection in general?
- 16:50:39 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: what does that mean?
- 16:51:37 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: on 60-70s is common release singles... and years later release "singles collection"
- 16:51:58 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: OK, and what are you asking about them?
- 16:52:22 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: Is that Singles Collection complication?
- 16:52:44 [hawke_1]
- I would say it is a compilation, yes.
- 16:52:50 [reosarevok]
- Heh, it's certainly also a complication ;)
- 16:52:57 [reosarevok]
- I'd call it a compilation too
- 16:53:25 [kepstin-work]
- it is, however, not a single.
- 16:53:29 [kepstin-work]
- it's an album :)
- 16:53:37 [Prophet5]
- Prophet5 has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:54:29 [hawke_1]
- kepstin-work: not according to the album definition :-(
- 16:55:06 [hawke_1]
- http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group/Type — though I guess “generally” kind of allows that
- 16:55:09 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: to expand: to me, a compilation is something that's been /compiled/ intentionally as an anthology or retrospective or collection or whatever.
- 16:55:21 [kepstin-work]
- hawke_1: i suppose that depends on whether the release contains separate individual singles, or if it just has songs from the singles compiled onto a single disc
- 16:55:26 [kepstin-work]
- the second is far more common.
- 16:55:46 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: as opposed to…?
- 16:56:03 [Jozo]
- Another guestion... http://musicbrainz.org/artist/57d1c463-de30-4325-a84a-4edce5754f20 there is "Keesojen lehto / The Mathematician's Air Display" (last part translated) and "Pihkasilmä kaarnakorva / Harakka Bialoipokku" (double album).... I want do something do them to page looks cleaner... What I shoud do?
- 16:56:10 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: as opposed to a soundtrack?
- 16:56:16 [kepstin-work]
- "oops, I accidentally made a release that included a bunch of random previously released songs. I didn't mean to do that, really"
- 16:56:26 [kepstin-work]
- CallerNo6: they're different things. orthogonal!
- 16:56:27 [Cook879]
- Cook879 has joined #musicbrainz
- 16:58:15 [Jozo]
- kepstin-work: Nowadays is common release "all singles" albums... I clearly think they are complications
- 16:58:18 [CallerNo6]
- kepstin-work: Yes. Different things. Even though they both might contain previously released material.
- 16:58:35 [CallerNo6]
- kepstin-work: an album with bonus tracks isn't a compilation (to me) either.
- 16:58:36 [kepstin-work]
- CallerNo6: no, the "compilationness" of a release is separate from the "soundtrackness"
- 16:58:47 [Jozo]
- Also what we should do "Complete Discoraphy" releases. Are they complications or not?
- 16:58:59 [kepstin-work]
- a compilation is a release that is primarily a collection of previously released songs.
- 16:59:07 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: Are you suggesting that a soundtrack doesn’t intentionally compile recordings from existing sources?
- 16:59:14 [kepstin-work]
- a soundtrack is a release which contains music used for some production, e.g. tv, game, movie
- 16:59:27 [kepstin-work]
- a compilation sountrack is a release that is primarily a collection of previously released songs which contains music used for some production, e.g. tv, game, movie
- 16:59:42 [kepstin-work]
- they combine quite nicely.
- 16:59:54 [Jozo]
- kepstin-work: I still don't understant why "double albums" are not complications...
- 17:00:10 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: sort of. I mean, every release had to be /compiled/ in some sense. Even a new studio release chose some songs and rejected others.
- 17:00:24 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: The logic is that people expect to see them with the albums that they reissue.
- 17:00:47 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: right — it’s the “previously issued” part that matters there.
- 17:00:56 [kepstin-work]
- CallerNo6: the definition of a "compilation" on musicbrainz requires (most of) the tracks to have been previously released.
- 17:01:21 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: any re-issue contains "previously issued" material.
- 17:01:44 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: previously issued, from multiple sources. :-p
- 17:01:53 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: I don’t agree with it and would like to be able to put them in multiple release groups, but that’s not possible.
- 17:02:11 [kepstin-work]
- CallerNo6: except that a re-issue goes in the same release group as the original, and type is a release group property :)
- 17:02:39 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: Some special cases I not even put them on separate release group
- 17:03:36 [Jozo]
- http://musicbrainz.org/release/a398a53a-3d1c-4a71-8172-75a96ad35255 http://www.discogs.com/release/3621136
- 17:03:51 [Jozo]
- one example
- 17:05:27 [CallerNo6]
- kepstin-work: hopefully a working definition of "compilation" won't be based, even a little bit, on the schema.
- 17:05:31 [CallerNo6]
- :-)
- 17:06:33 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: so again, a re-issue with bonus tracks is now a compilation (if the tracks were previously released)?
- 17:06:56 [Jozo]
- http://musicbrainz.org/release/de177f1b-8107-4436-a7e8-a5cb3cca6f3d "The Singles Collection" is real album not complication :)
- 17:07:36 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: No, because we always have had a 'most of the tracks…' thing for deciding how to classify — that is, something is a soundtrack if most of the tracks are a soundtrack, even if some of them are 'inspired by'
- 17:08:06 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: why is it not a compilation? (note “complication” is different from “compilation” btw)
- 17:08:23 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: not much different, seeing our discussion :D
- 17:08:34 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: true enough :-p
- 17:08:52 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: Most recordings never released on single. Title just inspired 60-70s style do to things
- 17:09:07 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: gotcha.
- 17:09:08 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: I'm sure I could find examples of re-issues that contain more bonus tracks than original tracks.
- 17:09:14 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: probably.
- 17:09:27 [reosarevok]
- That'd be even more of a non-comp then! :P
- 17:09:43 [hawke_1]
- ^
- 17:09:46 [reosarevok]
- Well, ok, except if they're all b-sides I gues
- 17:09:46 [CallerNo6]
- :D
- 17:09:52 [reosarevok]
- guess even
- 17:10:12 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: The definition sucks, what can I say? :-)
- 17:10:23 [hawke_1]
- fortunately it works better than defined.
- 17:10:24 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: that's alls I'm sayin'
- 17:10:35 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: Oh, why didn’t you say that?
- 17:11:15 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: the gist of my complaint is that the proposed guideline implies a definition of "compilaton" that has never been agreed on.
- 17:11:32 [CallerNo6]
- (to my knowledge)
- 17:11:36 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:11:53 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: It was agreed back in that mailing list thing I quoted [from 2006]…
- 17:12:03 [hawke_1]
- but I don’t know where that definition went.
- 17:12:10 [reosarevok]
- CallerNo6: but actually, even if you define it as "previously-released songs compiled intentionally to form a soundtrack", that's still a compilation, as opposed to "songs composed or recorded for a soundtrack", right? I mean, how do you differentiate the two if not?
- 17:14:43 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: do you have any idea where that definition disappeared to?
- 17:14:47 [hawke_1]
- http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-December/004286.html
- 17:15:23 [reosarevok]
- that predates my MB days
- 17:15:29 [reosarevok]
- nikki might know
- 17:15:40 [reosarevok]
- (also predate is an awesome word)
- 17:16:30 [Jozo]
- BTW. Can Single be complication?
- 17:16:44 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: yes, I think so.
- 17:16:52 [Jozo]
- (still same typo, sorry :)
- 17:16:56 [hawke_1]
- rare though.
- 17:17:40 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: found it: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Release_Attribute
- 17:18:00 [reosarevok]
- ok, then nikki might know why and when it changed :p
- 17:18:25 [hawke_1]
- in fact, that guideline is what I am working off of…
- 17:18:36 [hawke_1]
- “Release attributes should apply to most of the tracks on the release. It's OK to have a couple of tracks that do not fit the release attribute, as long as the attribute applies to the release overall.”
- 17:18:46 [hawke_1]
- “A compilation is a collection of previously released tracks by one or more artists.”
- 17:18:47 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: not rare... If we only think all of tracks released before
- 17:19:01 [CallerNo6]
- reosarevok: to me, that still doesn't sound like a compilation. CSG for example has always made distinction between "previously released material (from disparate sources)" and "previously released material selected to fit a mood or theme or whatever"
- 17:19:14 [reosarevok]
- huh, it has?
- 17:19:46 [reosarevok]
- I've always set releases of re-bundled recordings to compliations
- 17:19:47 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: remember that many singles released AFTER actual album
- 17:19:55 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: oh, true.
- 17:20:00 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: Never thought about those.
- 17:20:24 [CallerNo6]
- reosarevok: maybe it didn't make it into post-ngs. I'll see if I can find it.
- 17:20:41 [reosarevok]
- Well, it certainly didn't, no CSG guidelines did :p
- 17:21:05 [reosarevok]
- But yeah, first time I hear of that
- 17:21:18 [reosarevok]
- * reosarevok also hates people who set recitals as compilations because of having a lot of composers
- 17:21:40 [reosarevok]
- (even though they're recorded together and they're all original releases)
- 17:23:02 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 /might/ be mis-remembering something from brian's csgv2, keeps looking
- 17:23:04 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: You would not consider http://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/2f94e0a3-be66-4894-9c9d-83d5890081da to be a compilation?
- 17:23:09 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: I have some classical albums on stack... You can critize after I've added them...
- 17:23:18 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: heh :)
- 17:24:20 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: it's just that if you have a release like "Italian Trumpet Concertos" by Ensemble X and Soloist Y, recorded as a "set", I see no way that that can be seen as a comp
- 17:24:39 [reosarevok]
- (but a lot of them are marked as that, because they're not all concertos by the same composer)
- 17:25:39 [the_metalgamer]
- the_metalgamer has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:26:43 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: It's difficult to know what is compilation and whats not
- 17:27:12 [reosarevok]
- It is, but when they give you recording dates and the like, it's usually quite clear I'd say
- 17:27:17 [reosarevok]
- (usually)
- 17:27:40 [reosarevok]
- Sometimes it can still be tricky, but well :/
- 17:27:49 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: Klassiset säveltäjät: Mozart: Taitoa ja mielkuvista ----- this may be comp
- 17:28:58 [Jozo]
- no performers said :/
- 17:29:39 [Jozo]
- http://musicbrainz.org/cdtoc/attach?id=8FsDc5De9N.Fu_VnUcb9l07xc1A-&tracks=11&toc=1+11+332397+150+19353+77152+102554+120453+143316+168744+191178+250918+285297+316516&tport=8000
- 17:30:02 [Jozo]
- but in Finnish
- 17:30:34 [Jozo]
- I add this later
- 17:31:00 [Jozo]
- "Figaron häät, KV 492: Alkusoitto"
- 17:31:33 [Freso_laptop]
- kloeri: Er du til SSLUG-sandkassemødeting?
- 17:32:01 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: I would have called that a compilation, yes. Not /just/ becauset the material was previously released, but because it was compiled as a collection/retrospective/whatever.
- 17:32:46 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: and what would not be a compilation which would still have majority previously-released content (i.e. not a reissue)
- 17:33:41 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: in classical? lots of stuff IMO
- 17:34:26 [reosarevok]
- New couplings, I assume?
- 17:34:33 [reosarevok]
- I'd call that a comp, but not everyone would I guess
- 17:34:33 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: I’m not really sure that it counts as a retrospective though, it’s all stuff that was newly recorded 3–8 months previously.
- 17:34:58 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: as a collection of all sonatas I assume
- 17:35:19 [reosarevok]
- CallerNo6: so if the first release of a new set of recordings of the sonatas is a boxset, you'd call it a compilation? :/
- 17:35:35 [CallerNo6]
- reosarevok: no
- 17:35:47 [reosarevok]
- Ok, then I'm confused :)
- 17:35:47 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: (You remember one swedish christmas carol (I learned new word).... I just wonder what I have to do all releases what may have have classical works
- 17:35:48 [voiceinsideyou1]
- voiceinsideyou1 has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:35:57 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: what does 'new couplings' mean?
- 17:35:58 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 on the other hand is never confused
- 17:36:15 [hawke_1]
- http://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/b79ef4c3-4900-4ba9-bbff-b9b8f8d4c866 ?
- 17:36:34 [reosarevok]
- For example. yes
- 17:37:16 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: http://musicbrainz.org/release/4687b1dc-25ee-4db8-9804-c0b55631f7b0 another one christmas album... to think is is classical or not
- 17:37:29 [hawke_1]
- i.e. “the previous release was Mozart concerto no. 3/5; the new release is mozart concerto no. 3 + Beethoven Op. 61”?
- 17:37:47 [hawke_1]
- I hate that sort of release a lot.
- 17:38:01 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1, yes, that's what I meant (and yes, I hate them too)
- 17:38:07 [reosarevok]
- (and I'd call it a comp)
- 17:38:21 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: yes, that's the sort of thing that I think was never considered a classical "compilation" but I can't find the guideline even in history, so maybe I'm completely mistaken.
- 17:38:38 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: http://musicbrainz.org/work/dbee41ed-187d-464b-89c8-0f6d9408968b should be merged to... =)
- 17:38:46 [voiceinsideyou]
- voiceinsideyou has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:39:17 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: I guess if the composer info isn't given prominently for a carol album I would just use normal style? I generally edit stuff that's more clear so I'm not sure what I'd do :)
- 17:40:58 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: I follow that in general. But I still whant someone to define what is classical and what is not :)
- 17:41:07 [reosarevok]
- heh
- 17:41:11 [reosarevok]
- I'd like to, but I can't
- 17:41:35 [HSOWA]
- i'd do liek classical, do release liek cove recordigns for who recorded it and works for composers. tho if you dunno who recordered it, do composer
- 17:41:50 [HSOWA]
- and i have been following aroudn carols
- 17:41:58 [HSOWA]
- carols are on my "to do" list
- 17:42:23 [HSOWA]
- also things like "tv-theme" and the like
- 17:42:31 [HSOWA]
- batman theme was that guy
- 17:42:45 [HSOWA]
- and. uuh niel lefty or what he was
- 17:42:52 [night199uk]
- night199uk has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:44:13 [Ben\Sput]
- Ben\Sput has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:45:18 [HSOWA]
- Henry Mancini. is a guy
- 17:45:28 [HSOWA]
- he composed a lot of tv themes
- 17:45:34 [Jozo]
- reosarevok: I still think it is somewhat strange handle "non-classical" and "classical" christmas songs (I use this) differently becouse one composed "classical" composer.
- 17:45:49 [HSOWA]
- Neal Hefti was it
- 17:45:56 [HSOWA]
- composed the original batman theme
- 17:46:00 [HSOWA]
- i remembered the right guy
- 17:46:29 [HSOWA]
- Jozo: it depends what kid? liek a bing crosby of rudoslph the rednosed...
- 17:46:36 [HSOWA]
- or same as "silent night"?
- 17:46:41 [reosarevok]
- Jozo: Agree. I wouldn't treate them differently. The difference is per-release I'd say, not per-content, but it's hard to define clearly. CallerNo6 wanted to try but I don't know how much he did :p
- 17:46:53 [HSOWA]
- reosarevok: same
- 17:46:56 [HSOWA]
- I wanted try
- 17:47:12 [HSOWA]
- * HSOWA goes to play the after game of lotr lego
- 17:47:15 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: So — Reservoir Dogs soundtrack is a compilation (music compiled from disparate sources for the purposes of making a soundtrack) — but http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=8.572244 is neither a compilation nor a soundtrack …
- 17:47:20 [HSOWA]
- man i thohuht i was lost i na palce but i wanst
- 17:47:21 [HSOWA]
- yay
- 17:47:52 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: IMO, Resevoir Dogs isn't a compilation either
- 17:48:19 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: why not?
- 17:48:43 [CallerNo6]
- * CallerNo6 isn't doing a very good job of answering that question
- 17:49:28 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: because IMO, it wasn't "compiled" in the sense that, say, "101 greatest hits" was.
- 17:49:45 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: sure it was — just compiled by Tarantino instead of somebody at a label.
- 17:50:00 [Jozo]
- link to reservoid dog soundtracK?
- 17:50:18 [hawke_1]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_Dogs#Soundtrack
- 17:50:22 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: that's why I put "compilation" in quotes. I mean, every release is compiled in a sense.
- 17:50:23 [Jozo]
- on musicbrainz
- 17:50:49 [Jozo]
- 8 dialogues
- 17:50:51 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: in a sense, sure…but compilations are taken from previously-released stuff.
- 17:50:55 [Jozo]
- out of 16 tracks
- 17:51:13 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: IMO that's necessary but not sufficient.
- 17:51:37 [Jozo]
- I wonder what do do "[interview]", [solo]" and other recordigs...
- 17:52:48 [Jozo]
- [solo] is recording who actually performed and so on?
- 17:53:12 [night199uk]
- night199uk has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:53:35 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: is the theme the key for you?
- 17:53:59 [reosarevok]
- * reosarevok isn't sure whether :D or D: http://notlob.eu/labels/bis
- 17:54:02 [reosarevok]
- We lack so much stuff :(
- 17:54:08 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: yes. There's probably a better word than "theme" but essentially that's it.
- 17:54:31 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: OK, so the theme for the RD soundtrack is “Would sound good on the RD soundtrack” ;-)
- 17:54:36 [hawke_1]
- And I’m not kidding.
- 17:54:53 [Jozo]
- my opinion reservoir dogs soundtracks is not compilation
- 17:55:49 [drsaunde]
- drsaunde has joined #musicbrainz
- 17:56:29 [Jozo]
- (Hjum, I have some soundtracks on ther... check)
- 17:56:40 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: if there was a release (previoulsy released material) called "The songs I'd have chosen for the film Foo", sure, I'd call /that/ a compilation. :-)
- 17:57:31 [hawke_1]
- CallerNo6: hmm…but 'the songs I did choose for the film Foo' is not OK?
- 18:00:27 [CallerNo6]
- hawke_1: guess not. Call me crazy.
- 18:00:33 [hawke_1]
- You’re crazy. ;-)
- 18:00:37 [CallerNo6]
- yay!
- 18:02:01 [hawke_1]
- http://www.amazon.com/Juno-B-Sides-Almost-Adopted-Songs/dp/B0018MNGE6 ?
- 18:08:33 [derwin]
- callerno6 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers_(film)#Hackers_2:_Music_From_And_Inspired_By_The_Original_Motion_Picture_.27Hackers.27
- 18:08:40 [derwin]
- d'oh idled off
- 18:09:55 [reosarevok]
- No, went to stop being idle aka to work :p
- 18:12:08 [night199uk]
- night199uk has joined #musicbrainz
- 18:14:01 [freso_]
- freso_ has joined #musicbrainz
- 18:17:45 [hawke_1]
- Anybody able to find a release date for “Classical Experience IV”, EMI Classics 5099951852351 ?
- 18:18:12 [hawke_1]
- er “Classic Experience IV” rather
- 18:18:58 [hawke_1]
- I’m *thinking* it’s 1993, but…
- 18:21:12 [hawke_1]
- …I can’t tell if it was maybe reissued.
- 18:21:48 [hawke_1]
- Is 7Digital usually reliable with its dates?
- 18:24:49 [warp]
- I expect 7digital is just label data.
- 18:25:04 [warp]
- hawke_1: ask ocharles :)
- 18:35:52 [ruaok]
- ruaok has joined #musicbrainz
- 18:35:52 [ruaok]
- ruaok has joined #musicbrainz
- 19:24:25 [v6lur]
- v6lur has joined #musicbrainz
- 19:25:16 [mb-chat-logger]
- New post: blog: Official schema change notification for 15 May, 2013 <http://blog.musicbrainz.org/?p=1826>
- 19:27:47 [Fluke]
- Fluke has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:01:05 [Ben\Sput]
- Ben\Sput has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:01:22 [Ben\Sput]
- hey :)
- 20:01:27 [Ben\Sput]
- who's here for mix meeting?
- 20:01:56 [warp]
- here? or there? --->
- 20:02:10 [Ben\Sput]
- here, I thought we said :P
- 20:03:20 [ruaok]
- * ruaok doesn't care
- 20:03:38 [Ben\Sput]
- nikki, reosarevok, hawke_1, Freso?
- 20:03:47 [hawke_1]
- I’m here and there.
- 20:04:54 [Ben\Sput]
- right well
- 20:04:56 [Ben\Sput]
- we'll start here
- 20:04:58 [Ben\Sput]
- <BANG>
- 20:04:59 [Ben\Sput]
- :P
- 20:05:07 [ruaok]
- ok. :)
- 20:05:11 [ruaok]
- lead on Ben\Sput
- 20:05:32 [Ben\Sput]
- so, it would be good to come up with a good idea of the difference between mixes and masters
- 20:05:39 [Ben\Sput]
- i think someone posted a page somewhere
- 20:05:47 [reosarevok]
- Masters: we don't like. Mixes: we like
- 20:05:52 [Ben\Sput]
- let me find it
- 20:06:06 [warp]
- masters are the ones you usually cannot tell apart
- 20:06:08 [Ben\Sput]
- http://musicians.about.com/od/musiciansfaq/f/mixingormaster.htm
- 20:06:11 [Ben\Sput]
- there it is
- 20:06:15 [warp]
- mixes are the ones you can usually tell apart
- 20:07:10 [Ben\Sput]
- from what that says, mixing is anything that changes the song before its completed, and mastering is polishing it afterwards
- 20:07:50 [ruaok]
- good summary. :)
- 20:08:14 [warp]
- I also like that with mastering it focuses on the relative volume of a song compared to other songs on the same album.
- 20:08:14 [Ben\Sput]
- any objections to that idea?
- 20:08:28 [hawke_1]
- So then how does remastering fit in? It seems to me that a lot of remasters do change stuff that would normally be considered mixing
- 20:08:29 [ruaok]
- no objections. makes sense.
- 20:08:41 [Ben\Sput]
- hawke_1: it depends
- 20:09:31 [Ben\Sput]
- * Ben\Sput looks at wikipedia
- 20:10:15 [Ben\Sput]
- we could say remastering which also mixes is remixing?
- 20:10:27 [hawke_1]
- No, that’s something different. :-)
- 20:10:51 [Ben\Sput]
- well, making a remix is different :P
- 20:11:09 [Ben\Sput]
- it's all definitions again
- 20:11:30 [Ben\Sput]
- hawke_1: got an example of a remaster that changes stuff so we can try to work this out?
- 20:11:31 [hawke_1]
- I guess I’m OK with saying it’s remixing, but that’s bound to confuse people
- 20:12:21 [Ben\Sput]
- well we shouldn't confuse people unnecessarily
- 20:13:07 [Ben\Sput]
- remastering should probably be handled on a case by case basis then, depending on whether it does mastering, mixing, or both
- 20:13:14 [Ben\Sput]
- objections? :)
- 20:13:40 [hawke_1]
- I’m OK with that — as long as we can have new recordings for truly different “remasters”
- 20:13:58 [ruaok]
- sure. but how do you define truly different?
- 20:14:04 [nikki]
- heh, I was gonna say that
- 20:14:07 [Ben\Sput]
- where there's mixing :)
- 20:14:13 [Ben\Sput]
- and not just mastering
- 20:14:28 [nikki]
- how do you know if there's mixing?
- 20:14:42 [Ben\Sput]
- nikki: that's part 2 of the meeting :)
- 20:15:15 [Ben\Sput]
- so, we've had a number of suggestions on what a "mix" exactly is, on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u4FRYKYPyV_XmjnQe7QQFQPifDWAL50tLwfzysYg3No/edit?usp=sharing
- 20:15:45 [Ben\Sput]
- so, the first definition there is "A mix is the result of editing an audio recording"
- 20:16:12 [Ben\Sput]
- the problem i see with that is it's quite vague
- 20:16:20 [Ben\Sput]
- and the same could be said of mastering
- 20:16:52 [Krystof]
- "it's all definitions again"
- 20:17:08 [Ben\Sput]
- but that being said, it does (sort of) summarise the concept of a mix, so with some additional information it could work
- 20:18:13 [Ben\Sput]
- anyone else got comments on that one?
- 20:18:19 [warp]
- editing seems wrong
- 20:18:37 [warp]
- but perhaps that's just my programmer idea of editing.
- 20:19:36 [warp]
- A mix seems to be the combining of seperate recordings into a single recording. Mixing adjusts the relative levels of the seperate original seperate recordings, but I always assumed it doesn't otherwise change the structure of the song.
- 20:20:00 [Ben\Sput]
- what about creating an alternative mix, though?
- 20:20:03 [Ben\Sput]
- (eg. remix)
- 20:20:07 [Ben\Sput]
- that changes the song structure
- 20:20:20 [warp]
- A remix is something else entirely
- 20:20:28 [Ben\Sput]
- it's still a mix of the same song
- 20:20:31 [hawke_1]
- yep…that’s where we have the problem of confusing people. :-)
- 20:21:12 [Ben\Sput]
- surely remix is just doing the mix again? :P
- 20:21:13 [luks]
- we need to invent two new words for this
- 20:21:18 [warp]
- Ben\Sput: I could ofcourse be wrong about what a mix is.
- 20:21:28 [hawke_1]
- Ben\Sput: Not in common parlance.
- 20:21:37 [Ben\Sput]
- doing a remix is just mixing the song in a more extreme way
- 20:21:38 [hawke_1]
- warp: that sounds right to me.
- 20:22:07 [warp]
- Ben\Sput: I certainly think that today's usage of remix is no longer related to the process of making a mix.
- 20:22:09 [hawke_1]
- Ben\Sput: doing a remix varies a lot. Sometimes it’s sampling the song and completely re-editing it…
- 20:22:20 [hawke_1]
- Ben\Sput: and sometimes it’s just a new mix.
- 20:22:56 [Ben\Sput]
- but what exactly is special about a remix that distinguishes it from a mix?
- 20:23:43 [luks]
- in the "modern" terminolog? using elements that were not in the original recording
- 20:24:09 [warp]
- Ben\Sput: a remix makes changes to the song. it can be change the structure of the song, it can add newly recording parts or tracks, remove tracks. A remix can do a lot more than a mix.
- 20:24:09 [luks]
- mix is just cut&paste of the original recording to make a single track
- 20:24:22 [Ben\Sput]
- luks: so if most of a song was recorded one day, and then overdubs were recorded a week later, it's a remix? :P
- 20:24:23 [luks]
- remix adds another works
- 20:25:02 [Ben\Sput]
- warp: and a mix could change the structure of a song - for example, starting a guitar solo four bars later, or something like that
- 20:25:03 [reosarevok]
- Ben\Sput: depends on whether "most of a song" was considered a finished thing, I'd say
- 20:25:19 [reosarevok]
- (if not, it's all the same mix)
- 20:25:29 [Ben\Sput]
- then mixing a released song makes a remix?
- 20:25:44 [reosarevok]
- In a way that adds new stuff to it? I'd say so
- 20:25:46 [warp]
- Ben\Sput: as I said, I would consider such changes to be part of whatever you call the processes which happen before a mix is made.
- 20:26:09 [reosarevok]
- While reusing the existing stuff only makes it a mix? I guess you could call that a remix too
- 20:26:16 [reosarevok]
- :)
- 20:26:23 [Ben\Sput]
- warp: well what's the bit before if it's not mixing?
- 20:26:30 [warp]
- Ben\Sput: song writing.
- 20:26:41 [Ben\Sput]
- warp: but this is after the performance of the song
- 20:26:49 [warp]
- Ben\Sput: so?
- 20:27:01 [Ben\Sput]
- you may have recorded the parts completely separately, and I'd call the bringing them together and palcing them correctly in the song the "mixing"
- 20:27:02 [derwin]
- people also call "remix" when they don't get stems
- 20:27:08 [derwin]
- imo in order to make a real "remix" you need stems
- 20:27:14 [derwin]
- otherwise it's an "edit" or a "sample"
- 20:27:49 [hawke_1]
- 'stems'?
- 20:28:03 [derwin]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_released_in_a_stem_format
- 20:28:26 [Ben\Sput]
- but what are they?
- 20:28:28 [derwin]
- man this channel really is walking edge case generators
- 20:28:35 [derwin]
- they're the multi-tracked original sng
- 20:28:44 [derwin]
- broken out into the multi-tracks
- 20:28:54 [Ben\Sput]
- ah ok
- 20:28:55 [derwin]
- so instead of sampling all instruments that are playing, you can sample only one
- 20:29:08 [derwin]
- when you do an official remix, you do it from stems
- 20:29:37 [derwin]
- I would presume those stem releases are in scope for mb
- 20:29:42 [derwin]
- but how would they be modelled, hahahah!!!
- 20:30:16 [derwin]
- I was at sfmusictech and ean golden from djtechtools said that he and amplive from zion i are starting a new label where they release stems for every release
- 20:30:45 [Ben\Sput]
- derwin: that sounds quite interesting :)
- 20:31:00 [warp]
- derwin: but the stems for a song would be seperate audio recordings which are the full length of the song, right?
- 20:31:10 [Ben\Sput]
- warp: not necessarily
- 20:31:18 [Ben\Sput]
- cause some tracks might only last a portion of the song
- 20:31:24 [Ben\Sput]
- eg. a guitar solo
- 20:31:33 [derwin]
- it depends on what sort of stems you get
- 20:31:40 [derwin]
- in some cases you are given the original loop
- 20:31:45 [derwin]
- in other cases it's how you describe
- 20:31:50 [warp]
- ok
- 20:32:01 [derwin]
- and in still other cases they trim whitespace
- 20:32:10 [Ben\Sput]
- so, back to the definition, what do people think of "(20:25:29) Ben\Sput: then mixing a released song makes a remix?"
- 20:32:12 [derwin]
- like ben\sput says
- 20:32:38 [warp]
- so in some cases you'd have to do some editing to create the final mix, in others you should only adjust relative volumes and such?
- 20:32:48 [derwin]
- warp: exactly
- 20:32:59 [derwin]
- here's an example
- 20:33:07 [symphonick]
- symphonick has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:33:11 [warp]
- derwin: and in both those cases you would call it mixing? :)
- 20:33:40 [derwin]
- d'oh, he took it down. a guy I know pastes stems where it's just all the parts in 1 soundcloud post
- 20:34:12 [derwin]
- warp: to me "mixing" is just the process of changing relative volumes and stuff, distinct from editing
- 20:34:20 [warp]
- derwin: ah!
- 20:34:31 [derwin]
- "remix" is a bad derivation imo, in most cases it should probably be called "re-editing"
- 20:34:36 [Ben\Sput]
- perhaps mixing is changing individual audio tracks, whereas mastering is changing the overall track as it is on the release?
- 20:34:44 [derwin]
- because the mix engineer is not very likely to be the guy doing a "remix"
- 20:34:51 [derwin]
- he's just the guy responsible for the "mix"
- 20:35:10 [derwin]
- Ben\Sput: in that case for example beatles remasteres are actually "re-mixes"
- 20:35:22 [Ben\Sput]
- derwin: I actually said that a few seconds ago to hawke :P
- 20:35:26 [derwin]
- because you can hear things you previously couldn't
- 20:35:30 [Ben\Sput]
- (20:32:37) Ben\Sput: well the beatles 2009 remasters are almost remixes :P
- 20:35:30 [Ben\Sput]
- (20:32:55) Ben\Sput: *involve significant mixing as well as mastering
- 20:35:32 [derwin]
- (which.. grrrr)
- 20:35:39 [bandtrace]
- bandtrace has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:35:53 [Ben\Sput]
- he said to post this link http://www.davewalkermusic.com/page2/Beatles/Revolver_Remastered_Review.html
- 20:35:54 [derwin]
- I think mastering happens on a single track though
- 20:36:02 [derwin]
- maybe that's naive to think?
- 20:36:09 [Ben\Sput]
- i don't know
- 20:36:15 [Ben\Sput]
- perhaps we could say "generally"
- 20:36:18 [derwin]
- I think the heart of the problem here is mastering vs. mixing vs. editing
- 20:36:32 [derwin]
- I think ppl are loose with the language and *frequently* they're all done by the same person
- 20:37:03 [Ben\Sput]
- well to me mixing includes editing, what do you say the difference is?
- 20:37:20 [derwin]
- if you are deleting or adding parts to the song, you aren't mixing it, you're editing it
- 20:37:26 [derwin]
- the song isn't done
- 20:37:43 [EM3RY]
- EM3RY has left #musicbrainz
- 20:37:43 [derwin]
- if you are changing relative volumes and effects and stuff, you are mixing the completed song
- 20:38:04 [derwin]
- is the mental distinction I have, not sure how relevant it is outside of DAW workflow
- 20:38:07 [Ben\Sput]
- right, but editing the song will still eventually result in a unique mix, right?
- 20:38:33 [derwin]
- right, imo every time you edit the song a "mix" of the song exists
- 20:38:41 [derwin]
- that's why the language kinda sucks
- 20:38:48 [warp]
- derwin: the way you're describing it is exactly how I would use those terms.
- 20:38:51 [derwin]
- even changing levels can create a "mix"
- 20:39:11 [derwin]
- like that beatles stuff, imo the songs are meaningfully different because you can literally hear stuff you couldn't before
- 20:39:15 [Ben\Sput]
- So, a mix is the result of mixing and editing a group of one or more recorded raw audio tracks?
- 20:39:36 [Ben\Sput]
- * Ben\Sput is listening to the beatles stuff during the meeting :)
- 20:39:39 [warp]
- I don't think a mix neccesarily exists if you edit a song.
- 20:39:48 [derwin]
- Ben\Sput: well. I think the mix really comes into existence when you "snapshot" it.
- 20:39:52 [Ben\Sput]
- but where a mix does exist it results from both
- 20:39:55 [warp]
- if after editing you still have a bunch of stems instead of a single recording, the thing hasn't been mixed yet :)
- 20:40:24 [Ben\Sput]
- but it has to be edited to be mixed, though
- 20:40:26 [derwin]
- yeah, a "mix" is related to the rendered or snapshotted thing
- 20:40:59 [hawke_1]
- back.
- 20:41:35 [Ben\Sput]
- ok, we should try to get a rough idea of the definitions we want to use in the docs for mix, mixing and editing, since i think it would be good to include those three terms at least
- 20:41:38 [warp]
- Ben\Sput: yes. it also has to be composed, performed and recorded :)
- 20:41:53 [Ben\Sput]
- how would you guys change what i said a minute ago for mix?
- 20:42:32 [warp]
- compose -> perform + record -> edit -> mix -> master
- 20:43:24 [Ben\Sput]
- but by the time we have raw audio tracks, the composing and performing has been done
- 20:43:35 [Ben\Sput]
- which is why i said editing and mixing them results in a mix
- 20:43:41 [Ben\Sput]
- which can then be mastered for an album
- 20:43:43 [Ben\Sput]
- /single/ep
- 20:43:46 [warp]
- Ben\Sput: perhaps it is useful to talk about stems or multi-track recordings (with the appropriate wikipedia links)
- 20:44:35 [Ben\Sput]
- derwin: is there an actual wikipedia page which describes "stems"?
- 20:44:44 [Ben\Sput]
- the link on that list goes to the wrong thing
- 20:44:48 [hawke_1]
- I’ve never heard the word stems before
- 20:44:55 [hawke_1]
- 'multi-track recordings' yes
- 20:45:10 [warp]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_%28music%29#Production
- 20:45:21 [Ben\Sput]
- warp: yeah i just found that one
- 20:45:25 [warp]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_mixing_and_mastering
- 20:45:38 [derwin]
- yeah, those two
- 20:45:50 [derwin]
- hawke_1: they are very commonly referred to as "Stems" in the remix world
- 20:45:56 [Ben\Sput]
- derwin: so stem ~= raw audio track
- 20:46:01 [Ben\Sput]
- ?
- 20:46:17 [derwin]
- http://soundcloud.com/tracks/search?q%5Bfulltext%5D=stems&q%5Btype%5D=&q%5Bduration%5D=
- 20:46:17 [warp]
- "Stem-mastering is a technique derived from stem mixing." <-- yay, new edge case!
- 20:46:22 [symphonick]
- define "raw audio track" :-(
- 20:46:40 [derwin]
- Ben\Sput: in general yes, 1:1 with an "audio track" on a multitrack console or in a DAW
- 20:46:41 [Ben\Sput]
- symphonick: the thing that's been recorded
- 20:46:50 [derwin]
- sometimes people group tracks in the stems
- 20:46:53 [Ben\Sput]
- ie. a performance that's been recorded but not edited or mixed
- 20:46:58 [derwin]
- instead of giving each indiviual drum, they give you "drums" say
- 20:47:04 [derwin]
- but more frequently 1 track per instrument
- 20:47:07 [Ben\Sput]
- ok
- 20:47:14 [hawke_1]
- so stem = PCM audio or equivalent?
- 20:47:14 [derwin]
- but then sometimes you might get the dry instrument and the affected instrument
- 20:47:18 [derwin]
- they're the same instrument
- 20:47:22 [derwin]
- hawke_1: yes, lossless quality
- 20:47:31 [derwin]
- hawke_1: as the intention is highest quality remix, in general
- 20:47:38 [Ben\Sput]
- So, how's "A mix is the result of mixing and editing one or more stems"?
- 20:47:51 [derwin]
- another good example : http://www.remixcomps.com/
- 20:48:06 [symphonick]
- Honestly, I don't think you should mention "stems".
- 20:48:22 [Ben\Sput]
- symphonick: why not?
- 20:48:23 [SultS]
- SultS has joined #musicbrainz
- 20:48:29 [derwin]
- ( "Copyright © 2013 - Remix Comps - Find a Remix Contest, Remix Stems, Remix Packs, DJ Stems and Remix Loops ")
- 20:48:39 [symphonick]
- Why?
- 20:49:09 [Ben\Sput]
- symphonick: because it's easier than saying "raw audio tracks", and a more correct term, juding by what derwin's said
- 20:49:14 [Ben\Sput]
- *judging
- 20:49:30 [derwin]
- there's also the question of additional material...
- 20:49:40 [derwin]
- a remix might include additional material not in the original stems..
- 20:50:11 [derwin]
- I keep trying to think of what language covers all cases
- 20:50:18 [derwin]
- and it just is.. mush.. to think about.
- 20:50:24 [warp]
- :)
- 20:50:34 [hawke_1]
- is 'stem' too modern/specific perhaps?
- 20:50:37 [Ben\Sput]
- derwin: so long as the remix results in a new mix, we don't need to define remix
- 20:50:44 [hawke_1]
- I mean, we have >100 years of music to think about here…
- 20:51:03 [hawke_1]
- would people recognize the Beatles master tapes as 'stems'?
- 20:51:04 [warp]
- stem is perhaps commonly used for certain kinds of music, and less for others?
- 20:51:12 [Ben\Sput]
- hawke_1: well, the last 50 years or so they've been in use, even if they haven't been called that
- 20:51:24 [derwin]
- you have to have a multi-track recording device to have stems
- 20:51:29 [Ben\Sput]
- hawke_1: i'd call the vocals, the drums on a beatles master the stems
- 20:51:45 [hawke_1]
- derwin: So a stem with only one track is not a stem?
- 20:52:02 [Ben\Sput]
- hawke_1: yeah it is
- 20:52:06 [derwin]
- hawke_1: heh, yeah it is..
- 20:52:11 [Ben\Sput]
- but without a multi-track device, you can't combine them
- 20:52:13 [hawke_1]
- then you don’t need multi-track recording.
- 20:52:17 [derwin]
- like "whites off earth now" by the cowboy junkies
- 20:52:24 [derwin]
- hawke_1: fair enough.
- 20:52:33 [derwin]
- Ben\Sput: not true, revolution 9 by beatles
- 20:52:39 [derwin]
- Ben\Sput: they just set up multiple players and recorded
- 20:52:47 [derwin]
- (I mean, they had a multi-track, but you get my point)
- 20:52:52 [Ben\Sput]
- ok
- 20:52:55 [symphonick]
- I wouldn't use the word "stems" outside / before DAWs on computers?
- 20:53:13 [derwin]
- symphonick: yeah, probably they were called "master tapes" before then?
- 20:53:18 [hawke_1]
- symphonick: I agree that it’s a bit of a backronym, but if it gets the meaning across…
- 20:53:35 [nikki]
- * nikki has never heard of stems before
- 20:53:43 [Ben\Sput]
- so we're calling editing changes to the structure of the stems themselves, and mixing changes to the relative volumes of the tracks?
- 20:53:47 [hawke_1]
- OK, now how do we use this word? :-)
- 20:54:05 [ruaok]
- * ruaok had to look it up when derwin mentioned it at SFMT
- 20:54:22 [Ben\Sput]
- nikki: good, then it's unique and it can't be confused with other stuff
- 20:54:34 [Ben\Sput]
- :D almost as good as thingies
- 20:54:38 [Freso_laptop]
- Is it related to stem cells?
- 20:54:41 [symphonick]
- derwin: something like that, maybe. I think you'd refer to "channels" on a tape machine / mixing console.
- 20:54:44 [derwin]
- it's also unclear to me the relationship between stems and recordings.. ?
- 20:55:00 [Ben\Sput]
- symphonick: problem with channels is that it also refers to the final output channels
- 20:55:09 [hawke_1]
- derwin: stems are presumably mixed down to what we know as recordings
- 20:55:15 [derwin]
- like.. if you have a release where the stems are individual "tracks", aren't they just "recordings" at that point regardless of their relationship to the "mix" of the original track?
- 20:55:22 [derwin]
- hawke_1: ^^
- 20:55:23 [hawke_1]
- derwin: yes.
- 20:55:40 [warp]
- wouldn't they be called tracks in multi-track recordings? :)
- 20:55:50 [hawke_1]
- derwin: individual tracks of the stems would also be recordings, usually unreleased recordings.
- 20:55:54 [Ben\Sput]
- warp: but tracks are on our releases, so that's also confusing :P
- 20:56:18 [Ben\Sput]
- unless we call them "release tracks" and "audio tracks"
- 20:56:20 [hawke_1]
- Where are we going with this anyway?
- 20:56:26 [symphonick]
- to hell
- 20:56:30 [hawke_1]
- where do we need to use the word stems?
- 20:56:41 [Ben\Sput]
- in the definition of mix/mixing/editing
- 20:57:21 [Ben\Sput]
- I don't think we can get much more decided this meeting really
- 20:57:22 [hawke_1]
- OK
- 20:57:44 [Ben\Sput]
- anyone want to bring up anything else mix/master related before we finish?
- 20:58:12 [nikki]
- you do realise that now we have to define stem, so everyone knows wtf the definition means? :P
- 20:58:24 [hawke_1]
- nikki: we can just link to wikipedia
- 20:58:35 [hawke_1]
- nikki: or say 'multi-track recording or master tape'
- 20:58:41 [reosarevok]
- Thankfully *that* one thing does seem clearly defined
- 20:58:47 [reosarevok]
- Not clearly restricted to one name
- 20:58:50 [reosarevok]
- But clearly defined :p
- 20:59:18 [Ben\Sput]
- yeah, that shouldn't be too hard
- 20:59:25 [warp]
- famous last words
- 20:59:30 [Ben\Sput]
- :D
- 20:59:44 [Ben\Sput]
- all right everyone, thanks for coming :)
- 20:59:49 [Ben\Sput]
- </BANG>
- 20:59:53 [warp]
- thank you mr. Sput
- 20:59:59 [Ben\Sput]
- :)
- 21:00:05 [Ben\Sput]
- * Ben\Sput goes away for a bit
- 21:03:03 [derwin]
- I'm sorry to have potentially derailed a bit by mentioning stems
- 21:03:16 [derwin]
- but I do think they are relevant when talking about what makes a "mix" or a "remix"
- 21:04:26 [ruaok]
- derwin: you're a troublemaker. :)
- 21:04:36 [derwin]
- I stir the pot!
- 21:05:20 [ruaok]
- thats why you're a good fit here. :)
- 21:07:37 [derwin]
- so, the thing that's unclear to me about the idea that "mixing" is just volumes
- 21:07:47 [derwin]
- is twofold.. first, I think sonic shaping is still in scope
- 21:08:14 [derwin]
- (you could put reverb on something, that's changing it in a similar way to editing?)
- 21:08:28 [hawke_1]
- derwin: the problem I think is that 1. most of us don’t understand the process, and 2. trying to explain the possible things that can be done in a mix would take pages and pages
- 21:08:32 [derwin]
- second, if you reduce the volume of something enough that it's inaudible, how is it there?
- 21:08:40 [hawke_1]
- and we’re looking for part of a sentence, instead.
- 21:09:16 [derwin]
- hawke_1: yeah. I agree, if I hadn't spent time doing these various tasks, and if I didn't have some awareness of how they can be different roles or ppl in the traditional music industry, it'd be EVEN MORE UNCLEAR to me
- 21:09:22 [hawke_1]
- oh, and 3. at least some of the things that are done for mixing are also done in remasters — or at least in 'things called remasters'
- 21:09:24 [derwin]
- and it's already pretty unclear
- 21:09:34 [derwin]
- hawke_1: yeah, agree on 3.
- 21:15:45 [warp]
- All my music production knowledge comes from Scream Tracker 3 and FastTracker 2.
- 21:15:48 [warp]
- ;)
- 21:16:51 [warp]
- so pretty: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Screamtracker_321.png
- 21:26:41 [reosarevok]
- Oh, Finnish!
- 21:28:19 [hawke_1]
- Can anyone find http://musicbrainz.org/release/208837c8-6809-419e-85e9-de4277197c8d ?
- 21:28:34 [hawke_1]
- has some suspicious AcoustIDs on it…
- 21:29:08 [MutantPlatypus]
- MutantPlatypus has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:29:13 [Jozo]
- warp: Makes me think Amiga :)
- 21:32:19 [hawke_1]
- Leftmost: you were doing stuff with Deutsche Grammophon weren’t you?
- 21:35:28 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: I'd say change to LQ to begin with :p
- 21:36:40 [warp]
- Jozo: that's where all that tracker stuff started
- 21:37:50 [Jozo]
- warp: I'm still #amigafin, soo ;)
- 21:38:01 [MutantPlatypus]
- oooh, an update...
- 21:38:47 [MutantPlatypus]
- i don't understand is the multiple release events per release issue
- 21:39:19 [MutantPlatypus]
- mmm, i english awesome yes
- 21:39:28 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: LQ?
- 21:39:37 [reosarevok]
- low quality, sorry
- 21:40:04 [reosarevok]
- MutantPlatypus: same release which is released in all Benelux countries for example
- 21:40:39 [reosarevok]
- They're the same up to the legal text, usually, but right now to do them correctly we need 3 releases which are the same except for the country
- 21:40:54 [MutantPlatypus]
- yeah, but which fields are allowed to be multiples and which are singletons? country, date, barcode, (label is already multiple)
- 21:40:54 [reosarevok]
- I think the same is true of Scandinavian releases
- 21:40:59 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Oh — yeah, well — I mostly don’t bother with release quality.
- 21:41:06 [reosarevok]
- MutantPlatypus: country and date
- 21:41:16 [MutantPlatypus]
- ah
- 21:41:17 [reosarevok]
- It's about the *same* thing in different countries
- 21:41:20 [reosarevok]
- Not different things
- 21:41:23 [nikki]
- MutantPlatypus: if you can't distinguish them at all, then they're the same
- 21:41:48 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: Having a way to mark all the crap as crap is good
- 21:42:03 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: Yeah, but being able to actually see those markings would be helpful. :-/
- 21:42:06 [reosarevok]
- Maybe we should run a bot to do that to all FreeDB-bot-added releases :p
- 21:42:17 [MutantPlatypus]
- so digital releases will and should be kept separate from other media? Or different formats of digital releases?
- 21:42:23 [Cook879]
- Cook879 has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:42:24 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: and being able to edit them without waiting a week too.
- 21:42:36 [reosarevok]
- MutantPlatypus: a) yes, b) unclear
- 21:42:36 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: different formats will be separate releases still.
- 21:42:45 [reosarevok]
- hawke_1: of digital
- 21:42:47 [nikki]
- MutantPlatypus: the former yes, the latter is controversial
- 21:42:47 [MutantPlatypus]
- okey dokey
- 21:43:03 [hawke_1]
- reosarevok: oh, like MP3 vs. FLAC?
- 21:43:08 [reosarevok]
- I assume so, yes
- 21:43:13 [MutantPlatypus]
- hawke_1 yeah
- 21:43:22 [MutantPlatypus]
- well i figured all lossless would be one
- 21:43:30 [MutantPlatypus]
- so more like MP3 vs M4A
- 21:44:34 [MutantPlatypus]
- oh, and a question from yesterday: is it possible to move AcoustIDs and PUIDs between recordings?
- 21:44:54 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: no.
- 21:44:57 [nikki]
- no, you can only add or remove/unlink them
- 21:44:59 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: only if you have the actual files.
- 21:45:00 [MutantPlatypus]
- :(
- 21:45:14 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: why is that a bad thing?
- 21:45:42 [MutantPlatypus]
- because i think I merged two recordings that shouldn't have been, so the AcoustIDs for a longer version are on the shorter version
- 21:45:53 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: link?
- 21:46:11 [MutantPlatypus]
- http://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/8a143d2c-10ea-435e-bf2a-462c3c7da7b7
- 21:46:14 [mchou]
- mchou has joined #musicbrainz
- 21:46:14 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: also: naughty, if that’s what happened. need to be careful when merging recordings. :-p
- 21:46:36 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: I only see ~6:03 there
- 21:46:43 [MutantPlatypus]
- heh, yeah, I am now. this was earlier in my career. I went back and checked and discovered it
- 21:47:19 [MutantPlatypus]
- http://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/6196fa3f-31d7-43f0-b91a-93c6c78fd78d
- 21:47:38 [MutantPlatypus]
- I was afraid that would happen
- 21:47:42 [hawke_1]
- Oh, you already re-split it?
- 21:47:59 [MutantPlatypus]
- i asked this question yesterday and posted links. it seems somebody simply unlinked them
- 21:48:21 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: I just unlinked the longer one now.
- 21:48:39 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: But I don’t see any evidence of wrong merging.
- 21:48:50 [MutantPlatypus]
- yeah, I found out the versions were different a while back. The longer AcoustID and it's associated PUIDs are probably for the longer version
- 21:48:57 [hawke_1]
- Someone probably just picked the wrong release and submitted to it.
- 21:49:31 [hawke_1]
- If you have the longer version, you can submit to that and it will all be good, but I don’t see that you did anything wrong.
- 21:49:35 [MutantPlatypus]
- eh, there's one merge in the history
- 21:50:02 [MutantPlatypus]
- well, I *suspect* it was me, because I didn't know there were two different versions when I first started
- 21:50:54 [hawke_1]
- Right, but if that merge were of the long duration one, we would see it in the duration list at http://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/8a143d2c-10ea-435e-bf2a-462c3c7da7b7
- 21:51:19 [hawke_1]
- And there’s no merge in http://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/6196fa3f-31d7-43f0-b91a-93c6c78fd78d/edits (the longer recording)
- 21:51:27 [Jozo]
- BTW. I'm complety lost with acoustid and puid mess....
- 21:51:40 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: Just ignore PUIDs. :-)
- 21:52:08 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: And Ignore also acoustid. When there is really two different recordings....
- 21:52:15 [MutantPlatypus]
- it was... erm... hmm... that edit already went through? let me find...
- 21:52:31 [Ben\Sput]
- are we dropping PUIDs in october?
- 21:52:39 [nikki]
- it was suggested
- 21:52:41 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: http://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/21079911 ?
- 21:52:49 [hawke_1]
- Ben\Sput: I sincerely hope so.
- 21:52:55 [Ben\Sput]
- although that would depend on how acoustids go after may
- 21:53:03 [nikki]
- why would it?
- 21:53:23 [hawke_1]
- we can’t do anything with PUIDs regardless of how acoustIDs go…
- 21:53:27 [Ben\Sput]
- doesn't picard have an option to use puids?
- 21:53:33 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: http://musicbrainz.org/work/ecb5597a-7e35-37a2-9008-71e7d62588f6 - Be good time whit those... original and (Todd Terry Club Mix) is complety mixed :)
- 21:53:39 [nikki]
- that's been removed. dunno if it's been released yet
- 21:53:47 [hawke_1]
- Ben\Sput: not any more
- 21:53:50 [MutantPlatypus]
- hawke_1: yeah, that's the merge. But... (let me find the edit that edited the track list)
- 21:53:57 [Ben\Sput]
- oh well, if it doesn't, then it's not dependent on acoustids :P
- 21:54:29 [Ben\Sput]
- speaking of acoustids, luks, ping again :P
- 21:54:47 [nikki]
- ruaok: are we going to drop puids in october?
- 21:55:00 [ruaok]
- thats the plan, yeah
- 21:55:14 [nikki]
- can we announce it then?
- 21:55:18 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: When there is acoustid half that say that is original and this mix... What I can do?
- 21:55:31 [nikki]
- I guess nothing will happen, but at least nobody can claim we didn't tell anyone
- 21:55:33 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: Do you have a copy of each mix?
- 21:55:37 [Ben\Sput]
- jozo: use waveplot! :D
- 21:55:48 [ruaok]
- nikki: sure. you wanna write a blog post or should i?
- 21:55:54 [nikki]
- you :P
- 21:55:58 [nikki]
- silly question
- 21:56:22 [ruaok]
- I knew the answer to that.
- 21:56:23 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: some, those particular i have.. (but my disc is very very very very scratched)
- 21:56:56 [MutantPlatypus]
- http://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/21360154
- 21:57:20 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: But it's something what I do want do right now.....
- 21:57:32 [MutantPlatypus]
- that release is associated with the short version. and edit is in the queue to change the recordings, but that edit shows what the old times were: the time shows the long version
- 21:57:35 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: Do you know which acoustID is the remix, and which is the original?
- 21:58:21 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: No just right now. But internet gives you,,,,,
- 21:58:23 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: you should probably cancel that edit…better to have some track length than none.
- 21:58:38 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: how about “Missing (Lite mix)”?
- 21:58:41 [MutantPlatypus]
- k
- 21:59:03 [MutantPlatypus]
- oops, too late. gotta change it back :P
- 21:59:06 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: Never heard
- 21:59:15 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: you are right though, this is quite a mess. :-D
- 21:59:24 [hawke_1]
- * hawke_1 splashes around in the mud…
- 21:59:56 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: yeah…definitely shouldn’t be removing durations from releases. :-p
- 22:00:28 [MutantPlatypus]
- hawke_1 oh hmmm, it looks like this release was created by me, so any AcoustID's would not have come through that one
- 22:00:46 [MutantPlatypus]
- i guess I didn't incorrectly merge. maybe. I dunno. lesson learned: don't do it again
- 22:01:24 [MutantPlatypus]
- but the only source for track times on that release was discogs, which has no proof. The track times make sense, but aren't verifiable
- 22:01:47 [MutantPlatypus]
- (and I haven't done that since. it takes too long to verify if the track times match the source data) :)
- 22:02:24 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: is that vinyl?
- 22:02:38 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: I just trust discogs for those, most of the time.
- 22:02:50 [hawke_1]
- vinyl duration is so subjective…
- 22:03:04 [MutantPlatypus]
- no, that was the CD. i think. could have been the CD I copied from the vinyl O.o
- 22:03:30 [MutantPlatypus]
- sometimes I suspect JunoDownload actually runs an analog-to-digital recording on their vinyls. That
- 22:03:44 [MutantPlatypus]
- 's the only place I could find a digital version of the extended, early edit
- 22:04:40 [hawke_1]
- MutantPlatypus: http://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/c9b72ef1-2012-4a35-8204-994e3ab18c8d says it’s a 12-inch vinyl, the comment says it’s a promo CD?
- 22:05:13 [MutantPlatypus]
- heh, yeah, i noticed that, too. It probably copied the track list and forgot to change the medium
- 22:05:16 [hawke_1]
- and you’re talking about some CD copied from vinyl o_O?
- 22:06:27 [MutantPlatypus]
- no, i copied the *tracklist*, because the were identical
- 22:06:37 [hawke_1]
- ah
- 22:06:37 [MutantPlatypus]
- er, close
- 22:08:04 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: It was just one example... I have seen many more acoustid/recoridings what looks like complete mess
- 22:08:13 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: Yes, there are some.
- 22:10:09 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: http://acoustid.org/stats → “Recordings per the number of linked AcoustIDs”
- 22:13:10 [hawke_1]
- You can see there are only about 2000 recordings with that many acoustIDS (10 or more)
- 22:13:22 [hawke_1]
- out of 5.5 million that’s pretty good.
- 22:14:50 [Jozo]
- How many puids we have?
- 22:15:13 [hawke_1]
- No idea.
- 22:15:34 [hawke_1]
- Wait, yes i do
- 22:15:59 [Jozo]
- 5 miljons fingerprints not tells much...
- 22:16:14 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: 5.5 million recordings
- 22:16:34 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: Most recordings are sme
- 22:17:11 [hawke_1]
- sme?
- 22:17:15 [Jozo]
- same
- 22:17:43 [hawke_1]
- no, most recordings are not that bad. 90% of recordings that have an acoustID, have only one.
- 22:18:35 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: And musicbrainz has about 15 miljon records..
- 22:19:15 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: Most recordings on musicbrains doesn't have any acoustid
- 22:19:50 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: I've counted something wrong?
- 22:19:53 [Mineo]
- most recordings are probably not looked at after they're added :P
- 22:19:59 [Ben\Sput]
- Jozo: a significant proportion of those recordings can probably be merged :P
- 22:20:37 [Jozo]
- Ben\Sput: But we can't merge without....
- 22:20:51 [Jozo]
- ... evidence
- 22:21:01 [hawke_1]
- Jozo: 12.1 million recordings — so just under half have acoustIDs.
- 22:21:07 [Ben\Sput]
- Jozo: not yet :)
- 22:21:58 [reosarevok]
- Well, we're not supposed to merge without evidence in general, Ben\Sput :P
- 22:22:08 [Ben\Sput]
- reosarevok: yeah i was going t oclarify that a little :P
- 22:22:17 [Ben\Sput]
- reosarevok: not such hard to obtain evidence anyway
- 22:22:45 [reosarevok]
- Ben\Sput: well, I fully expect people to submit wrong waveplots too :p
- 22:22:50 [Jozo]
- hawke_1: But it's good to know that only about 2000 recordings neeed VERY special....
- 22:23:02 [Ben\Sput]
- reosarevok: oh I wasn't talking about waveplots :P
- 22:23:08 [reosarevok]
- Oh, just about mixes?
- 22:23:16 [Ben\Sput]
- reosarevok: yeah
- 22:23:37 [Ben\Sput]
- anyway, incorrect waveplots are easier to detect than incorrect acoustids
- 22:24:02 [Jozo]
- Ben\Sput: When waveplot presents on port 80?
- 22:24:27 [Freso]
- HSOWA: You should be well aware that I already knew about SatW, seeing how we've discussed them before.
- 22:24:34 [Ben\Sput]
- Jozo: I don't know yet :P (mainly because I've never run pyth9on on a web server)
- 22:24:44 [Freso]
- HSOWA: I was trying to find a good example of Danes having no shame.
- 22:26:22 [Jozo]
- Ben\Sput: Do you that you can make it transparent to users? if you want
- 22:27:05 [Jozo]
- +know
- 22:27:33 [Ben\Sput]
- Jozo: nope :P
- 22:27:46 [Ben\Sput]
- I have a web server running on port 80 though
- 22:28:56 [Jozo]
- Ben\Sput: So make some other webserver forward everything to you.. And you then have static adress
- 22:29:19 [Ben\Sput]
- Jozo: I can just get fastcgi running on lighttpd :)
- 22:29:37 [Ben\Sput]
- Jozo: although that's probably not going to be as fast to develop with as how i'm doing it now
- 22:31:01 [Jozo]
- Ben\Sput: never mind
- 22:31:26 [jesus2099]
- jesus2099 has joined #musicbrainz
- 22:31:33 [TheLastProject]
- TheLastProject has joined #musicbrainz
- 22:33:45 [jesus2099]
- nikki jozo kepstin : as far as i know ISRC in Japan are still after 2000, dated of recording year and that is great. i have not seen a single example of the contrary yet. all my releases examples are after 2000 and they are still dated correctly -recording year- same for this french release http://musicbrainz.org/release/cfc718a6-7d0d-4d67-939a-bd2591144beb (France is more and more dating correctly the recordings ISRC). there is nothing
- 22:33:45 [jesus2099]
- showing me otherwise yet (no so called pdf, no ISRC examples) . the only exceptions i nkow so far are for remasters that get the new yaer of remaster
- 22:33:52 [jesus2099]
- :=) good night
- 22:33:54 [jesus2099]
- jesus2099 has left #musicbrainz
- 22:38:58 [praest76]
- praest76 has joined #musicbrainz
- 22:39:40 [nikki]
- jesus2099: https://beta.musicbrainz.org/recording/6c71912a-6f08-4ff6-abb6-3e64c2fe26e3
- 22:41:47 [nikki]
- jesus2099: and I suspect the only reason you still see recording years is because (as far as I know) you're not supposed to assign new isrcs
- 22:43:13 [nikki]
- so most stuff either already had an isrc from a previous release or is brand new and the year of assignment matches the year of recording
- 22:44:18 [reosarevok]
- which is true for most new stuff :9
- 22:44:19 [reosarevok]
- *:)
- 22:44:55 [nikki]
- as I said, "most stuff" :P
- 22:45:18 [storrgie]
- storrgie has joined #musicbrainz
- 22:48:54 [Ben\Sput]
- Ben\Sput has left #musicbrainz
- 22:50:08 [Freso]
- as I said, "goodnight"
- 22:54:58 [SultS]
- SultS has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:06:27 [Ben\Sput]
- Ben\Sput has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:06:29 [Ben\Sput]
- Ben\Sput has left #musicbrainz
- 23:32:28 [hawke_1]
- hawke_1 has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:34:54 [ruaok]
- ruaok has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:34:54 [ruaok]
- ruaok has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:41:38 [JonnyJD__]
- JonnyJD__ has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:49:45 [skd5aner]
- skd5aner has joined #musicbrainz
- 23:55:55 [reosarevok]
- http://books.google.ee/books?id=iUQDFlj1ykkC&hl=en looks handy :)
- 23:56:28 [reosarevok]
- (even if it lacks some pages and all that)