Artwork adds, and related information

Hello all- As many know, I have been making an effort to upload content that I have as of late while it is out. In this, I am uploading as much artwork as I can, as my primary focus. While I am also taking artwork from other sources as I go through artists for what I do not have, my query here is in reference to the artwork from my collection.

Could I kindly ask that those who have the time either check in or subscribe to my edits and periodically look at the edits I have relating to this? I am not just adding the artwork, matching by barcode and catalog number mostly when there is only one option in MB, but also trying to add the related information such as copyrights, mastering info, etc that said artwork contains.

My main areas of concern are:

  1. Obviously a double checking (spot checking only really) that the matches were made properly. If there is some indicator I am missing causing poor adds, I want to find that now vs later.
  2. That I apply the credits properly, meaning to the release group, the release and/or the recording. I am tending to the too much / not needed side of things, but also want to make sure none of it is wrong.
  3. As it relates to the artwork itself, I have added some duplicate images. I have started to remove ones I Am replacing, but I am not seeing an easy way to do this. Example, when I open my folder and view the artwork, I can quickly see the list with the preview and associated attributes. So in the case I have one larger in file size than another, one of higher resolution than another, etc, I can quickly see this and make a “pick the best” selection. In MB, is there a way to do this without opening and in some cases downloading and inspecting to determine which are best of the bunch?

I appreciate any input.

To add, I am also trying to add more supplementary info, things like remastered, reissue, etc in annotations for example. I am finding this important, as I go through this process, I easily find it difficult to tell the difference between listed releases.

EDIT: One question for opinion… If you read on cover art “Mastered from digital tapes transferred from original analogue master tapes”, would you feel ok to imply/derive the annotation of remastered? This might sound silly, but the word remastered is not explicitly stated.

1 Like

Just had a quick browse, looks great!

Hah, I forgot this was a script. Makes life much easier:


Script: Display CAA Cover Art Dimensions

I also left a few comments re. getting the best pictures for digital releases by using this tool: Image Max URL

I know you don’t like scripts sorry! :sweat:

1 Like

All good. I still appreciate the feedback. I know I prefer things manual, but tit is not that I will not use scripts, it is only a preference. I use 2 scripts from @jesus2099 but they are display only. Even still, I question why MB does not have this a part of the site itself since the code is right there, even to have it optional, a selection. Honestly as I try to do things more in depth than when I started, I can see the advantages of some scripts… until changes are made to make some functionality native, there is really no other option.

Cheers friend, :beers:

EDIT: LOL! Script approved. Like it.


I also addressed your no vote on cover art. I must admit… there were not many versions of these releases, so I did not look that close at the cover. I canceled my add and replaced it with the cover art from Discogs, as it was a Discogs import from origin per edit notes. I however cannot add my artwork as different release, as there is no other reference for it in order to differentiate.

Anyway, I agree with your catch here. Thanks.

EDIT: The whole Do or Die discography is incomplete. I have most all of it in my collection, so working towards completing it the best I can. I was surprised to see artist confusion in the mix too…


This is again a question on my next release edit. It is my opinion that the verbiage implies remastering for a few reasons, but I can see the hypothetical opposition saying that it is not stated as a remaster.

EDIT: I would also like to query this… if there is a remaster, it is safe to also call it a reissue? I am trying to determine the redundancy there. Meaning, remaster I believe implies reissue, but reissue does not imply remaster.

I feel ‘reissue’ is always redundant, because for me it just means ‘not the first release’. Because we can see the release dates and compare them in the group, I don’t see the point in adding it to all releases after the first. But maybe ‘reissue’ means something else to others?

For a disambiguation I would put ‘remaster’ without too much second guessing if you think it’s likely or implied by the packaging (so it helps people distinguish it), but I would cover myself by putting the exact wording in the annotation. (I’m unclear if you mean the disambiguation or the annotation but they usually work in tandem anyway)


So does that script go to the pic url and searches for a larger one basically? Cool!

1 Like

Yup! You can either paste an image URL in, or download the script from that page which will automatically max size (if it can) images you open.

The best method for most releases though is to use this MB script:
Enhanced Cover Art Uploads
Which runs any pictures it pulls through the above site automatically :heart_eyes:
I cannot stress how much time that one’s saved, and how much it must have done for MB image quality…

What are your thoughts on the source of an image? I can provide some examples on what I mean:

  1. I have an Amazon release, and thus I link the Amazon URL as a reference. I can then take the cover art from the Amazon page, or the release if that applies, and upload it.
  2. I have an iTunes release and can upload the image that is from the iTunes reference page, or the image that came with the release.

In the above, I provided the artwork that literally came with the release. Is this preferred to options like using an iTunes artwork for a CD release, under the assumption that the appearance is the same other than quality and/or size?

I refer to Disambiguation on the release. Adding things like remastered, reissue, etc.

I also see your point on reissue.

You mean a download album?
Because for CD release, there is no Amazon release and generally, Amazon CD covers are more like concept art than the actual cover.
So you can upload this one, if you have confirmed that it has the same content, same text placement, width/height ratio, etc. (which are often not the case).


You have understood what I meant correctly. I used poor words to describe.

As it relates to a CD from Amazon, I was referring more to the lineage aspect. I order a CD from Amazon, use the Amazon reference etc.

For a download release, I am meaning whether or not to use the artwork from the source vs elsewhere. So meaning I buy from Amazon, download it, but use cover art from iTunes.

It is interesting you mention aspect ratio. I have wondered on this at times. I recall a past conversation, I believe within MB, on aspect ratios. The discussion was in regard to a statement similar to “cover art is to be square in size, ie 500x500”. While I understand the concept, I disagree with the implications.

While it is generally safe to say that most releases do have square artwork (a vinyl sleeve is square, a standard jewel case is square, digital releases supply square images, etc), there are other common packages like a slim jewel case, DVD style case, a 2 CD tall folding case, cassette case, etc.

[side note, I had a similar discussion with those at TheMovieDB regarding poster aspect ratios, they prefer to modify the original artwork to meet their stated spec / standard of 1:1.5, although they allow 1:1.33 through 1:1.67 to be added]

1 Like

Such a statement is not supported by our guidelines for cover art.


I much prefer this method over what TMDB has. In my collection, what I do is keep the original artwork in a folder, the stuff MB wants. I then, if needed, will create a square version to use as the “folder.jpg” file. I do this because many softwares rely on the cover art to be square. This is the logic that TMDB uses, they side on catering to the user, and the user expects the artwork to be consistent… generally speaking.

It would be neat to see MB having a spot for this, for lack of better terms, standardized artwork. More as a service to users, but not replacing the true artwork.

When I add artwork, I generally try to keep it in line with the release. I recall an add for Beastie Boys Licensed to Ill, original CD. I supported keeping to the smaller 500x500 vs the new larger versions of the image. My reasoning is that in 1986, artwork was not that big, so the smaller size is more true to the actual release. What do others think of this?

I can see both sides… one side is wanting the best possible, but correct looking, image… and the other being a true and proper representation of the release.

NOTE: My statement above does not really apply to scanned artwork from the source. Scans I prefer to scan at the best quality, or photograph at the best quality, and alter the result as little as possible, none if possible.

1 Like

Artwork in MB is about recognition. A digipak is a rectangle and a square image is therefore fake and should not be used.

If someone wants to make their own square images from that, then all is good. Don’t think MB should be adjusting to taggers. There are enough sites like TMDB, AudioDB, etc who make pretty images for that purpose.

Also the RG image is often set to the digital image from iTunes for this reason. It is often cleanest of colours and good for taggers and stops them breaking the CD images.

And picking up on an above comment - Ebay is more reliable than Amazon for artwork… as a shop Amazon does not really care what it uses. After a while you start to spot how bad their artwork really is.

I am five years down the road from my first artwork uploads and now I sometimes cringe when I spot how bad some art is I uploaded back then. Or how I totally missed details that I spot today.

Also, a 500x500 image in 2022 is painfully low res. Just look at Discogs and trying to read text from a 600x600 image of a booklet. My own stuff I stick to 600dpi which makes a standard CD cover 2826x2836 which is currently double the res of my monitors. Already my mobile phone it going beyond that res though so I can always see the point of a high-res upload. It is always easy to reduce the resolution if needed, but impossible to upscale it.


Fair enough. I need to remember this aspect. I thought prior that taggers was one of MB’s main focuses. That is fine by me. I only suggested the option as I also like to help users in software I make or contribute to. I guess that seems strange as I do not use MB for tagging, I am only thinking of other users and their potential needs.

I also agree that in general, iTunes provides great quality artwork. Usually the best or one of the best there is.

Amazon’s artwork is awful at best. Generally low resolution and back covers not even including the spine.

I agree with you on this point, but there are other sides to it. In other threads, it was commented that Linux dropping JPG in favor of PNG is a waste of space, and there is a point to that. The same is true here. When I use my media, I use 500x500 for artwork, and this is also how Kid3 resizes embedded artwork. This is very different from a more archival storage. My artwork for some releases exceed the storage size of the release itself. This is the stuff I am trying to get into MB.

The same holds true with digital audio. Once to take that WAV and make an MP3, there is no going back. You strategically destroyed the audio with the intent of a final mastering. Once that data is gone, it is gone.

I have no idea about the “before times”. I’ve been active here since 2017 and it is all about the accuracy now. If a tagger wants to use the image then they can crop it. You are actively discouraged from uploading a neat 1000x1000 image just for tagging.

This is not a taggers site. It just has really useful data for taggers to make use of.

It is similar with those who upload a 20MB PNG for a cover image. If I trip over some of these, then I will turn them into JPGs for my own use, but know that the PNG is more future proofed for the higher-resolution future. I still remember when my 640x480 monitor was the best thing around!

I now use a 50" HD TV screen as part of my media centre. A 500x500 image looks too pixelated on there. Even looks bad on my mobile phone. I want my images of a higher resolution than that, but I don’t personally need 300MB of images in that same folder. 80% JPGs look good enough to me.

This is why I used the analogy when replying to you :wink:

Yeah, have never done that, I am more the one uploading the 20MB PNG files.

Yeah, with a screen that size, you need to view it from about 8 feet away… many factors being assumed. I would think however that a 500x500 image will look just as crisp as a 2000x2000 image, as long as the viewing is not zoomed. On a screen of that size though, I would guess zooming an image that small is sort of needed.

What about the case where there is a slip case… the outside has a cover as does the jewel case within, but the sizes of them are different. Which one is used?


The image here is a square image, as founf as the insert in the jewel case. Looking at the Discogs entry for this release, you can see the cover for the slip case:

I think either could be correct, but I typically do the slipcover front first. several examples from my collection:

actually, on the Five Iron Frenzy release, the artwork threw me off, because the copy I got secondhand didn’t have the slipcover, so I thought it was a different release. it wasn’t til someone added full scans that I realized I had an incomplete version… :sweat_smile: