Artwork adds, and related information

[aerozol]

This has all already been covered quite well, but lemme throw my 2 cents in anyway!

@thwaller

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.

MB tracks the actual CD, not the images on stores selling the CD (unlike digital where the two are harder to untangle). So if it doesn’t match the actual CD it’s a thumbs down. Amazon is very lazy with their artwork, but often enough it matches.

@thwaller

options like using an iTunes artwork for a CD release

I personally wouln’t do this, I would just add the iTunes release and add the cover to that. If I wanted to store the image. With the ability to add a release group cover there’s no need to duplicate the ‘best’ image across to other releases.

However if others do it and the iTunes image matches the CD cover (the picture and the size etc) I do not vote ‘no’, as it still represents the release ok until there are scans. Scans are definitely the gold standard for physical.

@thwaller

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.

We have a couple of spots for this:
Release group cover - this should (generally) be set to a nice clean, high res, square cover. People can choose that as their preferred source in Picard
Fanart.tv - If there’s no nice digital release to add to the group you can upload ‘fan images’ (e.g. edited/cropped etc) to fanart.tv. People can choose that as their preferred source in Picard

@thwaller

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.

I would grab the biggest image from the iTunes server you could get, as it will be 1:1 to the one embedded in the tracks or whatever, just nice and big.

@thwaller

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

This is a good example of where I would add a new digital release to house a nice shiny digital release cover*. And then put the slipcase cover, even if worse quality, with the CD release.

Then we can have our pretty cover art cake and eat it too

*I was going to do it, but it seems to have been taken down from digital retailers apart from Spotify (which doesn’t have the best art). Seems like it was on iTunes, as well as Tidal, for sure, in the past.

[thwaller]

@aerozol

We have a couple of spots for this:
Release group cover - this should (generally) be set to a nice clean, high res, square cover. People can choose that as their preferred source in Picard

To be honest, I never looked at this. So one can add a separate cover for the group that is not on the releases? This is interesting, even if that is not the case. I appreciate this comment. There is a lot about MB that I know, but also a lot that I do not. The more comments like this I get as responses the more I see the items I am missing and do not know about.

[jesus2099]

@thwaller

there is a slip case… the outside has a cover as does the jewel case within, but the sizes of them are different

Theoretically:

• Slip case gets Front and Back types.
• Inner booklet gets Booklet type and not Front, because it’s not visible from outside.
• Inner jewel case back and spine does not get Back types, because it’s not visible from outside.
• Inner jewel case spines may get Spine type if they are visible from outside.

[thwaller]

Ok, I can agree with this, it makes sense to me. Is this an “official” guideline or rule?

In the example above that I provided, there is a different slip cover for two variations of the release, although the insides are the same.

[jesus2099]

@thwaller

Is this an “official” guideline or rule?

It’s my today’s interpretation of:

https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Cover_Art/Types

Front: front of the packaging
Back: back of the package

But I used to do like @UltimateRiff, in the past:

@UltimateRiff

the slipcover front first

Before understanding the guidelines more strictly.

---

@thwaller

different slip cover for two variations of the release

That would make two MB releases.

[thwaller]

@jesus2099

That would make two MB releases.

Yes, I agree. I was only commenting on how the slip cover can differ while the inside does not.

@jesus2099

It’s my today’s interpretation of:

So in your interpretation, it is the slip cover artwork that should be primary, and the jewel case cover should be booklet… did I understand you correctly?

[aerozol]

@thwaller

So one can add a separate cover for the group that is not on the releases?

Not quite - if you go to the release group you’ll see a button that says ‘set cover art’ (or similar).

There you can manually pick one of the releases (and it’s cover) to use for the release group.

So you still have to either have or add a release with a good cover in the group, but pretty speedy to add one from iTunes or similar

[IvanDobsky]

@thwaller

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.

Maybe I see pixilation quicker? Just like when you hear MP3 artefacts. Same problem. Small images just look blocky to me. Especially bad if trying to read booklet text for credits.

@thwaller

What about the case where there is a slip case…

Slipcase is the outer cover and should be a scan of that actual slip case. That is the true front. That is what you see when you pull it from the shelf and look at it.

On many releases, the inner CD is also a “front”. I have seen box sets with all the inner CDs marked as separate fronts and backs. (and by AEs who know the guidelines). So this is not fully consistent.

And CDs should be scanned separate. Even if it is the same image. No cheating and cropping the slipcase image.

Like @aerozol, I don’t like seeing an iTunes image appear for a CD. I’d add a comment to the image if that was the case.

[jesus2099]

@thwaller

So in your interpretation, it is the slip cover artwork that should be primary, and the jewel case cover should be booklet… did I understand you correctly?

Yes, it’s what I mean.
I would not tag the inner booklet as Front, because it’s not visible when the packaging is closed.

Only the slip case is visible and sometimes (inner) spine(s), as well.

But the most important is to put the slipcase first in order, even if one really wants to tag the inner booklet as Front.

An example with box as Front and jewel case’s booklet as Poster because it is a mini poster folded in 4, to replicate LP size artwork.

Also, hype stickers and obi tagged as Front or Back: yes (and spine too, for the obi spine section).