How to correctly classify artwork of J-Card type that comes with CD Single releases? It has some properties of a booklet and some properties of a back/tray. I guess the front part can be tagged as such, but what if the scan is split into two and the rear side of it is also scanned? How to tag the other parts?
You can check more than one box. If it’s both a booklet and a back, you can check both. (Long time since I’ve seen an audio cassette, actually!)
You mean the usual 8cm CD SINGLE’s pachage?
There have been two attempts of entries, so far, by @HibiscusKazeneko:
But I am still not sure with the name to use.
If you know the name, please tell. J-Card is the best name?
Apparently the word J-Card refers to the way the cardboard looks when it’s folded around a cassette. But nobody looking through the list of artwork types is going to have a clue what the hell it means, so it’s not a very useful name. Personally I just tag these as “liner”.
Yes, I want to know how to tag artwork that is part of a CD single release (such as this one). I learned the name from a forum thread on Discogs where they discussed how to call the packaging where the card fits into. The form is apparently borrowed from cassette.
If you say Liner is the best description, I will use that from now on. Is the front part also liner then? I thought liner was only for vinyl records.
It wasn’t really a well-reasoned decision to use liner, it just seemed to be the most logical type to use when I was adding a couple of cassettes some time ago.
Usually the liner is the paper sleeve containing the disc which is in turn usually inserted in the actual cardboard LP sleeve. I just interpreted it as “paper thing wrapped around the actual medium,” which makes sense to me, but not necessarily to everyone.
Note that a scan of the outside this J-thing usually contains the front, spine and back, and in that case those types should be set, whether you decide to use liner or not. See this example.
@j7n you are uploading a confusing photo of a regular jewel case tray.
And also please set the release package type as slim jewel case.
I always forget that the spine is a separate item. One last thing, is the “back” the flap where the barcode and small tracklisting are (to the left of “front” when unfolded), or is the “back” also another surface?
I cancelled the problematic edits, since I can’t upload pic without a foreign jewel case at the moment.
If we’re talking about this:
I don’t see why we need a different cover art type.
The entire scan is ‘front’ + ‘spine’ + ‘back’, and personally I would always upload that + one cropped to show just the front (with just that type set).
If you would like to crop to just the back and upload that as well, yes, it would qualify as type ‘back’, as would a scan of the back of the entire case with medium + the back of the J-card showing. If uncertain, I just add both
Why would we call these pictures ‘liners’ though? They’re not liners are they…
(I buy/release quite a few cassettes still, they never really died out in the punk/metal (black metal in particular) genres)
For slim jewel case, there is usually no back cover, here I don’t see any either at first sight.
Usually, the CD label acts as the back cover, as it should be stored with its label towards outside, places against the case, with CD surface towards inside, towards the eye when you open case.
You can see the part with the barcode on it from the back, no?
Oh of course, yes, my bad, that small part indeed is a back.
So I’m going to tag all other parts that don’t include the folded section with barcode, the spine, or the front, as “Other”.
Are cropped rectangular front covers, with the missing corners of J-card filled in with a cloning brush, permitted to be uploaded to the site in addition to other pictures that show the artwork in full? I think they would look good in a media player.
If unsure, you can also just leave the type blank, which can be better than ‘other’ if you;re simply not sure.
I still do it quite often
No, sorry! We’re not that kind of database, we just want to represent the actual media.
But https://fanart.tv/ is! We have a plugin to use cover art from there: https://picard.musicbrainz.org/plugins/
So you can upload your perfect touched up images to there, and then tag with them (and others will be able to too).
I have cancelled one edit. Feel free to remove everything else I uploaded, since I can’t do that myself with expired edits.
Once I again, I found that I should have kept quiet, or at least been very vague with my question, to avoid drawing attention to other aspects… In the grand scheme, the type flags didn’t really matter that much. I’m feeling rather bitter now… I won’t be posting anything else to the site, and definitely no singles.
Actually, there is no database like that. Fanart only allows square artwork, which singles can rarely be transformed into. They would have to be significantly overcropped. And Fanart’s standard presumes consideably more processing that I find acceptable. Many artwork items on their site have replaced type, and it usually has hideous glow from sharpening. Anything I posted to the site would eventually be subject to trumping.
I’ve deleted my account from the site.
Perhaps a bit of a hasty move. My notes on the edited uploads were just to make future users aware of the edits, not to remove them (or I would have voted no).
(for reference, I mean these notes: https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/42627787)
In most cases a slightly edited version is better than no version at all, and I’m sure most users would agree with me there, so it’s unlikely you were going to get a big slap on the wrist for uploading those.
Looks like you know more about fanart.tv than I do, thanks for the info.
I appreciated your high quality additions to the site and your responses to edit notes, and you are welcome back any time
And if you do come back please don’t find the need to ‘hide’, we have rules but hopefully they are sensible/practical enough for you not to feel the need to sneak edits through! We are also open to extremely long-winded arguments about guidelines, or possible improvements, which is definitely a common occurence around here
Hopefully see you again in the future.
Just for future reference, my €0.02.
For a typical slimline jewel case insert (usually, but not always, used fir cd singles), I would use:
- Back, for the small flap, which usually has barcode and catno
- Spine, for the tiny spine
- Front, for the front
- Liner and/or booklet, for the (usually up to three) “pages” not already covered
I agree, if editor posting the images indicates images were edited and for which reason.
Sometimes cover art is hard to scan (ie. metallic cover art can give an awful result depending on scanner or the scanner is old but the editor has the release in hands), so editing those is sometimes better than not editing them.
Also a very rare release’s cover art may come from a low quality source and editing can somehow improve the situation or the cover art is difficult to scan because of its size or the kind of packaging (folded booklet unfolding in poster, limited edition fun packaging for example).
Also one may want to remove some information unrelated to the release (personal words, signature, number, etc…).
There are plenty of cases where editing images is perfectly acceptable. The best is to tell about it in edit note. And until someone is able to provide a better image it is perfectly ok.
There are also cases were editing is totally stupid, like cropping an image because of the final use of it (“i want square images…”) or uploading an (different) image from another release… Because on MusicBrainz, cover art serves as a way to actually identify releases. In those cases, a No vote is required, we don’t want even more crap
Rage-quitting MB ? lol. Hope to see you back at some point
And in the image comment, most of the time.
I understand that the artwork must come from the specific edition, because they are often different on special, limited, and promo releases. And after some years, it is hard to tell which relase had which cover. Vinyl covers usually have slightly different composition with smaller titles and logos. I have voted for removal of one such misplaced artwork. (The other site mixes artwork up all in one group together with ‘remastered’ pictures.)
But the cropping is like a different viewpoint of the same object. I can accept that the rectangular “preview” image would not reside in the first slot. But I’m shocked to find that it has not place at all among up to a dozen images found under a release. Also, when an entire release group is viewed, the picture shown for it is not representative of any particular physical object, buf of the song / album as a whole. Why would it then have torn off corners?
These rectangular pictures for slim cases look good to me, although if they had detail near the edges, I would definitely choose my less cropped versions. Enigma 1 Enigma 2 The picture of the disc is also permitted to exist in a foreign tray.
I once uploaded a “mockup” image from Audio Fidelity, which they have on site for preview purposes, and a user disaprove of it, and asked for a scan to be put in the first slot. Later it was permitted to exist because it was an official image. A picture with filled in corners differs a great deal less from the full view of the box than those mockups do.
Resolution attainable from a CD cover is in slot one, while digital artwork is further down below. Grande 5