Beta relationship editor suggestions

A separate field/box/etc for relationships shared by all (or the currently selected) recordings or works would be very much appreciated. I recently had to add performance dates to work relationships on a medium-sized release and it was very annoying.

There are some hit and miss scripts that do “set relation attribute” that I can only get to work on Firefox. I have one for “set recording dates” that has got upset and stopped working. The best working one for dates is Copy Dates That one I can get to reliably work. The trick there is set one relationship on the left with a date (i.e. Recorded At Place, or Vocals with a date). Then tick everything you want to copy and it will whip that date onto all of the recordings. Even better when you have a Release with multiple gig locations and dates as it copies everything per recording.

I assume that will likely be lost once this change comes in.

Notice on that same scripts page is Set Relation Attributes, but I can’t get that to work. It should give a one click option to set everything live, etc… but won’t work in my copy of Vivaldi. You may have more luck.

When working on Live bands this kind of addition to a standard Relationship Editor page would be a massive time saver. The design of the new page will make task of adding “date, live” much slower as it is harder to focus on where the “Work” is on the left hand side. Setting Recording Attributes on the right like we do now is at least easy to focus on and target with the mouse.

Temporarily, but hopefully we can get it back up soon - we are happy to work with script writers to make sure their work is easier and we have added a few things specifically for them already during beta :slight_smile:


Is it super turbo?
This one still works for me:


I think so - problem I get is I find the “Editing” menu just refuses to open at all on a click in the relationship editor (we can go to another thread to talk if you want as this is going OT… but as I have many script issues I don’t generally fuss too much and it looks especially pointless now that these new changes are going to disrupt all these scripts anyway :frowning: )

1 Like

Oh sorry, I didn’t try the beta site!

A post was split to a new topic: Arranger/Orchestrator for artists

me too! I am detail oriented, and I add many recording dates.

1 Like

Sorry I missed this thread earlier!

Agreed, I think we can hide it if there’s only one work (most recording-work relationships won’t have any ordering either).

We recently minimized all of those “Add another entity” buttons into smaller “+” icons next to the relationship phrase. That reduces the amount of scrolling by quite a bit (but I think we won’t be able to avoid it being somewhat worse than production).

I’ve seen several people confused by this and am open to suggestions. But basically:

  • On the left (recording) side you can edit/reorder each work link, so it’s the same as if you were on that recording’s edit page.
  • The right side just lists each unique work linked to the recording. So you can edit the work relationships from there, but not the recording-work links.

One situation where this is obviously different is where you have duplicate relationships to the same work:


In production it duplicates works on the right side for each recording-work relationship.

Your last two images confuse me. How can something be a “recording of” and a “cover recording of”. That is a duplicate where one part would be deleted. Not something you’d have in a real recording.

Also thinking as a noobie. When you see that last image with the “these relationships have a specific ordering” that seems like that will refer to everything above (all the instruments) and not just the recordings. This seems to make more sense on the right hand side?

It is more likely to have two different works on the right linked to a recording. That is when you want to order them. This example image is a little confusing by showing something that you would not have real world.

I do understand why you have this “make the page look just like a recording page”. I can recognise the source of this, just not sure if it makes sense in this context. Just a personal thought that leaving works only on the right makes more sense instead of putting them on both sides like this.

(Sorry, not meaning to sound negative. I just say what I see. You guys do a great job. I just also intentionally “think dumb” when being asked for feedback to out think how something can be miss-interpreted by that ID-10T user…)

The green + signs are neater and will save some scrolling. Thanks. That is a big plus plus good to see.

I should also say that I have always like the way your x deletes work. Having them reversible is a big plus good. I’ve often deleted something while editing only to revert that before hitting save.

The stacking and formatting of text is quicker and cleaner to read when compared with the old layout.


Sorry, it was a bad example because I didn’t have a real one on hand. A real example could be a medley that performs the same work twice, with other music in between, e.g.

It’s not super common, but I think it has real-world use cases (or the style leader can correct me). My thought process is: if we can make the interface consistent with the recording edit page while also making the UI a little more sane when the works are repeated, then it might be worth doing. But I get that people are used to the old way.

There’s another area where the old UI clashes with the new related to pending works that have been batch-created but not submitted yet. We have an edit icon where you can edit the work details:

If the recording-work relationships were editable on the right side as before, we’d have two edit icons, and I’m not sure of a great way to indicate which icon edits what.


For further feedback on the relationship editor, let’s use this thread:

(answers to specific comments in here are of course still fine to post!)

1 Like

Ah, now that makes sense. :slight_smile: (I use the multiple works thing a lot, so setting the order on this page is handy.)

This is another reason I would have just left that Works bit over on the right. I see the point of mimicking the normal Edit Recording page on the left, but as you have more space on this page to work with in the relationship editor it seems a waste not use it to expand the detail for the Works.

See it as snipping that last bit off of a Recording, and moving it to the right for clarity. Keeping all the Works stuff together on the right. Then you don’t need to think about how to avoid the clashing pencils. :slight_smile:

an option to fix this could be an edit icon inside the green highlight for the new works? either a pencil or otherwise…

Hi! For things like that (new relationships or changes to the existing ones), please add a STYLE ticket (Proposals - MusicBrainz) :slight_smile: Please do indicate the intended use and ideally some examples of releases / liner notes crediting that while you do it.


Something in the new relationship editor, when editing a band that has several members.

I cannot say if I like it or not, feature or bug.
In Members or in Original members, when you click Add another artist :heavy_plus_sign: button, all instruments and vocals contained in the pre-existing members will be copied over

When I recently added a new band, all members played different instruments, so it was a little bogus, as I had to delete growing list of pre-filled instruments for each member.

But when you edit existing band, maybe it can help… :thinking:


Ticket with example opened here:

That’s not a ticket, but I can turn it into one :slight_smile:

Edit: Done, at [STYLE-2326] Add "pre" attribute for mastered by / at relationships - MetaBrainz JIRA


Please do so. I have not opened a ticket yet :thinking: