@loujin asked if I could share a release that I think has everything for being marked as high quality as an example, so: this is what I think we should try to get, pretty much.
I’ve added a piano technician relationship since I’m seeing this credit a lot. No need to throw it in the annotation anymore!
Since this credit should also be used for piano tuners, is it the same thing? What does a “piano technician” do apart from (presumably) tuning the instrument?
“piano repair, piano tuning and piano appraisals” says the Piano Technicians Guild. So in our case, mostly just tuning, I imagine.
I guess it is basically a piano tuner, but there is a lot more to it than getting the pitch right. (I recommend watching Pianomania for a fascinating insight into the work of a piano tuner with some very exacting concert pianists.)
3 posts were split to a new topic: High data quality requirements
I can probably do it tonight
Edit: @reosarevok done
Somewhat belatedly started to go through hyperion, starting with my collection. This one: https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/f6494838-5c49-4b56-a526-c9eae90c27f9?tport=8002 was also available as two separate CDs (which I have) - https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_CDA67307 and https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_CDA67308
but I’m not sure how that should be dealt with in MB - should they be shown as two separate releases under the same release group and is there an easy way to create them from the double-CD?
They should be two new releases in two different release groups.
You can add an existing medium to a release from the Tracklist tab (Add Medium > Existing Medium). Unfortunately the search thing doesn’t allow searching by MBID (must me the only place in MB where that is impossible!). But if you search for the exact title and release artist of the existing release, with the same number of tracks, the first two results are actually the media you are looking for.
Also, don’t forget to set the “included in” relationship to the release groups!
In fact I was wrong - the separate releases have already been entered - twice for vol 2! I added the “included in” relationship to https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/c4816fc2-c685-47af-bb89-a83b5c7b9e62 before I realised it had two entries. Then I saw that the other entry (edited by the redoubtable @reosarevok ) used a “part of” relationship to the series https://beta.musicbrainz.org/series/7c46a6a9-22b9-4b58-afcf-47f1bf46fd22. Should there still be an “included in” for the releases?
Also clearly the double entry needs merging (not something I feel confident in yet - still learning!).
BTW, the reason I didn’t spot this at first was that I was running Picard on my collection to find the matches and it got this wrong. However, @loujin’s excellent script quickly identified them all
Question re track titles:
When a release has titles in several languages (for example, English / German / French), enter the tracklist in the main language of the release. If all languages are given equal weight, just pick one. The others can be entered as pseudo-releases and linked to the release marked as official with the appropriate relationship.
However, this one: https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/notes/67895-B.pdf seems to indicate to me that both languages should be included in the title. The booklet has the Czech title in italics. How to show this? ‘English - Czech’? ‘English (Czech)’? ‘Czech (English)’. If I omit the Czech it will be lost entirely (as the works are entered in English, rather than Czech with English alias).
IMO yes. This is a (small!) series of standalone releases, which also happens to have been released as one set, so both are true
I’d do English only, with a possible pseudo-release with Czech only (as by the second sentence you quoted). Hopefully soon we can actually just turn the pseudo-release into an alternative tracklist for the release instead, but that’s not quite here yet
That’s done at https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/b393b490-ccd2-43b4-972c-04114d472539 and https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/9900e234-a599-4500-be40-258e8eab229b
Hope I’ve done it right. I must say, it seems rather clumsy to me.
It is That’s why I’m hoping we’ll get the proper alternative tracklist stuff soon (it’s been half-done for a year or so though…)
Do the release names of these: https://beta.musicbrainz.org/series/6fc8a10e-5e8d-4a4c-b22d-9c0a38dacb13 need to be amended to remove the series name and (where appropriate) add the composer name?
Unclear. I don’t think we necessarily want to remove all series names, if they’re big enough on the cover to be considered part of the title. But I wouldn’t care much either way.
The composers’ names are already there when appropriate: that is, when the title is “a list of works by different composers” as per the release title guideline. Otherwise, the composer should not be on the title, as per the same guideline
I think I’d prefer not having them in the title in this case (as long as the information is captured in the Series) as, although they are printed fairly large on the cover, they’re clearly separated from the real title, in a distinct box which seems designed to be less prominent.
I only ask because I noted that @CatCat had removed Series Names from some BBC Music Magazine CDs as per https://beta.musicbrainz.org/series/5e305b8b-402c-4bc9-9290-146a4a0515fc so I assumed that this was considered “a good idea” as it had not been challenged. I was therefore going to assist in this. It does seem to me that the series name makes the release title unnecessarily cumbersome.
Is the style guideline cast in stone? I’m sure there is a reason for it, but I can’t quite see it. For the series in question, the composer name is always a prominent part of the title on the cover. Personally I don’t mind provided the composer is included in the release artists (not always the case) and because, when it comes to tagging with Picard, I use my Classical Extras plugin to prefix the release with the composer name.