This reminds me of a comment an editor left me on edits where there was a merge of more than 2-3 recordings… stating that so much happening at once made he or she nervous. Does this seem an issue here? How do we know that the BM and Discogs entry for entities like labels and artists are linked together properly, or if they are even correct?
While I often use the data there, I add it individually, requiring a bit of checking to make sure that the entities line up. I know for sure that historically there have been issues where fmera “disagreed” with what Discogs listed as label, while also supplying the logic… but my point is that does using this script just blindly trust all Discogs data? Not only that, but also blindly link the data, potentially being more problematic?
I could just be overthinking it as I usually do, I believe it is clear to most I hesitate to use mass scale scripts for things.
We don’t, there needs to be trust. So we check things, but also trust other eyes on have checked things as both database are old. A lot of eyes have looked at this stuff over the years. So the hit rate is pretty high on being correct.
I would say the links between MB and Discogs are about 98% good. The more well known someone is, the higher that percentage. Better to have this data than ignore it.
Saying that, I have often spent an evening untangling bad links between artists with common names. It takes a lot of research elsewhere, and I try and the add it to the notes as I split them apart.
That happens on any database. Spotted something on Spotify the other day where they had merged two artists who were clearly not connected, but had a common name. Impossible to get them to fix that error.
It is why it is always good to add disambigs to any artist. And some notes in their annotations. It is very easy when adding a new release to pick the first Richard Head that pops up and not realise it isn’t the one you are actually looking for.
This is not a mass scale edit script. This one is a handy time saver linking potential data to save you time. You can still check the results, but you get quicker options this way based on other people’s suggestions.
As with the others mentioned, you of course still want to check the data.
Because it runs off existing links, it can usually help you identify incorrect links as a bonus (the discogs script IvanDobsky is talking about is very good at this).
9/10 times Apple/iTunes has the highest res image and you can import that. If you’re not using the above script (or another ‘source image finder’) you might not be adding the highest res image they’ve got tucked away.
That script looks interesting, but it seems to require a URL vs allowing an open search for the release. Are these similar scripts to those being mentioned that are not browser plugins/scripts?
Not sure if this answers your question, but the script has two functions that I use:
paste in a image URL from the internet, and it will add the max-resolution version (rather than downloading to your desktop and then uploading)
if the release has a relationship to a supported storefront or another database there is a button to import the image/s from there with a click (e.g. Discogs, iTunes, etc)*
*needs double checking as always, on the upside it encourages adding/fixing relationships
It doesn’t have any kind of search, but I think that’s out of its scope tbh.
Well, it does not answer my question, but I appreciate the info regardless… it is still helpful. What I mean is that these scripts require Violentmonkey or similar. I was asking if there are others (or a version of those) that are not in need of the user script methods. Although… after reading your statement, I am not sure my question is relevant as it seems it requires this.
For finding max-size images this site is great (and it’s what ROpdebee’s userscript puts images through, as well as the other stuff it does): https://qsniyg.github.io/maxurl/
But generally speaking nothing can compete with a user script that puts buttons/functionality right on the MB page, imo.
I couldn’t remember your website URL, the tool you refer to is the iTunes artwork finder is it? If you put a link in your MB profile that’s where I always check for stuff
I am seeing that there are slightly different purposes on these scripts. I use them not to just submit, but I submit my copy of the release, and I download the cover art so my folder image is the best I can get. I then just upload that to MB.
The scripts also find/get artwork differently, so my initial question does not apply, they are working differently. The tool you posted above uses/needs a URL of the release, whereas the iTunes artwork finder locates images via a search string.
Yes, I uploaded the iTunes Artwork Finder at MusicBrainz Editor Tools. Historically, I used a good amount of user scripts and generally stay away from them now. There are some I use, like the ones that show me more detail on the MB pages, but should those fail, it is no big thing. That said, I am not opposed to them, I just prefer not to use them if possible or it can be avoided.
“Most, or many, CDs already exist in MB …”
There must be areas in which this seems accurate.
But my experience is that most CDs from most countries are not entered.
E.G.
Crossing the border from England into a wild lttle known country called Wales we find the group Bragod (safe for work) who produce some of the most exciting music in the world.
MB has none of their CDs listed.
Somewhere there is a long, long list of Releases that are in Discogs but not MB. And then there are the ??? hundreds? of thousands? millions? of Releases from Asia and Latin America that are in neither Discogs nor MB.
MB remains a very Atlantacist project in my understanding, with heavy biases towards economically ascendant Western European languages. The on-going lack of Internationalisation being one example of an obstacle to a culturally more diverse and inclusive db.
Yes, in that sense I would agree. I am meaning more in the scope of the more common releases that I would have or be likely to have. For me this means that it is not something I would likely add … out of my scope. Generally speaking, I will at least listen to the release (all or in part) before I will add it, preferring to actually have a copy of it.
I happen to like Global Records, Romania, almost in its entirety.
Looks like we’re seeing neocolonialism.
eg
Federated States Micronesia has 2 Artists and +25K Releases.
Those two Artists have one Release and one Track between them.
Meaning just about every Release that MB has documented for FSM (hey thats a familar acronym) is by foreign Artists.
Edit: I’ve led this thread far from the OP.
Could someone with The Power please split the “not all CDs are entered” posts off into a new thread?
More a case of Capitalism with Digital Media and a few dominant shops.
The Country list for Digital Media has a different meaning to Countries for Physical media.
With CDs\LPs\Tapes it is about the market the product was initially made available in on the day of release. Where you could get your hands on a copy on that specific date.
Digital Media Country is the areas that shop is supplying “today”. Nothing to do with actual Release. It is about availability.
It is a great pity as any Welsh music released on Spotify will just be lost into a meaningless list of “countries Spotify will sell to today” and is loosing the previous meaning of “Release Country”.
But then Wales was lost into part of UK for physical Media anyway… Do “Credited As” values get picked out in these stats?
One nice feature that Discogs has (and I’ve suggested for MB) is the ability to sort the list of releases under the Master record. If I have a release with a specific catalog number, I sort the Discogs list by cat. no. and then I have a much smaller list to sift through.
Do “Credited As” values get picked out in these stats?