Cover art types for jewel cases

Personally, in the very rare instance of a “Jewel Case” feature I would check Other and add a remark. I’m not adverse to adding another type, just think ‘other’ seems to currently serve the purpose.

3 Likes

This seems related to the “exploded view” of some box sets, e.g. the Beatles box.

If a new category were created, could it make sense to include that sort of thing?

I’d call that “overview”

1 Like

A good example of a tray that is special due to having braille embossed on it. This one is “front, tray”.

And if new types are being added a “matrix” would be useful for those closeups of the inner ring of a CD.

I am also in the middle of uploading a similar confusing one today. In my hands is a jewel case, with a cardboard slipcase cover. This means the normal “front” image is now hidden by an alternate “front”. It is like a single disc boxset.

5 Likes

For lack of anything better, I check ‘other’ and type (Rear of original cardboard sleeve w/spine) in the comment section. Peek at https://musicbrainz.org/release/866529d0-cc46-36b8-ae11-38b985054a1c/cover-art. I would also check ‘tray’ with a comment about the braille embossed on the front, tray. Knowing about the braille is a new wrinkle on my remaining grey cells, thanks.

1 Like

This is a slightly comical example - it could be argued that there are three different potential “fronts” here. :grin:

This is a Remastered Reissue. A cardboard slipcase over a clear jewel case with a big booklet inside.

To me, the REAL front here is the Slipcase as that is what I see on my desk in front of me.

Inside that Slipcase is the “front” of the normal jewel case, showing page one of the booklet.

And inside that booklet, we have an image on Page 3 which is the ORIGINAL cover of the original release. Or “Artist’s intent” of a front.

I see this as a “Boxset” with one item inside. The slipcase is a kind of open ended box with the real product inside. When we get a “Box \ Wrapper” image type it will be handy to better categorise items like this.

2 Likes

I would also support a new type called Box / Wrapper.
And a type for images showing the whole jewel case or what I call a “3D view” of the packaging (provided by some online stores) would be useful too. Maybe this could be called Promotional?
Or both could even be combined as one new type, if someone finds a fitting name.

3 Likes

Agree @kellnerd - a Promo shot would be useful. Especially for those big box set releases that have all kinds of extras in them.

We currently have a Image system built around a simple CD or Vinyl. With a little extra added for those Japanese OBI strips. Would be good to expand to the more unusual packages.

3 Likes

Front vs. Booklet: I’d say no to that. A single frame. A booklet that is serving as the cover by design is still the cover.

Scan the booklet / insert card with at least the back side as some only are a simple square card. Otherwise with it’s content and that cover scan can be part of the booklet, then it’s a booklet.

By putting [X] Booklet on the image is a pretty lame way of finding a way to tick all those boxes. :frowning: and could possibly discourage someone from adding more if they see that ‘Booklet’ is already present. (Yes, I know, people really should actually look closely at stuff. But they don’t always do so.)

I don’t really understand your message but:

  • A usual jewel case release has its booklet cover (page 1) serving as cover, so this scan should be both :white_check_mark: Booklet and :white_check_mark: Front
  • When another edition of this release has a slipcase over the jewel case, the booklet page 1 scan should be just :white_check_mark: Booklet and the slipcase front scan should be just :white_check_mark: Front
6 Likes

I like overview, it’s what I write in the image comment, usually:

2 Likes

Yes. “Front” is ambiguous to me and can mean “cover art” or “case front”. I think the two should be distinguished because they are both sometimes different. To me, cover art should be the equivalent to the “marketed” or most common album artwork associated to a release. The “front” should be the case front of a physical media, although I imagine a lot of the existing data is not uploaded that way.

1 Like

About that type of 3D cover (computer graphics or rendering cover), we got an edit 65776932 with 2 yes and 4 no. Not a long and controversial discussion, but despite this same editor try again with two album one in 65940175 and 65945659. Should be great to have an official status for this :wink:

2 Likes

Yeah - “promotional” is needed. I can’t see what it wrong about supply “something” on those two edits where the mock-up is being uploaded when there is currently ZERO images listed.

Having a related mock-up added to those pages makes sense to me as it is easier to then spot later when a new edition appears. As long as the mock-ups come from a source where it can be shown the artwork does match the release. (To me the real issue here is lack of detailed edit notes)

Can’t comment on 65776932 as the vote has closed and therefore no image now. The three images uploaded look sensible to me. I never understand why a “wide shot” has to be destroyed all the time. Seeing all parts of a package seem logical.

1 Like

Following that, we can also accept any cover who is barely the same as the one missing for the moment! Why refusing DM’s cover vs CD vs Vinyl when most of the time we only have a format difference?
From my side I’m not really in favour to add that kind of visual, I prefer nothing than a “prototype cover”.

Please compare the mock-up to the actual cover. In the case of edit #65776932 it’s outright misleading. It gives the impression of a digipak or similar while it’s not.

I don’t see a problem with these promo pics when they actually show the contents.
Mock-up vs. unboxing

4 Likes

Do not make arguments where there is none. You are making things up. Please do not direct your anger at me because I answered the question about a “promotional” type.

A clearly marked image saying this is promotional is very different to throwing any old non-matching data onto the page.

I don’t know what a “DM” is. That TLA is not translating. It is never good to add a CD image as an LP and that is not being suggested. I very much have always been against that.

Wow sorry but there is absolutely no anger at all, or someone explains to me what words make him think…

Anyway, I’m just pointing the fact that if we start to accept 3D renderings cover (who rarely respect the real ratio of a real case). We also need to know whatever cover could be acceptable for whatever support: Digital Media (DM) covers for vinyl for example.

1 Like

Stupid but related question - where in the documentation do we tell the user the image must be a match?

I can only find this page: https://musicbrainz.org/doc/How_to_Add_Cover_Art

Due to the comedy of coincidence I need the right page so I can quote it at a noobie who is currently uploading a butchered image :smiley: ( https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66074243 )

This is in the release style guidelines: Style / Release - MusicBrainz

The cover art for a release must always exactly match the actual art for that specific release. Artwork for a release should not be added to another release: for example, digipaks are not square, and a square digital front cover should not be uploaded to a digipak release.

5 Likes