DJ promo releases

LOL! I hear you. No, it is not just a DJ-mix though. Each track is a separate recording. The release is not a continuous play from start to finish. Each track also does have the Start and finish, if you know what I mean. They are clearly separate.

EDIT: I would by happy to share the release with you, on a private basis if you are interested. This is so you can first hand listen to the work and better discern.

@jesus2099 has a few scripts which I feel should be a part of MB by default. I understand that some users may not want such things, but I suggest they be included as an option, like the “Display Credits at Bottom”, you can opt to display or not in this case.

I suggest this for very technical reasons. User scripts open a security hole in the browser, and also opens the door for other random anomalies. I believe that @jesus2099 does great work and I do not question his work, but the fact remains that we are modifying the behaviour between server and client.


This is the next one I am looking at, for adding to the MB database:

These recordings are not at all original, and in this case, it is continuous although there are clear track markers. Thoughts on how to handle this release?

Again, I have these releases, so I can do all that is possible.

I still don’t really know. I think it is a case of name all the tracks with slashes. There is no neat way.

So one TRACK is For the Love of Money \ Do It Any Way You Wanna \ TSOP (The Sound Of Philadelphia) etc and the Artists is O’Jays \ People’s Choice \ MSFB \ etc.

And I really don’t need that much Osmonds and Bay City Rollers anywhere near my audio system. :rofl:

I was nervous of scripts initially, but know how much more they bring to the show. They bring the interface alive and add so much that is still lost in a ticket somewhere. Most of the scripts are restricted to only the MB website, but as an IT Security Guy they do make me nervous.

If that new Pink release is all covers, then you will end up with lots of Unknown artists and links to the Works. This kind of realise is messy for MB as some editors will want to strip that original artist from the title and leave you with just: Title: Telefone (Long Distance Love Affair) \ Artist “Unknown” \ linked to the original work.

I am stepping out of this one - I can already see the argument coming over the hill between the Purists “just the title \ link to the work” and the “what it says on the cover” brigade. Not my area of music at all.

LOL! I have the “honor” of having no opinion of the music I have. My “hates” are Elvis and country. Yet… I have a 12.1GB store of 60 CDs in FLAC.

This is why I ask before editing. This is a strange area, and I know that each person likely has their own opinion. I am happy to add these, but I would prefer to have some direction. Not my direction, but the consensus of all, especially the more senior editors.

1 Like

Sometimes it is worth putting one example up in place, then post it into the Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread - #1040 by sammyrayy thread and ask people to tear it apart. That thread gets lots of eyes on an edit.

I am trying to remember where I have seen some examples of cover music like that. This is why I think it can cut both ways… Last time I added one there were only track names and none of the original artists were listed on the cover.

1 Like

it looks to me like these are actually continuous DJ mix releases, just with the tracks split. an example of this is my copy of Trance Party, Volume One.

in all honesty, I don’t add that many DJ mixes myself, I’m just kinda winging it… the one thing I do know is to add disambiguations to the recordings, that way they don’t get merged with the original mixes on accident. an example is Sandstorm. I wouldn’t mind doing that a couple times, as I’ve got a nice userscript that makes it easy~ :wink:

(it’s “Set recording comments for a release”, btw)

1 Like

Yes, absolutely. I see this error a lot.

I am simply presenting to the team here some items that have not been added by me for various reasons, most of which it seems people here understand.

I would like to suggest that such things be easy for users to find. Yes, i did make a page of my own, but there is no need to use mine. There are a lot of tools I have recently learned of that would be nice to have in a central location for users to find and use.

That is nice, I did not know of this. Ideally, I would like each and every edit I make looked at. Not by an auto-editor, but someone that can add a set of eyes.

I would like to see this also in a consolidated reference for users.

Post stuff in there that is unusual or challenging. Where the rules are not clear. Posting everything will get overkill. It is not really a Tutorial thread, more a “I can’t make sense of this guideline” thread.

Just post in the forum in general. Like these threads - asking for help to make sense of the guidelines gets responses. Also you don’t have to get it right first time. I have some releases I will add I know will take a month to settle in as I make corrections to what is initially posted.

I don’t really have the time to fully “subscribe” to your edits, but I’ll happily look when asked. Have a poke around when I’m free. When you overlap my subscribed list I am always paying attention to that area as I know a bit more about the subjects in those cases.

There are threads around on the Scripts, but they get buried and out of date. I know I have my favourites I can’t do without - but that is a conversation another time.

Unfortunately voting on edits often feels like “work”, adding stuff is fun!

The people who subscribe and check a lot of edits are worth their weight in gold <3

See if you can raise your vote count to match your edit count :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

It’s interesting to note that other sites have this problem too. RYM, Discogs, they have the same problem with getting eyes on edits. Sometimes much worse!

Yes, I understand that there is no way all of my edits could be reviewed. For me, it is more that I like the extra eyes. I have tried voting on edits, and have doe some, but it is difficult at times to find edits I have knowledge in, vs ones I would need to research myself to vote properly.

I think having edits reviewed/voted/etc is a critical part of the process. There are some sites, Wikipedia for example, that allow users to make the edits, and when the powers that be see an issue, they simply revert your edit or change things, and you are left wondering what was wrong, how to improve, etc. I like the process here, in that each edit can have as much detail as people add. Not just the initial edit, but also reasons for voting no, etc… vs just getting your edit reverted.


This is my problem too. I look at pages and pages of edits every day to check them, but that does not mean much voting. Often many of those are auto edits. I only like to really look at artists I understand as I have no knowledge in so many areas.

I agree that the slow 7 day editing process here is great. I’ve learnt a lot this way and now pass that on to noobies when I see them making those same mistakes.

Almost impossible - unless I started spam voting stuff based on username. Which is wrong in my eyes. After comparing your user stats I think I am happy enough with my ten to one ration of votes to edits in the years I have been editing. :smile: Our stats are comically similar.


Yes, this is exactly what I am trying to do, resulting in difficulty getting edits to vote on. I am figuring out the system a bit better now though.


Here is a strange case I wanted to share.

RE: Release “(I Am) OldSchool” by DJ Brokdorff - MusicBrainz

First, if all can have a look at the release and how it was added, I would appreciate it.

Second, there are two audio files, an MP3 and a WAV. These 2 files contain the same recording, yet somehow, they have different AcoustIDs. This is confusing to me. Even worse, since it is the same recording, I cannot differentiate between which AcoustID goes to which file, the WAV or the MP3.

I was told that the quality of a digital release file should not change the AcoustID, but I believe this proves that wrong, or that I misunderstood. I can see that these two files are acoustically different, but I cannot hear that difference.

I wanted to post this as this might be a cause of issues as it relates to digital releases. In prior threads, MB has stated as a group that there is no differentiation on the recording level for different file types (both container and encoder), however, this may end up negating the purpose of the AcoustID. I am unsure, but this sure puts it in question.

EDIT: To clarify, I speak generally that I cannot hear the difference. If one listens close enough, it can be heard, but in terms of how MB does recordings, they are not distinguishable. I hope that makes sense. It is basically a different mastering.

1 Like

For something like this I would fire up Audacity and throw the two tracks in to visually compare.

If you look at the AcoustID fingerprint compare option they are so very very close I would have merged these if I had seen this with two recordings.

Maybe that MP3 is compressing enough to just trigger the slightly different mathematical result from AcoustID. Are you seeing two different results in your copy of Picard? You can load and Scan the tracks in Picard without changing the data, just read the AcoustID values.

1 Like

I am unsure what you mean here. I load both recordings into Picard, and do a generate AcoustIDs / fingerprints. It generates them as different, no saving of data done.

I have them as the same recording, but different “tracks” as they are in the release as 2 different files.

Haha - sorry. I am talking before brain has had coffee. :crazy_face: Same recordings already. Whoops.

I would add this info to the annotation.

1 Like

My issue is that… they are the same recording. That is what confuses me. I am happy to do what anyone suggests though. It is strange that the MP3 was generated from the WAV, yet the AcoustID differs them.

Might I offer… I can share these files with you in totality, via private message/link if you are willing to have a look.

Haha - sorry. I am talking before brain has had coffee. :crazy_face: Same recordings already. Whoops.

I would add this info to the annotation. Those fingerprints in the AcoustID compare show these really are so very similar, just the maths of AcoustId is being triggered over a threshold and popping up a new value