I was trying to enter the performers for an existing album, but I believe it is not going as it should.
And the test server is down, so practicing it a bit before submitting to the actual database is not possible now.
I wanted to enter the performers that are actual members of the band, and play on every track of the album.
But instead of having their names and instruments mentioned at each track, they now only show once below the tracks pane under Credits > Release
Is it possible to enter such band members so they are listed under each track, or must you do that track-by-track?
If you have release relationships enabled in Picard, they will be tagged to every track based on the release. They should only be entered at the track level if you know definitively that that person played that instrument on that track, though.
Tagging to tracks can be done en masse in the relationship editor, so itâs not much harder than tagging releases (and preferable, because track - actually , recording - relationships are shared between releases, but release relationships are not. Itâs a weakness that needs to be addressed)
Ah, I was using the editor from the website.
It hadnât occurred to me you can use Picard for this also.
Perhaps I would better wait until the test site is online again before I make another effort.
I think I understand what you say, but seeing and trying it in practice would be better and more assuring.
No, you canât enter edits with Picard. At the top of the relationship editor on the website, thereâs an option to apply a relationship to all selected recordings at once.
Donât be too afraid of making edits. You can always start them and then post here for feedback. At worst, theyâll be voted down or youâll cancel them and make better ones. (The exception is that adding new information is usually an auto-edit, and if you then have to fix something it will be stuck in the voting queue for a week. But still not the end of the world, and if youâre lucky an auto-editor might rescue you.)
The fact you care about making good edits puts you ahead of a lot of new editors.
So you meant having that enabled, not in Picard, but on the website editor?
It got me confused, since Picard also has a âsubmitâ button, for which I am not able at this moment to find what that is for then
(geez, itâs no fun being a newbee in a new place)
I mean that having the release relationships enabled in Picard will allow you to tag files based on the release relationships, and Picard will tag release relationships to every track in the album, regardless of whether the relationship applies to that specific track. The editing is all done on the website end.
The Submit button only submits AcoustID information from your files, based on the tracks they are associated with. Itâs one of the biggest things everyone agrees needs to be fixed (and is in the process of being fixed), because itâs completely opaque to a new user.
Hang in there! It does get easier, and both the website and Picard are constantly being improved. Itâs not quite as instant as Stevenâs fixes, though. Weâre spoiled.
Yes, it is. Your comments are noted and understood.
One mistake for certain is the extra âadditional drumsâ. Itâs the same as the original drummer on all tracks.
So if I understand correctly, if somebody would find only one track from this album (say track #1), (s)he will not only see mr. Brecker, but also the rest of the gang performing on it?
From the Picard end, someone looking up track 1 from this release would get both the track-specific credits and ALL the release credits. However, if they switched to another release, they would only get the track credits if the same recording was used, and they would only get release credits for the new release.
Basically, a track is always a recording, but a recording can be a track on any number of releases or none (a standalone recording). And thereâs great proliferation of recordings which could probably be merged, but we just canât say for sure if theyâre exactly the same or not, especially recordings which have been on lots of compilations, etc.
As for the release credits, itâs not an ideal sitation because some credits would tend to belong to all releases in a release group (usually musicians), but some might only belong to one release (such as graphic design or mastering). Thereâs not a good way for dealing with that yet, so either you have to apply the credits to all releases, or hunt for the one that has the best credits. So if you know performer credits for each track FOR SURE, enter them at recording level because that will be mostly likely to cross over releases. But if you only know them at the release level, youâre stuck entering them on the releases.
(And there are cases in which you might enter the same artist credit twice, such as âdrumsâ and âadditional drumsâ, but it would only be if something was credited that way on the album, or if there was both a recording credit and a release credit for the same role. Probably yes, you can delete the duplicate credit)
I donât think I am able/allowed to delete such afterwards?
Before giving it all another try:
When I know for sure all tracks have the same musician playing on it, do the checkboxes in front of the tracks have a use for that, so Iâll only have to enter him/her once, or will I need to enter it for every single track?
edit:
never mind, that will most certainly be using âbatch editâ above the tracks.
You can absolutely delete the info you entered. It will be entered in the voting queue for 1 week. At the end of the week, if there are 0 votes or if there are more yes than no votes, it will be entered. (The most frustrating thing about editing for me is the hurry-up-and-wait feeling of the edit queue, but itâs important for those cases that an edit is contentious. You get used to it⌠mostly.)
Youâll have to do it track-by-track, but you can go back into the relationship editor and add the specific instrument. Iâm pretty sure itâll even be an auto-edit.
Thanks Fresco, I read the document page on relationships.
The information on this and other pages is really very good and vast, and yet my brain had lots of trouble understanding it.
The first reason might well be that I am not a native English speaker.
But what I feel is missing from that tutorial, is to begin explaining what a ârelationshipâ actually is, and more important, what âit doesâ, and what are the benefits and consequences of using those.
The tutorial now is a bit like (yes, I am exaggerating a bit here :
âYou can use relationships, and this is how you enter them.â
Well, thatâs why the document at least links to the page where ârelationshipsâ are supposed to be described. For the video, yes, that is a good comment. Unfortunately, itâs unlikely that weâll have anyone record a new video anytime soon. (All current MusicBrainz videos were made as part of Google Code-in, which is just winding up for this year. So unless someone steps up that wants to make videos outside of GCIâŚ)
I think I am getting it.
My first confusion concerning relations came from entering musicians for an album. Do they have a relation to the tracks? Do they have a relation to the album? Or both?
I donât think thatâs clearly explained somewhere?
: