Entering credits just for information found on actual release?

MusicBrainz Style
,
#1

When entering credits in MB should we enter just what is found on the actual release (assuming we have scans available to prove or we own the release).

For example the following release Greetings From Asbury Park, N.J. has all available info from the provided scans as credits. Could we now just use loujine’s “Clone release relations from another release” userscript and populate for example the artist list for the release Greetings From Asbury Park, N.J. although the provided scans are complete and DO NOT show any artist credits ?

I think in comparison there is consensus when there is no visible barcode on a physical release we entering it as having NO barcode.

And what about recording level artist credits. Fan sites usually have much more information than what’s actually credited on the release (back scan, booklets, etc.).
E.g. given the same releases discussed above and the following recording Lost in the Flood … should we enter the artist credit list found at Lost In The Flood - Brucebase Wiki (which is the most researched website about Springsteen data) ?

2 Likes
#2

Fill what you know and quote sources. This is especially true with live gigs as that fan site will know better about where \ when \ who than the cover.

3 Likes
#3

I think as long as you know they’re the same recordings, you could probably copy the performer and production credits. those are probably the only ones that should be copied, as the design, photography, executive producer, and manufacturing credits could very well be different.

in this particular case, I don’t think there would even be a “Photography” credit on the cassette release, and the “Pressed by” credit could only apply to vinyl, as far as I know doesn’t apply to cassettes.

I don’t see any particular issue entering credits from a fan Wiki, especially if they have good sources, wouldn’t be much different than credits from Discogs in my opinion… I would probably recommend finding the information from a secondary source if at all possible tho…

yes, I believe that is correct.

1 Like
#4

You do still “press” CDs. Sometimes you can get two credits for CD production. There is a “Glass mastered by” and a “Pressed by”. I have some CDs where the Glass master was made in Swindon, but the actual CD pressed in Uden. (Argh!! MB has caused me to know way too much about CD production :crazy_face:)

I agree that these manufacturing credits should not be copied across unless you see them on your exact CD though.

Artwork is often common - if you see the same image on a cassette as a CD then you can credit the artist. Just quote sources. I regularly add credits for artwork to covers where no credit is in the paperwork. Barney Bubbles covers for example.

I often find fan sites can be better than the actual release CDs. It is common for a CD to say “London, 1974” but the fan site to say “Empire Pool, Wembley, London, 16th November 1974”. Giving those extra details is always of benefit to the database.

Lack of a barcode is not the same. That is just part of identifying a release based on sales data. Whereas gig locations are real historic facts.

5 Likes
#5

I would say no. Add as much information (to relationships) as you know to be true about any specific release :+1:

2 Likes
#6

I agree that these manufacturing credits should not be copied across unless you see them on your exact CD though.

I newer wanted to seed manufactoring details between releases (without checking) only instruments/vocals etc… what really makes sense and should be the same between releases

5 Likes
#7

yes that is the main rule…over there. Unless you found out it was pressed at Terre Haute or Santa Maria. Before I exiled myself, I changed the release date of WIESS to a date after Sept 1973, when sessions were wrapping up.

1 Like
#8

I didn’t see @vzell’s Discogs note. Agree that MB is very different to that place. At their heart, Discogs is a shop selling physical items with an out of date and stagnated set of guidelines topped up with random threads being quoted from six years ago. They focus on only what is written on the disc. You are not allowed to edit a release unless you have that item in hand. If you try and correct the data you will be shot down. Even if you are the artist or owner of a label. (Those are some funny threads :rofl:) You must describe the item for sale - mistakes make it worth more.

MusicBrainz is a database informing you about Artists and their Music using the CD\LP as the main reference. The fact the page is also covered in links to Wikidata and numerous fan discographies shows the focus on actual facts and data. The CD is the start point, but like Wikipedia we can add deeper references to more correct data. You are encouraged to add data from other trustable sources. Look at the number of editors who will focus on a single artist and bring the data to life by filling in missing releases they don’t even own. MB is a knowledge source. Facts are the heart of this place.

3 Likes
#9

“I didn’t see @vzell’s Discogs note” haha watch out for my sense of humor. I changed one word to express my opinion, and you understood better than I did myself. The one thing we have to do is be careful to weed out bad info that comes from other places, especially discogs! But we got smart people here with various skill sets, I really like working with people here, at least that ask questions and notice inconsistencies. The IT and software is flexible and able to evolve, that is huge, amazing considering what we task it with.

2 Likes
#10

I agree - burn the heretics who mention “the other place”. :rofl: :burning-cross-emoji:

Over in that “other place” they enjoy the argument more than the subject. Seem to have got lost in the wrong details. Here the discussions are usually about making things better. Or weird discussions on grammar and which category to add singing fish… :laughing:

I suppose it is in the name - Music + Brainz

2 Likes
#11

I hereby award you Badges / Respected

34

Respected

for saying many things I agree with. Not required, but cool that we have a lot of positive people here, not something I take for granted.

I have been working on organizing, correcting updating Country music before it was called Country, which is pre-1948-49 or so. The 2 giants are Hank and Bob Wills Texas Playboys. This period is also pre-LP and pre-45 (close enough). Artists put out a stream of 10" 78rpm singles for many years, popularized on jukeboxes, radios, and more radio at home. Some had industrial strength record player.
I checked Bob Wills and noticed 20 singles had been added …by TheBookkeeper. I already thanked him, but that was so cool. To complete and move on to Gene Autry and Eddy Arnold, I need to complete full 78 discrography for Hank and Bob Wills. That’s my current work list. Anyway, it just got shortened thanks to BK. He did a very good job, too, with art, dates, links, only thing I am adding are the t rack timings, no problem!

3 Likes