I bought this 89-track release on Bandcamp:
Both Bandcamp and the tags suggest that the release is one disc. (I’m not 100% sure if Bandcamp supports the concept of multiple “discs”, but that’s changing topic…)
When using Picard to match, it matches this 6-disc, 90-track release:
It feels a little weird to have a 6-“disc” digital media release, but an artist might do it for flavour or to aid burning copies, so no problem there. There does appear to be one issue with that release – track 15, Serenity, is duplicated, as best as I can tell (hence the difference in track count).
However, since the release page and the downloaded tags said it was 1-disc, I wanted to have a 1-disc entry in the DB. There doesn’t seem to be one already. My inclination is to make another release in the release group that was just one disc, since I can’t deny that there was never a 6-disc digital release.
So I made a new release, used the existing one as a base, and set to work. Except, I then realised that there was no obvious way to merge discs or move tracks between discs.
My novel solution (well, it felt novel) was to use the copy and paste the Track Parser output for each disc in to the top disc. Voilà, I had one, massive disc. But a new problem presented itself – the artist links were lost. So I need to manually click on an artist, discern which artist is correct, check “update all tracks with same artist”, and click save. That’s a lot of clicking… And some tracks are multiple artists, meaning I really do have to pay attention!
So I was wondering how I might make a single-disc version of the release. My ideas so far…:
- Use the Track Parser to move tracks to one disc, manually fix all the artists, done. (Maybe there is a script to help with all of the clicks sorting out the artists?)
- Re-import the release from Bandcamp. I found this importer, though I haven’t used it before. I might still need to click a lot of artists, though!
- Arcane MusicBrainz magic I’m not aware of??
I have been assuming that the data in the existing 6-disc release is correct. I’ve already found what appears to be one mistake, so maybe that is a bad assumption.
Any suggestions? 
)