How much info should I take from Discogs?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f05093b0140>


I’m adding the relationships to that I can find on , but I’m wondering: should I add everything? Is it worth the work to add each individual player of each orchestra?
I also have another question: When you go on the discog pages of artists, there is a huge number of ensembles each of them is in (for example ) . Does it make sense? Should I link all of them?
What kind of experiences do you have with discogs?


I’d just add the orchestra, plus the individual vocalists. (On the other hand, if it were a string quartet, I’d add the individual members. So I can’t claim consistency of approach here.)

If you believe the information is accurate, I don’t see any reason not to. But no reason why you have to, either.

  1. How much effort you put into MB is completely up to you. No one is forcing you to do any of it. However, the more you put into it, the more you and others will get out of it.
    The hardest part to building any database is entering the information that will later be queried by others.

  2. Yes, absolutely, you should add every artist you find. That is the goal of MB. If we know something, we add something. I know that it may take 7 hours to add one album because you also need to verify each artist (there are many people named John Smith), which leads to adding some artists and populating their pages as well, but that is part of the building process.
    Think about it - someone built that Discogs page(s) for you to use. If you do not add the information here, then we are not as informative as Discogs :disappointed_relieved:
    If you get tired, leave an annotation that says “my mom yelled at me for using the internet and thought that I should grab a shower this week, so i did not finish adding the information found on Discogs” - or something like that. So that future editors will see the note and can pick up where you stopped.


In practice, I just add the bare minimum (tracklist, release title, release artist and a bit more) to most releases I add. Just make sure to leave your source in the edit note so the data can be verified and added to. I have gone back and perfected the data for a few releases that I like. But you’re very welcome to add as much data as you can find, if you feel like you have the time.


I’m wondering about discogs: all these artists are in a huge variety of groups and in some cases are not mentioned on the homepage of the group (normal for an orchestra, less for a quartet like that is supposed to have as a member). So my question is: How reliable are the ‘group member’ relations on discogs?


How reliable are CNN and NBC?
But we have to get our information from somewhere.

The thing about various sites, they all have their own rules and formats. So, for Discogs members, there is no middle ground. You are either in a band or not. Here on MB, however, we have members of bands, and we have “supporting members” - which are performers who are not members.
I know a band that only had one member. But had 40+ “members” over 30 years. If you weren’t an “insider”, you weren’t to know that it was a solo project disguised as a band. That’s why the turnover was so high, you come in thinking it is a band (4 equal partners), but get fired because you tried to offer input which isn’t in your place to do.


I’m not sure it’s a good idea to import this information from Discogs for the sake of it, without any other evidence. I can’t (with a very quick search) find any evidence that Susanne Regel was ever a member of L’Ornamento, although she has performed with them.


For the sake of trying it out, I linked all info present on discogs on the release: , adding half a dozen artists in the process and linking them to dozens of different groups, and even creating a new series for the catalogue of works of Heinichen. To me it looks completely bloated, is this the ultimate goal of MB?


I do want to add more than just a tracklist to MB, however it is funny to see which editors have which priorities, for example many (even very active) editors do not really care with works but add recording engineers and producers, whereas I am satisfied most of the time with just album artists and concentrate on adding the work info because that’s how I sort my music collection.


To make it look less bloated, you can click “Display Credits at Bottom”


While I wouldn’t usually add every member of an orchestra to the recordings, I don’t think it’s incorrect in any way to do it either :slight_smile: Everything else there looks pretty much like I’d do it if I’m being meticulous though, yup! After all, when using the data, you can choose to ignore some of it, but not to get something nobody has entered.


When entering a release I aim to include Works, timings, main performers, recording place and date, and cover art. This provides a good basis for other editors to add further details and supports reliable merging.