You are obviously an experienced editor and this would not prevent you continuing you adding your releases as you currently do, but for casual editors its much more difficult and time consuming. I occasionally add releases to MusicBrainz and have done over many years but I can never remember the details of the various scripts. Users who are not particularly interested in MusicBrainz but are interested in good metadata (e.g roon users) are always finding MusicBrainz entry unfathomable. For my part I add releases with release seeding but not performer credits because takes too long, you may consider that a bad entry but it is better than not having the release at all, and if there was a way to preseed the credits I would use it.
And in your example it doesnt take 7 days to enter the information, just 7 days to wait for the data, very different. Im not recommending adding super bad entries but tigerman said
so someone could be selective about feeds and just take good ones.
Regarding Discogs, they tend to concentrate on physical releases so not so good for the shift to digital releases.
Well if noone is interested in then they don’t get done, but that is no different to releases not being there currently because no interested enough to have done them, but I am sure there are many editors who have favourite labels not just favourite artists.
Sorry if I was not clear enough, it does not take 7 days to correct data, it takes 7 days for the correction to show up on the page and database.
We are looking at the incorrect entry from a different point of view, possibly because we have diff musical interests ? Who knows.
In the Classical and Jazz releases, if there are no Artists credits per track and if the Classical Work does not use catalogue entries (if available) then I try to fill this gap. I have a favourite useless entry
In Jazz, I really need to know who plays bass on a Miles Davis Quintet Album…
So far MBNZ is a refuge for me from sloppy db schemas, lack of reference data, everything goes kind of environments that have been propagated by sloppy internet data.
No I understand, although I think if you are adding data rather than correcting it the edits are applied immediately, and yes performers credits are key for Jazz.
But to reiterate I wasn’t discussing about my particular music tastes I was suggesting that MusicBrainz does not have a good system for getting new digital releases into the system. Whereas Jaxsta now have a system whereby many record labels are feeding them with new release data and their database is growing rapidly. Their metadata is not as good as MusicBrainz, but it seems they have gained alot with minimal effort. If MusicBrainz could ulitize labels feed AND community moderation/editing the database would be both more complete and more accurate than the current situation which relies on editing only, and doesnt offer a way to import performer credits.
If separately named bots were allocated specifically to each label that used automated data, then it would be easier to keep track of the quality and source of that data. If that label started adding bad data, they’d have a pattern we can spot and correct. If they were too consistently bad then they can be stopped like any other editor. Editors could subscribe to these label-bots to keep an eye on them.
So we make edits immediate for a month if it’s a release that’s been added from a automatic list.
I’m not advocating for adding a bunch of junk data, at all - but let’s be honest, experienced editors in MB will be using automatic importers for digital anyway. I don’t think it’s a huge leap to think of a scenario where the labels can submit the info direct.
Maybe a distributor (a limit number of sites you have to use to get onto Spotify etc) would be interested in providing a checkbox to their customers like ‘also submit this release to musicbrainz’. E.g. distrokid
Note that I think this would be cool and definitely possible, but it’s a dream where there is dev time available to make all the changes necessary to make it smooth (doubt it?)
Maybe I need to start selling my services to labels I remember there was an editor who had on their profile they sometimes added stuff for pay… I can’t remember who.
Yes, I agree. I’ve even asked if there was a way to have a-tisket or just a script for Jaxsta. Unfortunately, they recently went to a pay model though. Now you have to pay $50 a year to access the information that contains barcodes & cat #s, even though many labels (UMG distributed mostly) don’t provide any information that differentiates the release from one another. Their links to Apple Music & Spotify on releases are almost always wrong (they link all releases in a relaese group (variants) to the same links regardless of barcode for example, even on Sony links) so should be ignored.
I just saw the notes above about needing a “special flag” to say that these were from some special source. Seems easier to me to just have them sourced from known editors \ bots. That way you can look at the whole history of that editor\bot and see other Releases from the same label. So if a mistake is spotted in how data was being entered it is then easy to fix.
If it is a representative of the label doing the edits, then just put the label into the editor’s name to show they are official.
(Oh - and you make me laugh with MBNZ as it looks like MusicBrainz (New Zealand) to me )
You maybe right about barcodes but you can sign up for Jaxsta Core, this is free and allows you to access performer relations
As for the api itself I expressed an interest in the api and now I have to have a phone conversation with them, and then apparently sign an NDA before I can get access to the api, so not looking promising.
But to reiterate the discussion was not about getting data from Jaxsta, it was making the point that if Jaxsta can get labels feed then can MusicBrainz get label feeds.
That might be what it is. I have noticed that they do roll out releases like that. So, maybe in my time zone it was actually released the day before, even though it was the same day in that time zone. So, it was the 10th in Texas, when released on the 11th in Australia, but not released until the 11th in Texas as well. So, it should say the 11th was release date, but for some reason Jaxta is telling me exactly when it was released in another country at the time it was in Texas? Kind of goofy, but probably what it is.
It was because I notice Jaxsta was registered in Sydney it made me think this is quite likely. Even more so if you are in Texas. When you get to work at 9am in the morning, it is already Tomorrow in Sydney. So once they get to work at 9am, it is still yesterday evening to you
Except that I don’t get in on the 10th in Texas. That’s the problem they need to fix. I notice this when I import using a-tisket. If I import on the day of release all the Pacific Islands that are east of the time line don’t have the release. When I recheck the next day, they do. So, the streaming services actually don’t upload worldwide at once, they switch on at midnight of the earliest timezone in your country.
And don.t forget to adjust for Summer/Winter times in Europe, if you try to organize photos taken around the globe that become a real nightmare honestly
But that kind of show the interest they got to details, timezone and release dates is not something new.
Nevertheless would be interesting to have something to better spot Bad/NeedReview/Correct data more easily to avoid rework, Data quality could be a candidate but may need some rethinking of it (create baby steps like recording, performers, tracklisting for instance).
Then question: Seeing we imported “artist.cdjournal.com”, was it also thought about 78discography? Would be interesting to get the original dates. (PS: Agree review is needed but would be easier to update full calc sheets rather than release one by one)