I’m trying to add relationships for the this release group (Loud Without Noise by Crawlers) and its recordings. A lot of metadata can be found by going to the YouTube Music song (the song, not the music video), changing the URL domain from
youtube.com, and looking at the description of the video.
I know that the ‘mastering’ relationship is deprecated for recordings, so how do I handle these different mastering engineers credited for these recordings (link is to the YouTube video where I got the information from)?
For now, I’ve added all 3 of these mastering engineers to each release in the release group. However, this loses information about which recordings were mastered by which engineers, and it feels redundant to have to duplicate this information across many releases (and other release groups as most of these recordings were also released as singles).
There is no simple way. Mastering is only to be entered at a Release level. I think this is due to it changing on reissues \ anniversary editions \ etc.
The only way to note separate Mastering details is in an Annotation. So I’d just add those details to the Release Group annotation.
LOL - there are only two Releases in this Release group. Go and look in the Pink Floyd section where you get 100+ Releases in a Release Group. There is a similar issue with crediting people like the Cover Artist - a lot of copy\pasting is needed!
Yes, unfortunately I run into this a lot with split releases
If you’re often copying relationships between releases this script is very useful btw!
Should I put an annotation on the recordings to indicate the mastering engineer, or is that not necessary?
At least on the release The recording might be remastered by someone else in a different release (which is why we don’t store this on recordings) but at the release level, an annotation saying which recordings were mastered by who is certainly useful.
Wondering if this is correct for the world of digital releases? - If each song recording is mastered for digital, is there any release level mastering needed?
Up to you and your time. Most people wouldn’t. I put all kinds of odd notes on some recordings to say who did what and when to the various versions. As Recording on MB can be a merge of multiple remasterings you’d need to say who and which release.
If it is just being “remastered for digital” and not changing the recording, this is not much different to when they do a “25th anniversary remaster”. In MB eyes this is all the same Recording, so it would be nice to have a note somewhere to credit who did what to which version and when.
I treat the annotations as somewhere to put those extra notes that are interesting to another fan of the music.
What about all those ‘remastered for iTunes’ releases?
“mastered for iTunes” is mostly just a sales gimmick. I am no expert on Digital Media, but I am sure I’ve seen stuff on that before. Also Digital Media is a PITA for their lack of credits for anything so we’d not be able to credit any one anyway.
Before spending a few years on MB I used to think “Remastered” was a big thing. But have come to learn it is too often just a gimmick. I have at least one Pink Floyd album that is listed as a “1994 remaster” but is still bit for bit identical to the 1984 CD.