I want roughness and precision about MERGE RECORDINGS

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f4d62383b30> #<Tag:0x00007f4d62383a68>

Ladies and Gentlemen! and/or Hey guys!

The title describes my two requests.

  1. I would like the MERGE menu representation to be a simple and direct description.
    On this point, I want roughness.

It is difficult to understand the message of the MERGE progress menu say,

You are about to merge the following recordings into a single recording.
Please select the recording which you would like other recordings to be merged into:

It is an expression too elegant and polite.
and to me, difficult to understand immediately.

I am a elementary reading comprehension in English.

“which” - “other” - “into” … The syntax is long.
Because Complex dependency,I was confusion.

I hope for a more simple and direct expression.

For example:
You are about to merge the following recordings into a single recording.
Please select the recording of the BOSS! Do not check recording of HENCHMAN:

Or more example:
You are about to merge the following recordings into a single recording.
Please select the recording of the MASTER! Do not check recording of SLAVE:

see also:https://musicbrainz.org/recording/5b5cdc7f-d7f2-4e95-9380-67f28a5e1501/edits

  1. I ask for precision is about “my understanding” of MERGE recordings.
    This reconfirmation may be useful when using “mb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGS”.
    ( https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Guides/Userscripts )
    But I do not know more because I have no experience installing this tool.

The original sound of the long CD is cut short and sold by the electronic distribution.
I think the flow of this work is a natural idea.

But what about the following?

Short electronic sold digital data is original.
The CD added a few seconds of blank to it between songs and songs.
So it was a little long recording time.

Do these steps make the CD available for sale?
I feel unnatural.

Of course, the data at the hands of the engineer who made the sound mix will be original (master).
And, the engineer once burned it to the CD from the master.
Also, another once sent to the online download distributor.
This may the most natural think.
But that’s no reason to electronic distribution should be the BOSS.

Originally, I am a careless temper.
I confess.
I feel it is troublesome that MusicBrainz tends to aspire to be very precise.
However, users of “mb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGS” tend to make the short song a BOSS and make the long one a HENCHMAN.
Is the upper and lower relationship between the BOSS and HENCHMAN correct?
Or, is there any rule about merging, I don’t know yet?

On the system, it would be meaningful?
Or, is it useless to decide the parent and child?
After all, is it quite the same, especially good that we don’t care?

However, there is a reason why I worried about such a detailed thing.
The text of the menu seems to be written assuming the parent-child relation rather than the image which tie mutually equal.

But https://musicbrainz.org/edit/59884419 seems to me, swallow whole by absorbed merger.
I can’t understand the nuances of merging.

see also:

Of course, the user of these special tools like “mb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGS”, they familiar with MusicBrainz. They are very knowledgeable about systems and design ideas.
And they always do a devoted job.
They have a kind heart that teaches many times complicated and troublesome things.
Everyone knows that, but remember that too.

Thanks for taking your time, all.


As I understand with merging, there is no “boss” or " henchmen". Only that it is for making all of the duplicate recordings into one single recording. Recordings that shouldn’t be merged according to length are the ones that have a great time discrepancy (more than 5 seconds if I’m not mistaken)

Maybe someone with more experience can explain this better.


You should merge only identical recordings indeed.
There is big time difference here, are you sure it is only silence? If so it is ok.
Usually I merge duplicates into the pre existing recording.
The length is recalculated from tracks but it should be similar before you think of merging.


Thank you Jeluang and jesus2099, your discernment.

If put out a single in the beginning, next put it in the album at a later date, and more 10 years later, put in the best album.

It is necessary to relate these.

In that case, three people go hand in hand, not grandfather, father, child, in order of old.
Is that kind of mood … ?

However, “into” is written in the editing menu.
That somehow not convincing for me. Umm …

jesus2099, I may make out you said.
This is not a question of whether it is OK to merge recordings in the studio and outdoor concerts.
I am asking about philosophical concepts of the word “merge”.

Is it “merging” in the sense, that “companies become merging” can not be separated?
As a small company is not swallowed by a big company, it is an equal relationship.
I am focusing on exactly which company’s capital is big.

and/or “marriage between lovers” they become one fresh?
what do you think?

and I also want to know the view of more peoples.


The consensus is that if you can’t hear any difference between the recordings, it is considered a single recording even if it’s a remaster or the ISRC is different. If you can hear some differences between the two recordings, then make a separate recording with a recording of relationship with their work to link them all together.


5 seconds … WOW This!?
I got the point of intersection!

thank you for your hint!
but…I’ve nothing much to offer. There’s nothing much to take♪

So, Windows junk tip.
Use Microsoft IME(input method editor) 10.1.7601 JP or Microsoft Office IME 2010 (14.0.7162) JP.
setting Face letters ON.
Input “ばるたん”(barutann) ==> Conversion operation ==> show ALIEN BALTAN. (V)o¥o(V)


Band walks into studio. Makes a recording. This is mastered to tape.

The famous song is called “Our Funky Song”.

A single is released of “Our Funky Song”. An album is released with “Our Funky Song” as track 4. A greatest hits is released ten years later with “Our Funky Song” as track 2.

That is three separate releases in MB. Each release has a separate copy of the track “Our Funky Song”.

These all point to just ONE recording of “Our Funky Song” in MB.

This is what the merging of recordings is doing. It was only recorded once, so it is only in the MB database once.


:heart_eyes: ach, DB… :sob:

It is not totally useless, IMO.
I think most people think you should target the one with the proper name, the one that does not need fixing.
But I tend to prefer merging duplicates towards pre‐existing entity (which often does not need fixing, BTW), and fixing the target if needed.

Exactly, merge means the two become one and can’t be separated properly ever again. :slight_smile:


your meaning …
Releases was 3 times, therefore, be Scattered.
Recordings was just One time, therefore, must to Bundle up.

I was scolded by humming :dancing_women:, but could I pass the exam?
Want an axe to break the ice♪


I think most people think …the one that does not need fixing.

ah, I gradually became aware of the feeling of many people.

Yes. I am lazy.
the idea “that is that, this is this. isolate it.” is attractive.

At the same time, I have exactly the same recordings.
First time limited edition, fan club member limited edition, BD attached version, DVD attached version, regular version of CD only.
Even though the content of each CD is exactly the same, the videos of the appendix and the picture of the jacket are different.
I understand that it is the same recording and I am purchasing, so there is no problem.

But classic fans may be serious.
If I bought Karajan’s old vinyl record at auction.
if the same performance was recorded on a CD that I already have with a more clear sound.
it would be sad.

if possible, It would be better to merge.

But I tend to prefer merging duplicates …

  • The oldest release.
  • the oldest ID.

These two are not always equal.
Of course, rather than adding a lot of visual checks, we add a little comparison, so I think this way of thinking is also a realistic way.

However, if the editor 's technical skill is high, it might be better(optional, not forced) for new releases to be thrown into the oldest releases?

Exactly, merge means the two become one

I do not have to be very nervous. It is a sense of security.
It is depressed when I see the score NO by voting.

I Ain’t got no money and I ain’t got no hair♪
I’m happy, hope you’re happy too♪

1 Like

Keep in mind that it’s better to have two potentially duplicate recordings than it is to do a wrong merge. The recordings can be merged at any later point in time, but once they have been merged, it’s essentially impossible to “un‐merge” them again.

You may want to read the “Merge Rather Than Delete” article (which touches on the same, but kind of inversely). I also poked at writing a draft for some general/overall “editing principles” which specifically touches on how “duplicating is better than wrongly reusing”, which is kind of this. (Note that the “editing principles” one is a draft and does not reflect officially mandated MusicBrainz policy, but in my experience does reflect the generally accepted best practices. Just don’t cite it as a source for anything. :slight_smile: )


I might be mistaken, but your question might be related as well to the difference between a recording and a work. So in your wording: BOSS might be the work, and HENCHMAN might be the recording.

But I might be wrong.

Merge is the term in English to use here. Merge is not linking…

So in any case if you are not sure: leave the recordings as they are, and do not merge (As @Freso suggests).