ISRC script

While viewing:
I saw reference to script /

Has anyone yet to spend the time to parse such information from digital file metadata?

1 Like

Not that I know of. But an easy solution would be to have this as a Picard plugin.


That was one of the uses I had in mind as well, plugin for Picard. I am sure you know I like ISRC and believe it is more important than a lot of the other stuff when it comes to digital. My interest is that should there be a way to do a mass batch, I have many thousands of files I could run through it. I would need Picard however, I do not have MBIDs in my metadata for iTunes files, which are the ones that would be easy and consistent to pull them from.

Maybe I misunderstood or I’m just confused: I thought this was about submitting the ISRCs that are in the file’s metadata to MusicBrainz. But if the ISRCs are not already in the files this won’t work :smiley:

No, I think you understood correctly the first time. In my metadata, I rarely have MBIDs, the MusicBrainz ID for the album and recording and such. This basically prevents me from using things like the acoustID fingerprinter (separate app) because I have no static matching to the MB database.

Now my iTunes files all have the original iTunes data, which usually includes the ISRC. So for me to get it to MB database, I would need to do a manual match for each album, but it is still far more bulk import than having to do each one individually via the web UI.

So what I mean is that I could, in theory, load in a ton of albums and basically watch them all match to make sure there are no errors, then import away. Emphasis being on the watching for errors on the match or the whole thing becomes counterproductive.

Ok, I think I’m with you again. Just to be clear: My idea was to have this as a plugin, which would allow you to right click on a loaded release and select “Submit ISRCs to MusicBrainz”. You would of course need to match your files to the releases with Picard first, at which point you should also save the MBIDs to the file.

So it would make it easier to submit, because you could do it in the same tool (Picard) right after matching a couple of files. But you still need to do the matching part first for the files you haven’t matched yet, so it’s not a big time saver as opposed to using an external tool.

Still I think we should have this plugin. But not sure when I will have time for it, so if anybody else wants to give this a try please do :wink:


Yes, same page. Only difference I have is where you state:

I do not save anything to files with/from Picard. I use Picard only as an import tool to upload data to the MB database. At this time that means adding a new release or submitting acoustIDs, at least to the degree the system currently allows and supports.

1 Like

It would be very bad to submit for multiple releases at the same time.
It reminds me of nightemarish multi‐release‐barcode submissions.
It’s better per release and with edit note citing the source.


Maybe an option on save in the saved scripts settings to submit isrc using a script there.

I had that same thought, and made it my summer project to write one.
I started with a fork of JonnyJD’s project since he had about half of the code I’d need. My script is very similar, called . It also takes a MusicBrainz user name plus the audio files making up a release, either separately or in a ZIP file (which is how they are usually downloaded).
I’l looking for beta testers. You’ll find downloads on my Github page
(please don’t use v2.2.0 - found a serious bug just after releasing it).


I mean this with full respect… but when I first came to MusicBrainz, I saw a great system. I WANTED to contribute. I am a bit confused as to why MB is relying on so many third party scripts, some of which are from @jesus2099 too.

I understand that MB community and I differ in opinion on the importance of ISRC with digital music, but I do not think any of us can discount that MB does not work well for digital media. For physical media, I have seen none better.

My point… why is it that non MB staff are the ones making it better and easier to use? I know well how open source works, and I will always do my part, but something is off here.

EDIT: to be clear, I believe these developers that are improving MB should be contributors and have their work merged into some official repo vs being separate and sometimes hard to find.


This kind of tools are in External Resources - MusicBrainz Wiki
I think it’s not bad that they are hard to find because they can lead to wrong edits.
They can have bugs due to website changes and they require extra attention and extra training from the editors.
For the example of ISRC if things are not properly checked, I have already seen many edits where the tracks were misaligned and all ISRC were submitted to wrong tracks.

1 Like