Musixmatch relationship not working?

I see that Musixmatch has been added to the Lyrics URL Whitelist:
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Relationships/URLs/Lyrics_whitelist

It works when I add a Musixmatch band URL as a band profile relationship.
It also works when I add a Musicmatch lyric URL to a Works page relationship.

But when I try to add a Musixmatch album URL to a Release Group, I guess this error: This URL is not allowed for the selected link type, or is incorrectly formatted.
The left-handed drop-down menu automatically chooses the type “lyrics page” but that error comes up.

Is this a known bug or is it blocked for a reason?

In the relevant ticket, @reosarevok only posted example URLs for works and artists, so presumably those were the only ones known to exist.

I’ve filed a ticket on your behalf here:

If you can add an example Musixmatch album URL in a comment on the ticket, that would be great. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

This seems pretty terrible: https://www.musixmatch.com/artist/Nine-Inch-Nails/albums - a ton of dupes and whatnot. But still, I guess we should allow it. On it.

I can testify first-hand that the Musixmatch staff are not qualified metadata specialists. I’ve gone back and forth with them over email about dozens of mistakes in my bands’ albums, duplicates, incorrect titles, wrong album affiliation and track order. They’d fix half of the issues brought up, but along the way created new ones and seemingly threw in new song spelling mistakes in there out of spite. I finally reached out to the management team and they completely ignored my emails. I’m surprised that the website was whitelisted to begin with considering all of that, but I do understand that a lot of big streaming services use their database.

4 Likes

Musixmatch album pages have been intentionally left aside because it is very messy, it actually matches MusicBrainz releases more than MusicBrainz release groups.

Just checking the above example:

Musixmatch has six entries for Capital G album:

  1. https://www.musixmatch.com/album/Nine-Inch-Nails/Capital-G
  2. https://www.musixmatch.com/album/Nine-Inch-Nails/Capital-G-2
  3. https://www.musixmatch.com/album/Nine-Inch-Nails/Capital-G-3
  4. https://www.musixmatch.com/album/Nine-Inch-Nails/Capital-G-4
  5. https://www.musixmatch.com/album/Nine-Inch-Nails/Capital-G-5
  6. https://www.musixmatch.com/album/Nine-Inch-Nails/Capital-G-6

Whereas MusicBrainz has six releases for Capital G single.

2 Likes

Intention is hard to know when it’s not communicated on tickets etc. I didn’t see Mxm albums being mentioned (at all) on neither the STYLE nor the MBS ticket.

1 Like

It’s been communicated on GitHub in pull request’s description linked from ticket’s comment, and approved by Style BDFL. And there is a test case to specifically reject album pages. But I agree I should have updated ticket description after resolution.

As for the error message being not explicit enough, this is a known issue:

2 Likes

FWIW, I’m pretty sure what I approved was linking to mxm, rather than specifically the album bit :slight_smile:

In general: it’s unclear to me whether mxm tries to have a page for every album version, or just are shit but we should assume they mean RGs. @hds, when they fixed your reports, did they merge duplicates in a way that suggested they actually meant to have one entry per album, rather than per version, even if they are shit at it?

Just updated tickets STYLE-518 and MBS-3643 to match the actual implementation.

You may just have missed that line :slight_smile: I’m pretty good at it too! And albums not being mentioned (at all) also mean they were not explicitely requested either, the only given examples were about artist and work, I probably assumed you made the same statement than I did on albums.

I’m more inclined to assume that album pages are just raw imported MB releases, see https://www.musixmatch.com/album/MusicBrainz-Test-Artist/MBS-2755-2 (Edit: replaced with correct example)

In general: Not linking to album pages is not really an issue as it is redundant with direct links from works and Musixmatch album pages don’t contain any additional data (release date most probably comes from MusicBrainz too). Instead, we should probably display work lyrics links in release/recording pages.

3 Likes

@hds, when they fixed your reports, did they merge duplicates in a way that suggested they actually meant to have one entry per album, rather than per version, even if they are shit at it?

That’s hard to tell because three of my bands are on Musixmatch (Vision Eternel, Vision Lunar, Soufferance) and only one of them got close to being fully corrected (Vision Eternel). I must have gone through 20 emails for the first band alone before the moderators ignored my emails. The issues with my other two bands have gone unresolved.

One example is here:

In the case of my band above, they have refused to merge these two artists together. In the second one, they have me (Alex Julien), the band member, listed as a featured artist rather than correctly as Vision Lunar, the band alone.

A second example is this:

For Soufferance, one of my albums is listed 3 times, with the same track listing, but with different dates.

This is what Musixmatch told me in an email reply from in 2017 (they’re Italian so English is not their forte):

We have three sources for album data: Itunes, Spotify and Musicbrainz.
If data are not correct, we need to fix it there.

However, I do want to mention that the statement above is not entirely true because I know for a fact that my albums’ cover arts and titles were originally pulled from the old Last.fm discography pages. I’ve always maintained my MusicBrainz band pages well, and the releases up on iTunes and Spotify were freshly added to their services. So I had to deal directly with Musixmatch via email, and send them new high resolution images for each release so that they could update their database.

Back in 2017, they were more friendly and willing to work with verified bands to get things fixed. But the last email that I received from them in 2018 was this:

The Architecture of our Database and cannot be changed.

3 Likes

It’s also interesting how one of the albums, https://www.musixmatch.com/album/Soufferance/Bonjour-Tristesse , shows a full track listing of 8 tracks, but next to the release year it states “1 songs”. I wonder what kind of database architecture causes something like this…

IMHO it’s hard to link to this data meaningfully from MusicBrainz. On the other hand they seem to have related quite some data to MusicBrainz IDs and using their API you can actually query by MBIDs. So they must have some logic here. This is what their documentation says:

track_mbid musicbrainz recording or track id
artist_mbid musicbrainz artist id
album_mbid musicbrainz release id

This would indicate they are actually using releases, not release groups. But I’m not too sure this is true. In any way, they end up with many duplicated albums.

On a side note: You make some great music!

4 Likes

A really poor one? :wink:

1 Like

In that case it might make sense to not link to their album pages - it’s a shame though because at least for me (I usually want lyrics when listening to an album for the first time, and then I listen to the whole thing in one go) that’d be the most useful page, but if it doesn’t match it doesn’t match…