Priorities (CD over Vinyl) on MB?

classical
editing
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f3510f5aa68> #<Tag:0x00007f3510f5a900>

#1

I’m a relative beginner here and have submitted very few releases, to my own dismay. I use MB very much and as both a musician and programmer, I feel obliged to give back to the community when I can.

However, I recently had the experience of having an entire release (vinyl) overridden by its CD counterparts, essentially deleting the metadata and cover art I worked hard to add. This is a problem for me, because I have digitized a large portion of my vinyl collection to be used on my NAS and I would love to have the metadata and original cover art I uploaded available to me. Sadly this is no longer the case.

What are MB’s priorities here? Is it to provide the best metadata for digital media only? Or simply the best metadata info we can supply for ALL media?


#2

Hi!

What does this mean in this case? CD and vinyl should be different releases, so neither should override the other. I’m wondering whether someone added the images to the wrong release (in which case they should be moved, or well, removed and re-added) or there was some other problem :slight_smile:


#3

Could you link to the problematic release?


#4

#5

That was added as a CD. Do you maybe mean this? If so, the only change is the recordings were merged (because they’re, I expect, the same).


#6

That confuses me. How can a CD and Vinyl be the same release? I thought the CD and Vinyl was supposed to be listed as different releases but in a common release group?

A CD and Vinyl are packaged very different. I have also seen CD versions with more or less tracks than the vinyl release or in a different order.


#7

Well, they can’t be the same release of course, but unfortunately that doesn’t mean people don’t edit them that way.


#8

They’re not the same release or even the same release group. We still don’t know what the OP means by having the vinyl release overridden, since the vinyl and CD releases in question exist in the database as separate entities.


#9

If I was the OP, my confusion would have arisen from not having clarity about how to use the MB website to find the Release I had added.
My attempts at searching would have shown me a similar Release and, in the absence of any sign of the Release I had added, I would assume that the Release I had found was the current display for the Release I had added.

I understand that I am in the top decile of computer literacy globally.
This is one example of the sorts of mistake I make repeatedly.
Those of us interested in broadening the accessibility of MB face quite a challenge.


#10

I have a guess…

I had a similar problem in the beginning of my tagging as I started digitizing vinyls to flac files and working with MB and picard.

I pushed a folder in picard, choosed the matching vinyl release and saved the tags. Half a year later I came back to re-tag my collection for new relationships, cover art etc. As I wasn’t familiar with MB and picard, first all seemed fine and I saved the updated tags. After a while I noticed that some vinyl releases switched to CD releases (wrong cover art with jewel case, wrong barcode, etc.).

That happened when in picard settings “clear existing tags” and “automatically scan all new files” was enabled. Picard then automatically choosed the first matching entry from the release group based on “preferred release types”.

To prevent this behavior I’ve added “musicbrainz_albumid, musicbrainz_discid, acoustid_id” to the “preserve these tags from being cleared or overwritten with MusicBrainz data” field and ajusted the sliders “preferred release formats”.

But be careful, that is leading to some following issues (when releases got merged). So it’s better to disable “clear existing tags”