Release completeness

I added this release when I was a new editor:

I today made some changes, correcting some “new editor” errors. I am going to work on getting scans of cover art, and there are no ISRCs here.

My question here is two part. First, I did not add AcoustIDs at the time. How important do all see these? Second, is there any other info I can add?

This stems from my other thread(s) on proof of edit. This is a rare CD, I would be amazed if another editor stated they have a copy. It is a pressed CD in jewel case with front and back cover art, it is just one that very few copies were made. For this release, I know one of the band members, which I also stated in the original edit notes. I have and can get info on this release that will not be found by searching.

So, to what extent does the community here see the release as “complete”? At face value, the only reference is me, but I do not view myself as a reference.


Very nice. I guess for me scans would be the next step. I would put [none] in the cat. no field if there isn’t one. Otherwise it’s complete as far as what I would add!

Something more on the artist (if you know anything) would be great - disambiguation, location, a genre tag, something to help out there, would be great. So it doesn’t float through the MB void until it get stolen by another ‘The Timothy’s’ in the post-apocalyptic future where there are no new band names

Oh, sure. They are from Milwaukee, WI. The style is like Indie Pop. The members are heavy into percussive instruments. A style like The Promise Ring, and to a degree, the Violent Femmes, in the sense that they carry a unique style.

I can bring in a level of detail that is crazy. We can talk the high school they attended, the university, etc. I even have still a drum kit I purchased from one of the members many moons ago.

1 Like

I feel sort of stupid here… How do I add a Genre?

I see there are no relationships yet.
You could add them: works credits (who what), recording credits (who what where when), manufacturing credits, etc.

How do I do this? I have done manufacturing and others, but I have never done Works. I am happy to learn and add all I have.

You can read the Adding Relationships page in the How To section.
It also contains details about the Relationship Editor.
Then click the Edit Relationships button in your release page, to launch the Relationship Editor and add what is printed on your release.

1 Like

Ok, will do.

Please keep in mind that this release was very limited, manufactured in a small suburb of Milwaukee. So there is only so much I can do. BUT, I will add anything I can.

EDIT: My documentation tells me this was a 100 piece release.

If you type in ‘indie pop’ into the tag field on the artist page, it will be detected as a genre (because it is on the genre list), and get added there :ok_hand:

It’s not the same as the ‘concrete’ information you can enter into fields etc, but if you can give some background to the band in the artist annotation then that is worth gold imo. Doesn’t have to be crazy, maybe something like:
“Milwaukee, WI Indie pop group, heavy into percussive instruments. A style like The Promise Ring, and to a degree, the Violent Femmes, in the sense that they carry a unique style. Active in the 1990’s.”
As much info as you want - but the above would already really help the random internet user who stumbles upon this!

Edit: I would add ‘Limited to 100 copies’ to the release annotation, that’s what I do.

1 Like

AcoustIDs would be great, because there are none yet for these recordings. AcoustIDs are hard to get for uncommon releases, so if you are in the situation to have access to the audio adding this info I think is awesome.


Yes, I can generate and upload them. My query was more on how others value them though. There seems to be a lot of recordings that have way too many AcoustIDs attached. While I do not know the ins and outs of the process, I find it hard to believe that is possible.

When I grab the CD, I will also see what I can do on cover art.

1 Like

LOL! Done. That is somewhat confusing/misleading.

1 Like

“Complete” means different things to different people. A release like this is a great place to start.

AcoustIDs - ignore the mess that are on some popular tracks. This happens for many reasons. A new Release track like this can be made pure and it will help people.

DiscID - always good to add one of them.

Works - easy once you start on them. If you know the “Composer (music)” and “Lyricist (words)” this is interesting history. The Edit Relationships page also make this quick to do in bulk. If you know less specifics then “Writer” covers both roles.

Dates? Engineers? Singers \ instrument players on the tracks?

I find these small bands are good places to learn what all the links do. You upset less people as you add the data. And it will be appreciated by someone who gets one of those 100CDs from a friend of a friend’s collection one day in 20 years time.


Thank you for your opinion on this. AcoustIDs I can do easy enough. DiscID is already added. Works, well the cover art shows some and I will ask for more from the members.

This might get interesting. The people involved are not likely to be known as this was not a major label work. This is almost 30 years old though, so the fine details may not be there. This is a prime example on why I want to capture things. This is a catch up type edit, more modern ones can be proactive, and include the bits MB cannot handle… you know what I mean.


I want to focus more on a “complete” releases over volume. If I have the information, I would prefer to spend 1 hour getting fine details than spending that hour adding 10 of the nonsensical digital releases with 100 countries, excluding this and that. LOL! There is much more important info to all releases. I like to know who and where things were mastered, mixed, recorded, etc.

Thanks to all for providing input. I have been placing together a sort of procedure to adding releases. My intent is to show one who says, CD in hand, what they need to provide. I cannot force anyone to do so, but I would have loved to see such a thing when I started.


I edit some obscure punk bands some days that can involve a lot of research to find out who someone is. Plenty of links left in edit notes as to some obscure fan website I found that confirms some data. Or even the artist themselves. With research like that I find it quite satisfying when it then links up into other projects and bands via a shared Engineer, Guitar player or Studio.

Sometimes the links are valid enough to be added to the artist as a “discography” or “home page”. I’ll normally look for some way of getting them attached for the next researcher to use.

Totally with you on this one. It is why I find those “Most active editors in the past week” lists so comical. Some people are driven by bulk numbers. For me it is far more interesting to be lost in a weekend of reading up on an obscure artist to then share that knowledge.

There is no one procedure. Mine seems to evolve every six months. I go back to some of my old releases and laugh at what I missed out. We are always learning.

The details I add to a release now is stuff I didn’t even have a clue existed when I started editing. Yet I see the most basic of track list edits are just as valuable. This is what I mean by we all have our own styles and interests. I get shocked when I see some people say they “never bother with works” or don’t look at the engineers or ignore manufacturing details. I think they are missing out on so much.


This makes me feel like a bad editor. I see so many that have 100k+ edits and then there is me… not even close. Even the auto-editors are the same, crazy numbers.

I must admit… this is me in regard to the Works. The engineers and such however, that is great importance to me.

A few years back, I was in discussion with fmera and we disagreed on a lot. Since then, and digesting his comments, I see now that what I wanted to do does in fact have a place. The primary issue was who is the actual label. In short, MB wants the logo on the release (which cannot apply to digital releases), and I wanted the “people to contact”. I see now that my wants have a place in the relationships. I feel bad as I was a real PIA with him, but I learned a lot.

But this is exactly my point. You are after quality, not quantity. That is the best type of editor. I am much happier to do half a dozen well researched edits in an evening instead of 1000+ quick slap edits. ANYONE can punch a script to slap dates into recordings in bulk, but it takes skill to find real knowledge.

( Okay, I admit I did slam in a quick 1000 edits yesterday, but I can be a sad numbers geek and wanted to do this edit because I like the number 8… see also :crazy_face: )

I am not on this site for gaming scores and playing top ten charts. I am here to learn and share. We’ll let people rush away to 1,000,000 edits while we plod along with happy data.

Also notice some Auto-Editors can be low numbers. AEs are made for many bizarre and unconnected reasons. Rarely just because they have a “high score”. That would be a bad reason to make an AE.

Personally, I like making Works because I want to know who wrote my music. I like to know how it connects and who else covers it.

Meanwhile many people don’t care who their engineers are. They ignore those credits in the booklets. This is the point - we all add different types of data. This is why everyone has a different idea of what a “Complete” release is to THEM. There is no one answer to “complete”.

Let Charlie import a track list, someone else adds some art. That guy Always Comes Along To Correct the Capitals. Then I’ll come along and link the Works. You drive by and link up some Engineers. Between each of us we all add to the party. :partying_face:

Life is always one long lesson…

1 Like

Here is another. I reply on the people here for guidance on these.

The credits on this release are a total mess.

EDIT: To be proactive, yes the CD states side A and B. There is no such thing. It is one CD.

1 Like

I would be amazed if anyone else here has a copy of this.