A debate between “French Grammar Rules vs Artist Intent\as on Covers”.
A French composer with many French language release on French labels but he very rarely uses the accented “Éric” as his name. He usually writes “Eric”.
A vote wants to use Artist Intent to represent his name as shown on his albums without the accent. The counter argument is that correct French grammar should use the accent at all times even when it does not appear on the track listing.
It’s about splits and interlude parts. A brief history:
on vinyls the splits A2/3 and A3/4 were at the beginning of the respective interlude
on early CDs the indexes were at the end of the interludes (probably with a pregap to the next track) - with an awkward result, when playing A2 or A3 on it’s own.
on later CD versions the A2/3 split was corrected (back to the intended vinyl split), but A3/4 was kept from CD versions
This edit is about the associated recordings for a vinyl, which certainly has the same split “intended”.
But it’s also certainly another choice than taken by the editor who entered the track lengths (I’ve left these untouched for the moment)
Or should all these recordings be merged? There’s no difference if they are played in sequence. (…but the individual tracks have very different acoustIDs…)
I see this happen on The Wall and the differences are so large whole tracks are attached to an earlier recording. It is also pretty common on a live album where chat between tracks gets moved from the start of a track to the end of the prebious.
If it is more than five seconds I make new recordings. If there are significant differences at the starts and ends of the tracks, I’ll make separate recordings. BUT if this is only on this one recording, and only due to the typed track times, maybe I would not do it here. Hard to say.
The Wall has no printed track lengths on vinyl (and I had no look on the grooves), but it’s quite the same problem with intermediate parts - can be seen as an intro, or as tailpiece
Can I get some votes on this edit of mine. I am trying to revert the addition of a barcode to a release that has a full set of cover art showing absolutely no barcode whatsoever. So far the only vote (“no”) is from the editor who added it and who appears to be deaf to my compelling arguments.
Can I get some votes on this edit of mine https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96014503
I had added this a few days back and found when I went to attach the discID I had somehow left off the first three tracks. I would like to attach the discID.
I’d like some more eyes on Edit #95895650 as @tigerman325 does not agree that Capitol Records’ logo refreshes should be considered to be the same MB Label.
I abstained quickly after. But I do wish we had “credited as” for imprints if we are going to have imprints that actually represent more than one imprint. Talking about the actual imprint image, not the record company behind them.
Getting off topic, but that doesn’t make sense to me. I wouldn’t expect different text values to be used to identify which of these logos are used by individual releases inside Capitol Records.
Some controversial edits where a beginner is merging RGs with Japanese lyrics into their English counterparts apparently. I’ve already left a note with the relevant guideline recommendation, but since I’m not familiar with this kind of releases, I have no opinion myself.
Edit: Changed my opinion because someone has spent the time to keep these as separate RGs and linked them with “translated version of” relationships.
Which was then cancelled only for it to be entered by a different account mere minutes later on whose edit they could vote: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96164203
From the looks of it it’s probably a sockpuppet and I would’ve long reported this but since my other reports of the past 2 weeks for spammers, vandals, etc. were apparently not handled I don’t want to take chances.
I don’t want a quick merge but opinions:
[ https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96225119 ] ← CANCELLED ( Edit #96253605 - MusicBrainz )
The images attached to the NL release are fine (made & printed in Holland), those from the UK&Europe release show a Made in Italy/Printed in Holland release.
Both Discogs relationships belong to the same release (only difference is mould SIDs or not)
An alternative without wasting CAA capacity would be to keep both releases and link the UK&Europe release to this Discogs release: Massive Attack – Protection (1994, CD) - Discogs, but that’s probably not what was initially intended (If it’s possible to say something like that for a historic release with twists and merges - see history )
Hello there,
This is for people who know Opeth album called In Cauda Venenum.
There are Swedish and English versions of the songs, only the vocal tracks change.
There is the English versions disc and the Swedish versions disc.
Each of these discs start with an instrumental track, I think it is the same.
When I listen to those two tracks, or compare them visually and switching tracks audibly in Audacity, for me, they are the same.
)