I’m looking for feedback on whether this is a correct edit. The “imprint” version of the label was created without any connection to the pre-existing label, but they do appear to be the same:
Could you please vote “Yes” on Edit #111492956 - MusicBrainz - I messed up the 12th track title and would like to fix it as soon as possible.
1 Like
There are some open edits changing some LOTR soundtrack tracklists from (for instance):
The Nazgûl / The Song of Luthien
to
The Nazgûl
Because that’s how they are credited on the back cover. The counter-vote is that the tracks do contain more than one song, and the booklet contents credit the additional songs contained (though it never explicitly gives the tracks a title including both songs, afaik).
I can’t remember if we favor back cover over ‘technical correctness’ in these cases, so I’m asking for some eyes and votes 
The edit where discussion is happening:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/111488827
More of the same edits:
https://musicbrainz.org/user/Gragt/edits/open
P.S. I am comfortable saying that the recordings should be ‘technically correct’ so I have voted no on changing those to match the back cover.
Some more context for folks since this involves Works:
All of the tracks being changed in @aerozol’s post use multi-title convention because they are comprised of 2 distinctive Works that are credited in the liner notes (I’ve linked the relevant images in the notes for each edit). This can be seen in the above example with the 2 relevant Works linked via Recording relationship. Since a Work is “a distinct intellectual or artistic creation … an individual song … a work that is written by an individual songwriter” and multiple title guidelines come into play in the cases when “a track includes two or more songs” then the release should stay as is.
Some of the examples in question do not currently have Works (yet), but nonetheless fall under the same umbrella as the above example (again, see the attached images per edit).
In the case of @aerozol’s The Nazgûl / The Song of Luthien example, Howard Shore composed The Nazgûl while Viggo Mortensen composed The Song of Luthien. They are two individual songs from the film score that have been stitched together on the soundtrack release. This would require 2 Works being created given their distinctiveness, the recording linked to those Works, and multiple title convention being used.
Tracklist purity doesn’t apply here, and my opinion for that stems from the first example given under multiple titles, which is The Beatles’s Kansas City:
There are almost no examples where Hey‐Hey‐Hey‐Hey! is credited on a tracklist, but tracklist purity doesn’t apply as both are distinctive songs by distinctive composers constituting distinctive Works, hence the application of multiple-title guidelines.
Not sure that Kansas City recording makes a convincing point either way, considering it is credited roughly evenly as just “Kansas City” or with a split title across releases…
Hi, can someone vote for me for adding a missing tracks, and if possible, correcting release / track titles? I want to attach disk ID, but the mismatch of the track no. is preventing it.
Added text: Thanks for approval of adding tracks!
2 Likes
Could I please get votes here? Edit #111535848 - MusicBrainz
It’s needed to add the Disc ID. Silent tracks were not listed, so the track count will not match. Thanks!
2 Likes
Edit #111417947 - MusicBrainz - Link mistake correction
Edit #111550455 - MusicBrainz / Edit #111550463 - MusicBrainz / https://musicbrainz.org/edit/111550464 - Typo correction (reference scans linked)
This release/recording was credited to the wrong artist:
On further review, the Discogs link is the real error here. I changed this update to a merge with Drop the Lime, because the artist was created specifically for the release:
I’ve got the wrong DTL, too, but if I can get the extra tracks added then I’ll fix it.
I think I need some help with https://musicbrainz.org/edit/111539017. This newcomer needs help with editing, and I don’t know if I they know enough English to understand me. Can some French speakers help out?
Seeking votes on Edit #111501254 - MusicBrainz
It looks like a vote similar to these already failed due to lack of interest:
https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/024541d9-f86e-3098-bf98-1601ce19b2cc/open_edits
Edit #111957611 - MusicBrainz
Edit #111904834 - MusicBrainz - It would be a great help if this could pass through prior to a merge edit that is also in line.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/112013728
This editor is trying to switch a release from bootleg to official with no evidence, and is attempting to play mind games to gaslight the community about the label’s legitimacy.
1 Like
I would like some votes on Edit #112301805 - MusicBrainz, in which I have proposed merging two release groups:
- https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/09343121-dd00-447c-852b-e5112be9780f
- Release group “Paganini Rhapsody / Piano Concerto no. 2” by Rachmaninov; Yuja Wang, Mahler Chamber Orchestra, Claudio Abbado - MusicBrainz
They appear to me to be the same release. They are essentially identical other than an extra track on one of them. However, that extra track is of unknown length - it isn’t clear to me that it exists.
“No” votes are welcome - I want opinions on whether this is correct, not validation of my conclusion/faster closing.
1 Like
Edit #112266902 - MusicBrainz - Name change to what is present in JASRAC.
Needed to be able to merge with the following work:
Work “アークザラッドのテーマ” - MusicBrainz
1 Like
If you had merged the first work into the second (older and the title you want), it would have been enough.
We can merge already, anyway.
And you can cancel the rename, or not (same effect).
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/112257051 needs eyeballs before it expires.
Please have a look at the edits by Editor “stripeaccountbuy” - MusicBrainz Log in - MusicBrainz. Looks like plain spam to me
3 Likes