So it sounds like we’re leaning towards automatically adding in the HVSC, preserving its names for things, including all the tracks, even the 1-second-long ones, as it’s our job to catalogue, not judge what’s worthy of inclusion, which makes sense…
I’ve only manually added things into MusicBrainz so far. Is there a handy API that covers adding data, not just retrieving it?
There is no API for adding data, it has been discussed many times and the idea has been rejected as it would lower the quality of data.
The best option we have is to use a plugin for picard to populate the web page with tags from your music files.
The two tools that I would use is picard with the “add cluster as release” plugin and nodepad++
I would add 3 versions of every tune (possibly to the same release; once track grouping is added, they could then be labeled).
As far as I’m concerned, the chip is the instrument, so the different tecordings use different instruments, not different mastering; it’s at the very least akin to having stereo/5.1 being different recordings).
So whatever track naming you use, add all tunes for the first revision, then all for the second, and so on. The chip ID should be in the recording’s disambiguation; it could also be added as extra title information on the track if you wanted to, but that’s probably not necessary.
This is my take on it as well.
Would it make more sense to add each chip revision’s set of tunes as a separate Medium in that same Release, or can digital downloads not have more than one?
I suppose you could; but it would take more effort to convert such releases once track grouping is added.
And semantically I would indeed have an issue with a multi-medium digital release.
Either 3 separate releases (which would be the case if the versions have some sort of distinct identifier that could be taken as a catalog number), or one release with the full set of tracks (x3) as one medium. In the latter case, it can help to put an annotation on the release to make them easier to find once trackgroups are available. (I suppose a tag like “needs-track-groups” could work for that too?)
I’ve never had a problem with this: it is reasonably common for digital releases to follow the same “disc1 / disc2” split as physical releases.
(CDs did the same thing occasionally)
If I undersand you correctly the implication of what you are proposing is that, for digital releases, “Folder = Medium”.
This seems to solve some big problems.
It might go into MB history as Hawke’s Soution.
When I did a test download the the revisions did not exist in the same download - I don’t see why we would put them into one release. Or perhaps I was mistaken?
Though again, this would all be a mute point of we just stored the SID itself instead of every possible system it could be played back from, and ripped from.
For most other non digital mediums that would be madness
(Unless there is something concrete to be gained from seperating them out)
Probably true in a lot of cases, but I wouldn’t take that as an absolute. Better to consider it case-by-case and see what works best.
The problem is that a SID less like a recording, and more like a work. Like a midi file, it’s more akin to sheet music.
It’s the performance that has a recording.
I figured it might be similar to a piano roll?
You can only have a recording of the piano roll played on a piano, but we still have a ‘piano roll’ medium. Or am I off the mark?
That does sound similar. I suppose it depends on how a piano roll is made. If it’s made by playing the piece of music on a piano, then I do see how it could be called a recording. I feel less inclined to see a midi/sid file that way, but I do see how they could be considered very similar in some respects.
That is exactly how piano roll masters are made.
Playing a piece on a keyboard is also a perfectly good way to make a MIDI file. (Or at least it was way back when, haven’t touched MIDI in ages)
For what it’s worth, I tried out saving the AcoustIDs with one set of recordings, then scanned another set, and it identified them all as matches, so I’m happy to ignore the whole different-recordings aspect of this to preserve everyone’s sanity if that helps simplify things!
I’ve also tentatively added these Release Groups (the mere three I’ve added so far, anyway) as a Series, not a Label… and named that Series after the High Voltage SID Collection generally, not the specific Stone Oakvalley recordings of it. So it’s recording agnostic.
Not surprising; as I understand it the differences between chips is pretty subtle for the most part.
That seems reasonable enough. Probably the most complete scenario would be MB-recordings for the original chip instructions, plus an MB recording for those instructions as rendered by each chip variant. Obviously that’s a lot of work though.
Nice one!
Even though I might do some things differently I think that looks great. Full steam ahead imo 
edi: is there any way to get a permanent URL to the download link on the table on their website? It would be really useful and wouldn’t take long to have the ‘download for free at’ url relationship on each release. But the url’s I get seem to be based on table order which can shift?
Thank you! If there’s a strong consensus to do any of it differently, that’s fine by me. In the meantime, I’ll carry on adding a few more Releases here and there in a consistent way.
Perhaps a good prelude question is: should we? Technically, although this music’s abandonware, these are still bootleg recordings, even if they are a labour of love to preserve works that the copyright holders probably aren’t even aware of anymore, much less care about.
If we should, then it’s probably worth noting that there are several mirrors of the Stone Oakvalley collection, including at the Internet Archive, which is the most permanent website I can think of.
At risk of going on a tangent, I would act in the spirit, not the letter, of the law, and add the links. Copyright and trademarks really only are a legal issue if someone makes it one (and we should certainly respect their right if they decide to). But it should not restrain creative works by default.
Anyway, it makes the release pages much more useful I think.