The General Chatter/Off Topic Thread

Say, thanks! Hmm, that’s a tricky question though… The idea is that it’d be a series listing entities for the same intellectual property, but of a different entity data type. How do you think that should be phrased? Wording is crucially important for something like this, so it really has to be as perfect as one can get it.

After a few minutes of thinking, maybe something like, “lists relevant entities of different data type” for a good generalization of what we’d be going for… not sure if that’s too long-winded, though. Would love to hear others’ thoughts for wording/phrasing.

1 Like

Would it be worth leaving it quite broad? Or does this mitigate some of the value.

e.g. “related to”


“related to” might be a little bit too extreme of a generalization; the mere presence of a relationship between two entities says as much, so I imagine it’s worth specifying a little more than just that. Describing the nature of the relationship is important, I think, which is where my suggestion came from, without getting bogged down in the specifics of our case here, involving various IPs and franchises.

And also, Series is a single entity type, and there is no distinction in Series-Series relationships between Series that list out different datatypes, so the phrasing has to accommodate that fact. Saying, “lists relevant entities” maintains the vagueness that lets the relationship be flexible and used for a lot of types of “relevance” beyond what we’re thinking about right here right now, but still specifies, in broad terms, the two Series entities’ relation.

Ah yup, agreed, I was thinking that there is currently no way to include that relationship ‘presence’ at this stage (without using an incorrect relationship) so a very generic relationship might do the job and allow for other uses as well.

Edit: after more of a think, ‘lists relevant entities’ might be a long way to say the same thing.
If all series are lists of entities, and any relationship between the two implies there is something relevant between them = any relationship between series will always ‘list relevant entities’?

1 Like

Heh, I did wonder to myself that same thing. The implication will always be true, I suppose, in any instance where it’s used-- it’s hard to think of another relationship that a Series would have with another Series that wouldn’t also just be the Subseries relationship… Well, no, I say that, but actually, there could be something like “alternate ordering of” as another Series-Series relationship… Dunno how useful that’d be though. But anyway, that’s a tangent.

I don’t really have any further thoughts at the moment… (loooong day at work). If you wanna make that ticket as you see fit, you have my blessing.

1 Like

Actually, I’ve gone and done a little bit of reading around and it looks like using Series this way may not even really be endorsed… It seems like a bit of a grey area to me, especially given that there’s no better alternative, and a lot of editors are already making good use of Series in this sort of de-facto way, regardless of style leaders’ intents, ssssoooooooooo… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But, this does mean that a ticket for adding a relationship type between Series entities is likely to get shot down or ignored, given that we want it so that we can Use The Thing Wrong, even more. Now with 100% more Wrong!

(Edit: FWIW, I personally completely approve of this ‘run-away’ unintentional application. I prefer descriptivism over prescriptivism (any sane linguist will say the same thing), so if people “break the rules” doing something that makes sense, then IMO the rules were flawed in the first place. Using Series in this way is incredibly helpful, and incredibly healthy for the database, so style intent can go get dunked on this one.)

1 Like

My example is a vg series, but no fan works, just soundtracks. I reckon definitely a ‘legit’ mb series! So I’m happy to put in a ticket.

Honestly though people at MB can be real sticklers for semantics. Imo if something is useful in a series, and feels enough like a series, put it into a series (without taking it too far off course)

1 Like

This could rather be done with a new entity (called Product and/or Franchise and/or IP) that could be linked to any type, like the VGMdb product system.


yeah, that thread was me trying to figure out a way to work fan-works in particular. I think “official” series would likely be more generally accepted.

after looking in the documentation on series, I found the Style Guidelines and Documentation to be very short and a bit vague. I get the feeling we’re still figuring out what exactly a series is as a community.

I was actually about to link that ticket myself, lol

I could also see a franchise working as a series series (a series of multiple series). that way it can easily hold video game soundtracks (and releases), movie soundtracks (and releases), and books and other written works (and audio releases), continuing with the James Bond example from above. the only thing is we might have difficulty adding characters to the franchise, but that could be fixed with a new relationship.

wow, are we actually on-topic in the off-topic thread? :joy:


I do believe we are! :stuck_out_tongue:

My main concern was with this quote:

I was worryingly interpreting that as saying that the current method of using Series that way is, in some way, “improper…” but, I’ve already made my thoughts on this known, so whatever. Series banzai!

But yeah, I certainly would not be opposed to the addition of an entity type like Franchise / IP / etc., or even a Work-type augmentation that fulfills that role, with a few more relationship types to bolster it… but I get the feeling we might not be getting that any time soon. It comes off to me like too obvious of an addition to not have already been done if it was something the MB team would have wanted, so I’m left to assume there’s some rationale behind it not existing currently. Or they’ve just constantly had bigger fish to fry for years on end.

1 Like

The question for me then is is - are there other situations where work + rg series can duplicate information?

I stand behind my use of series though, for what it’s worth. I don’t care about the semantics of what it’s called, if it’s useful for me and for the DB and doesn’t break anything I’m going to use it :metal:

A ‘franchise’ series would be great ofc (another ‘series’ item but with a different name?), but if that’s not on the horizon then a new relationship is practical.

1 Like

me getting home from work to like 9 Discourse notifications and a trust level promotion be like


added that to the database~ :wink:

you also inspired a new collection, if you wanna add to it, lemme know. I’d love to add you as a collaborator on it~

edit: don’t know if you’ll see this, but @teethfairy, you’re welcome as well~


:pleading_face: omg id love to be a collaborator. i already have a couple in mind


Does anyone have any advice on how to link common themes? A bit out of my depth, entering the scary world of ‘works’ here.

There’s an iconic theme that is referenced/used throughout the Halo soundtracks, tweaked a bit, or mixed with other bits of music, usually with a new name and without crediting the original composers.

Two are already there as a basic ‘recording of’ relationship (on that link above). One of those already sounds quite different to the other, so not sure if that’s correct.

But for my specific example how should I link these two recordings or works:
original | newest version

Halp :heart_eyes:


it depends on whether you’re referring to a theme song or a leitmotif (also called a theme)

if it’s a theme, I believe it’d be its own work, related to the recordings that feature it

if it’s a leitmotif, I have no clue… :sweat_smile:

I’ve had to deal with a leitmotif before, I don’t think I handled it correctly tho…

(yes, I’ve added it to that collection)


Thanks! I don’t know though! It seems like a lot of the song is often re-used (rather than just the tune or whatever), but leitmotif could still be the right term?

Can anyone with classical knowledge have a listen to the two examples above and see what they think?

Oh man, just found this YouTube series that really digs into the re-use of these Halo themes/leitmotifs. Sweet lord.
Unfortunately he uses both ‘theme’ and ‘leitmotif’. Seems like some of his examples are definitely leitmotifs because they are just snippets (I am slightly less interested in these, more interested in connecting songs that are very similar, almost covers).


actually, after listening to the recordings, yes, that is the theme of Mr. Halo :joy:

all seriousness aside, I have worked a bit with the Doom (2016) soundtrack, and they reworked the first level’s soundtrack from Doom (1993)

don’t know if I did it right or not, but it’s better than nothing. :wink:

one big difference, in Doom’s case, the later one was inspired by the original, not the same work in my humble opinion though… in the two examples you gave sound like they might be almost the same work. at least without a super in-depth listen, maybe the “lyrics” are different between versions or something?

to my understanding, a leitmotif is like the Shire leitmotif from Lord of the Rings (the melody the flute plays at the very beginning of this recording)

it’s used throughout the whole Lord of the Rings soundtrack, often on different instruments, but still the same general melodic line in most cases.

another example would be the Imperial March from Star Wars. they use the first few lines as shorthand for, “hey look, it’s the Imperials!” or “hey look, it’s Darth Vader!”, and that way they can evoke the feeling of the Empire or Darth Vader in other scenes.

in other news, made a cool meme music discovery thanks to some random person in my YouTube recommendations… I found the “Oh no” song from TikTok:

this is the reason I’m taking so long sorting through my library… I find cool thing, I say “ooh, this needs to be in MusicBrainz”, then I add it and never make progress on my own library… :sweat_smile:


:joy: Unbelievable…


But consider this, Riff… how will anyone ever be able to make sense of that without a good AcoustID fingerprint on it? :wink:

Hahaha… well, I dunno if I’ll be super active in contributing to it, but, sure, I’d love to be able to collaborate on it. I know of some stuff that really blurs the lines between “normal” and memetic music…

Anyway, I spent some time tonight marveling at the task now before me: one of my friends wants to tag their stuff from the A-One circle, and at that point I realized a bunch of their Releases are just a spaghettified mess of clashing relationship and crediting standards… and I’ve been trying to tidy up the first few Releases. I’ve got loooots of open edits now… at least compared to what I’m used to. :slightly_smiling_face:

I definitely try not to rock the boat too much with my editing and refrain from doing huge sweeping changes all at once, but I’m sure I’ll have a good few pages of open edits for stuff like relationship edits/removals in the next week… Anyone want to take bets on how many releases I’ll make it through before I get sick of it and take a hiatus?

I forgot when I was posting just now, but during the middle of the day, when I was working on those releases, I took some before/after screenshots of POD JACK just for the fun of it.

:unamused: :-1:

:relieved: :ok_hand: