Untangling a mixed CD

MusicBrainz
#1

I need some advice on untangling a mixed CD from an unmixed digital media release that seems to have been merged incorrectly at some point.

The two releases in question: unmixed + continuous mix DM and mixed CD. The edit history shows that the mixed CD was added first, then the unmixed DM release was added, presumably based on the mixed CD. This led to it sharing the recordings and having the wrong track times. At some point in history, they were unmerged, but later on were merged once more because the track times of the DM release hadn’t been corrected.

So it’s once again time to unmerge these recordings, but I’m not quite sure which release should get the new recordings. The CD release was added first, so you could argue that it should get to “keep” the recordings. On the other hand, the CD release has gotten new recordings in the past already, and those were then merged once again into the digital media, so should the digital media then get to keep those recordings? Finally, the AcoustIDs are important too. I have the CD release here, and I could attach the AcoustIDs to any newly created mixed recordings. I can’t do that for the digital media recordings, so those AcoustIDs would be lost. Moreover, looking at a sample of the recordings, they all have more than 2 AcoustIDs linked, and in each case, only one of the fingerprints has a length that matches the mixed CD.

So, assigning new recordings to the mixed CD would allow us to keep the AcoustIDs (provided I attach them again from my copy), whereas assigning new recordings to the digital media release would perhaps be more historically correct? I’m more inclined to go for the first option, since the history is already messed up anyway and the AcoustIDs could mostly be kept, but I’d like a second opinion.

1 Like
#2

It shouldn’t really matter unless you have database access and can remove the MBID redirects.
Do whatever allows for a more thorough “fix” (AcoustID, etc.) and/or is easier.

3 Likes
#3

Alright, thanks! I’ve split of the CD version, removing the wrong AcoustIDs from the old recordings now.
Follow-up style question: When the new mixed recordings are created, which ARs should be added? I see from other releases in the series (like https://musicbrainz.org/release/f4429972-9c9b-449d-ba1d-cc46b97d4b37) that the “compiled” AR is used to link the mixed recordings to the large continuous mix in the digital media release. But there’s also the DJ mix AR, so I’m not sure which possibilities are more appropriate here.

  1. {mixed recording from CD} is a DJ mix of {unmixed recording from DD}
  2. {mixed recording from CD} is compiled in {continuous mix from DD}
  3. {unmixed recording from DD} is DJ-mixed in {continuous mix from DD}
2 Likes
#4

More importantly - get the Disambiguation comments onto all the mixed recordings. This stands out more when people are merging. It is also easier to voters to spot when bad merges have been lined up.

Edited to add: Are you saying these are all brand new tracks and none of the unmixed versions are in the database at all? Would it not of been more correct to link the unmixed versions back to original copies of those tracks instead of leaving them as duplicates? Or are the unmixed ones also edited differently in some way?

4 Likes
#5

I haven’t touched the unmixed recordings. It’s the mixed versions that will get the new recordings. There’s definitely some unmixed recordings that can be merged, since I’ve added ISRCs that come up as duplicates, but I’m leaving that until the mixed tracks are removed from those recordings, otherwise I’d have to explain it in the edit note why the recording times differ so much.

As for disambiguation comments, I was going to add those anyway, but it’s probably even more important to get the track times on the unmixed release correct. It seems like years ago, pankkake went through the exact same process as I’m going through right now, added the disambiguation comments, but didn’t update the track times of the unmixed release; only for those recordings to be merged again not a year later (with 3 “Yes” votes too :smile: ).

4 Likes
#6

Adding disambigs to both may have stopped this happening too! + track times… good catch

3 Likes
#7

Nice to see we have a helpful AE step in. @jesus2099 has just jumped time forward and Approved the new recordings. Times can be corrected now. @ROpdebee - as you have the CD, you can now whack that into place and nail those times. once the times are set I’ll see if I can help relink\merge some of the official tracks (Don’t really know any of these artists, but they seem fairly easy\unique)

Thank you @jesus2099 - I know what can be like waiting weeks to get obvious errors like this corrected. I’ve often had my OCD drag me into messes like this that needed fixing.

3 Likes
#8

Okay… because I am a little mad and like things tidy, I will start on track 31 of that unmixed CD and see how many tracks I can find and merge. The first AcoustID I look at gets a match… Haha - I take on some comical tasks :rofl: :crazy_face:

Actually, it is going smooth. At least one AcoustID match each merge so far. (five down and counting…)

2 Likes
#9

Thank you @jesus2099!
AcoustIDs are attached to the correct recordings now, track times should all be correct (Beatport on the DD, matching DiscID on the CD), disambiguations set and edits open to set data quality back to normal. Also cleaned up some ARs that were incorrectly added due to the incorrect times on the unmixed release.
@IvanDobsky I’ve opened some merges based on ISRCs already, ping me if they need to be cancelled if you find more recordings to merge.
Still wondering what to do with the DJ-mix/compilation ARs though…

3 Likes
#10

This is why i started at the bottom of the list. I’ll check for dups as I go along to avoid overlaps. I prefer AcoustID merges to ISRC as already seeing different country ISRCs here which may not match but clearly are the same recording. I guess the GB\FR\NZ at the start of an ISRC is just a country code. (Got to half way now…)

And I would pick option 1 - {mixed recording from CD} is a DJ mix of {unmixed recording from DD}

The big single track hour long Continuous Mix is a separate puzzle :smiley:

1 Like
#11

I guess the GB\FR\NZ at the start of an ISRC is just a country code.

The ISRCs on the unmixed tracks come from the label’s site (I found them hidden in the HTML somewhere). ISRC on some of the other recordings in the merges seem to come from Spotify. E.g., https://musicbrainz.org/recording/38dd164c-5264-4b32-bfad-7aacc6bb7a71 has an ISRC with year code 2014, but appears on a 2012 release. How is that possible?

And I would pick option 1 - {mixed recording from CD} is a DJ mix of {unmixed recording from DD}

Technically it’s not a DJ mix of that recording. It’s a DJ mix of that recording, the one before it, and the one after. :smile:

#12

To be honest I am not sure at all how that relationship should work. Not really thought it through fully before. A DJ mix is not really changing the originals, just overlapping them with other tracks. I assume it is kinda saying “this is the track the DJ is playing with” and not messing up the relationships too much with excess details. Can’t name every track that gets mixed into\outof by every DJ as that would get chaotic. :smiley: I’d focus on the recording in the middle the DJ is presenting to us.

ISRCs are not something that interest me. I listen to the music, don’t care how a shop sells it. I want the TOOOOOOOOOOOONs and learn about how they relate to other toons.

Almost finished merging the tracks with matching AcoustIDs. Got a large percentage linked up. Making me curious about the release now seeing all the DnB notes. And REALLY making me miss my gigs when I saw Sandé in there

#13

I couldn’t find any guidelines, so I just based it off of similar releases and went with

  • {mixed track x} is a DJ mix of {unmixed track x}
  • {continuous mix} is a compilation of {mixed track 1…n}

Arguably, {continuous mix} is a DJ mix of {unmixed track 1…n} would’ve fit too, but having it a compilation relates the two releases a bit more, which I like. If a style guru knows this is wrong, just let me know and I’ll rectify the mistakes myself.

3 Likes
#14

I have just noticed who the editor was who merged these two albums. That is funny. Even the experts are making errors :rofl: Shows how important full and accurate data is.

Think we have made a neater job of it now.

Ooo - look what I found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2RIJCzb1Mw

Will need to check that out tomorrow