Stick a note in the annotations of these artists. The more obscure an artist is, the more this happens. I also find that the Digital Shops will often disagree.
3 Likes
Can I get votes or approval on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/98926278 ? It’s creating new recordings which will need some cleanup once they exist.
For those with opinions about whether release edition info should be entered as a disambiguation comment vs. ETI in the release name, https://musicbrainz.org/edit/98920746 awaits your vote.
This comes up frequently, and I’ve seen the style guidelines used for arguing that either way is correct. If someone (@reosarevok?) gives an official ruling, I’m happy to try to draft something for the docs to make it more likely that I’ll never see protracted edit wars about this again. 
1 Like
Requesting votes/approvals for some edits to merge two artists:
Per DJ Girl and Nondi_ are Planet Mu’s Next Generation | Bandcamp Daily and Planet Mu to release new album from Pennsylvania artist, Nondi_ | DJMag.com, Nondi_ formerly performed as Yakui. Yakui - MusicBrainz is older and has more releases, so I’m merging Nondi_ - MusicBrainz into it and renaming it to use the new name. I’ve already added an ended “Yakui” artist alias to the destination artist.
I’m always a bit fuzzy about using separate vs. multiple artists for a single person, but in this case, it seems to me like she just switched the name she performs as rather than treating these as two distinct projects.
Use a placeholder artist, or guess at a more specific artist? Which is more eeevil?
Weigh in here, votes are 50/50 right now, edit open for one more day: Edit #98860259 - MusicBrainz
Requesting votes for Edit #99168811 - MusicBrainz
From what I can tell based on the links mentioned in the edit, this album should only have 12 tracks instead of the current 13
Would love to get some more opinions on this edit (or the whole set).
Basically, it is a subunit album by only a subset of the members of the group, but was released under the name of the entire group (and consistently so across all streaming platforms). This could, of course, just be a promotional/marketing move. Meanwhile, the layout/design on the physical album isn’t obvious at all, and could be read in multiple ways.
The way it was submitted to KOMCA is unambiguous, again:
I actually contacted the agency for clarification, but haven’t received a response yet and likely won’t before these edits would go through.
EDIT (2023-04-30): I received a reply that basically confirms my perception. I added the full text of the email to the edit linked above.
Some more context on the group: it is planned to have 24 members (at the end of this year already), and will use rotational units for music releases. Thus, each new album will likely be released with a different set of members. It’s not impossible a certain unit will release multiple albums/singles, but so far, it seems like it’ll be a rare occasion (read more – this article also has this interesting quote: “AAA will continue to perform under the tripleS name so that’s why we are continuously releasing content”).
With how the project is promoted so far, with exactly one set of socials (Twitter, Instagram, and a very active YouTube channel), I, personally, think it makes sense to keep everything under one MusicBrainz artist entity.
Next week, the second subunit will debut, and the decision here would need to be applied to that group as well.
2 Likes
I need some help on edit https://musicbrainz.org/edit/99022744
In short, time ago a beginner changed main artist name with a secondary alias sourced from artist socials and now I’m trying to reverse that edit, but I found a user downvoting it and I’m not really able to understand their reasoning!
2 Likes
can i get some votes/thoughts on these?
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/4135d182-e37d-4180-8700-34ba79f91470/open_edits
edits to change artist credit to what’s printed on the coverart
1 Like
Hello,
It seems this release Release “FLIP” by Lomepal - MusicBrainz is in fact the CD2 of the deluxe version https://musicbrainz.org/release/02e016ba-62a0-45b9-86de-819ab508a395.
Problem are:
- I cannot merge the two, could someone make the required edits directly? (Append media then deleting the duplicate one).
- The tracklisting is wrong on target (was created based on the Digital version) After finding the TOC I can confirm the back cover is right based on timings. So all following edits need to be done before the merge https://musicbrainz.org/release/02e016ba-62a0-45b9-86de-819ab508a395/edits
When done will be able to review the wrong recording merge that were done due to this tracklisting error
Thanks for your help.
this specific torrent series has been being added for a while, it’s pretty long-running. if that makes a difference.
I just loose track as to what is and is not allowed to change guidelines. Look how the years in that series are set to the date in the title and not when the torrent was released.
2005?
I was just asking the question as these are huge lists that seem more like series.
1 Like
Apparently from 2005-2007 these torrents were ‘officially created by SXSW’.
They handily supply the original torrent creation dates on the fan/kinda-bootleg site here: 2005-2015 Torrents - The (UNOFFICIAL) SXSW Torrents
Info like that should be in the Series annotation. Interesting to see real use of Torrents for something official and worth noting then.
(I hope this question did not come over wrong… I was just checking on these huge things appearing in the edit queues)
2 Likes
Like @IvanDobsky, for me it’s much more a playlist than a legit MB release.
And which versions of the recordings was used can be tricky, especially if you need to check thousand tracks for thousand artists you don’t know.
I mean to me it looks like huge workload for almost no or very little benefit for the MB artist discography.
5 Likes
Lots of stuff that you and IvanDobsky add is of no benefit to me (and vice versa), and I wouldn’t be able to pick recordings for it. But not liking the look (or length) of something is no reason to remove it from MB.
These are obviously useful to people because some of these releases are added repeatedly by different users after being removed - the back and forth of adding and removing isn’t great.
If there’s a guideline that says they’re not allowed that’s different. If these annoy some of you maybe it’s worth talking to @reosarevok about narrowing down what’s allowed as a release in MB, in the guidelines? MB is very broad in what it allows. Which I personally like, but I can see the arguments against these 
3 Likes