I stumbled on what I assume is the result of reusing a previous medium without catching the track differences. Four out of five releases in this release group had the wrong track order when compared to discogs and/or amazon. I think I’ve fixed it all up, and merged all the recordings that had the wrong length, too. But wouldn’t hurt for somebody to check my work. The only tracks that should actually have different recordings are “Bomb” and the untitled track at the end:
Merge of label. This is my first label merge which will affect a lot of releases. I’d appreciate if some people would check everything is OK.
In this topic, you are supposed to explain why you want us clicking your link.
Otherwise, we can just go check our usual voting queue.
You can, but you didn’t. I am happy with the current results from this thread.
I’ve been down a rabbit hole of Nirvana bootlegs. I did my best to review links and edit histories, but there’s a lot going on and I was juggling tabs like a madman, so I want to see how the edits I’ve entered so far go before I try to do more. The most notable are these:
Merging recordings (this is A->B, C->B, D->B so that none of them fail - will do more cleanup after merge):
Why not just do all of them in a single merge edit if you already have them lined up?
Because I found one… And then another… And then another. And particularly in this case, some of them needed more explanation specific to that particular merge, so I didn’t want to backtrack and do a many-to-one that would lose the specifics.
This is a common scenario, especially if you’re using scripts to aid you in finding entities to merge.
There are times that I’ve gone in specifically looking for what could be merged (most of the industrial stuff I’ve been messing with recently falls into that category, because I have several of the compilations and can compare tracks), but this wasn’t that situation. I was investigating a specific track for which I had an acoustid and a wrong name, and the more I dug the more I found. And I’ve got the right name now!
A post was split to a new topic: Do auto-generated (“Topic”) YouTube channels qualify for the Artist-URL / Youtube relationship?
So as many of you may or may not know, the theatre soundtrack style guide has a seemingly contradictory set of instructions with regard to artist credits: credit the composer on the release and tracks, but credit the performers on the recordings. Many editors aren’t aware of this, and as a result there are a plethora of soundtrack albums in the database whose recordings are credited to the release’s composer. It’s a tedious and easy-to-mess-up task to edit each and every recording to credit the performers, so in the case of one release I did something I normally wouldn’t do: create a duplicate release with the tracks credited to the performers, for the purpose of utilizing the “update recording artist credit” function to fix the recordings. Now I’ve entered an edit to merge away said duplicate release; I came here to ask for some votes to help it pass faster so no one mistakenly tags their files with that release.
@chaban can you let me know the reply please? Or someone else who knows the guidelines about merging recordings.
As noted in that edit: the musical part of the live recordings are identical.
At the end of the target is a 19 second spoken introduction to the next track. This is making it a few seconds longer.
That intro is not included on the end of the track being merged.
Are these recordings that can be merged? Or do I just do a “included in” relationship instead?
As noted in that edit, there are seven tracks on a live album being merged into the same recordings of the same gig on a different live album. The target is the complete gig which explains that intro.
Can go either way actually
I am looking for some guidance on the best way to resolve this issue.
Band-Maid is a J-rock group:
They have an “alter-ego” called Band-Maiko under which they have recorded a single and an EP, but have never played as live (both bands are the exact same 5 members). This has been created as an alias here:
However, it has also been created as a separate group here:
My thought was to simply merge these two under the Band-Maid name, but there has been some questioning about what the proper procedure should be. I am fine either way, but either the second group should be merged, or the alias should be removed. I don’t think both should be kept.
If anyone can shed some more light on the proper resolution of this, I would appreciate it. The pending edit I created and some discussion are here: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65011439
This is a Recording of the Work in revised version (1954). For various reasons
its recordings currently point to works queued to become wrong, original version (1937). The Works’ having identical titles seems to prevent relationship editor, so change will have to wait for removal (another queue), an Autho-editor pointing
Track 1 → https://musicbrainz.org/work/4137bc23-4706-49f4-a627-e5d2b04cfca9
Track 2 → https://musicbrainz.org/work/a1751b39-84b7-48ae-9568-f090a320a026
Track 3 → https://musicbrainz.org/work/9a916215-72b1-42aa-9b82-2a2e88c74216
or other advice.
Note that you can paste the url for the work you want to use into the field in the relationship editor.
I did. Editor then hangs chewing indefinitely, or, if hitting [Done] again, closes that box but afterwards having the previous MBID unchanged.
Could someone who has knowledge about Japanese labels please have a look at https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65139359 where someone tries to merge two imprints of the same company? I feel these should stay separate as they have different Discogs pages, but as I can’t read Katakana I’m not able to do much further investigation than I’ve already done
Edit: The issue seems to be solved thanks to @HibiscusKazeneko