Big clean up here, especially three tracks that had been entered as multiple parts and have to be merged:
Activity looks unusual, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to verify - please check:
Based on the user’s other edits, I suspect the removals are an error, but glad you caught them.
Could I get some votes to get https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73175438 passed? The previous attempt would have passed but failed because of the recording merges being applied too early I think.
I need some eyes on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73228809, and its companions https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73228808 and https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73228807. This is yet another example of a release added from FreeDB with 2 tracks in the wrong order. Without noticing this error, several people came along and added a Disc ID and AcoustidBrainz data to the release and recordings. I am afraid that by correcting the track order I may disrupt something.
EDIT: Apparently, as I thought, renaming the recordings will disrupt the AcousticBrainz data attached to the recordings. That leaves me with no choice but to temporarily remove the Disc ID so I can swap the recordings. Even though I’m an auto-editor, this edit still requires votes.
The Discogs link is broken in https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73228809
But I see at https://www.discogs.com/Jeff-Lorber-Flipside/release/15328834 an edition with this track order on back cover.
So I’m not sure if we really should swap tracks.
And anyway it is not needed to remove Disc ID, as we can just swap track names in Tracklists tab and swap recordings in Recordings tab at the same time.
I think you can do it by enclosing the text with two
~ characters – two characters at the start and another two at the end. For example: “~~strikethrough text~~” will display as “
Wow, I didn’t know that!
I have always been using
<del>before</del>) and (
<ins>after</ins>) HTML syntax.
And I didn’t know you could do that. Another alternative. Thanks.
I found the
strikethrough tip (and a whole lot more) at:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73236814 Kind of stupidly entered an incomplete tracklist before it was officially announced. It’s now releasing tomorrow (or already has been in some timezones) and it would be nice to have all the data ASAP
I want to get this bootleg’d Skrillex release cleaned up and would appreciate some votes/approvals to start fixing artist credits/merging recordings: https://musicbrainz.org/release/434423e9-0803-4af9-bc2c-1ed885b09d3e/open_edits
Thanks to @chaban for approving my edits!
On a related note: Is there a tool that helps with mass merging recordings? @jesus2099’s mb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGS is advertised for merging within an RG, but I need to merge from “all over MB” as I’m working with a compilation.
On compilations where it is not trivial to know what version was selected for each song, it is better to think recording by recording, IMO.
On compilations of whole albums, like album A / B / C (anthologies), it’s more easy, you can use the script to show release A inside the anthology and check which recordings might be worth merging or not, same with B and C.
Thanks for your reply, but I realize that I’ve misstated my problem a little bit. “Mass merging” seems to imply something different to what I want to do.
Let’s say, I want to merge some recordings in a release with some other recordings somewhere on MB. I’d have to:
- Open release page
- Click on track to open corresponding recording page
- Hit “merge” on the recording
- Enter recording search query in search bar at the top of the page
- Load search result page
- Open recording page from search results
- Hit “merge” merge on the recording
- Select merge target and enter edit note
This process has to be repeated for ~50 recordings for the release I’m currently editing. Each iteration requires me to load at least 5 pages. This is pretty tedious when repeated 50 times so I’m wondering if there’s a tool to streamline this? I’m thinking somewhere along the line of how the recordings tab in the release editor works, where I have the list of all the recordings from a release and can lookup similar recordings in a dropdown and select a merge target. At the bottom of the page is a text field to a enter one edit note and a button with which I can submit all recording merges at once in bulk.
Since very many of the tracks on that release share an artist, I would suggest initiating recording merges from that artist’s “recordings” tab as a starting point (you can filter the recording list by title), as this will give you a good overview of the possible merge candidates.
Once those are out of the way the amount of merge work remaining for this compilation will be much smaller.
If you have a source for ISRCs for that specific compilation (not always possible) this can also help as you can batch-add ISRCs and then quickly go from a recording page to all recordings that share its ISRC and initiate merges from there.
Not exactly what I had in mind, but that definitely helped. Thanks for the suggestion!
I’ve submitted all the merges now.
Should the primary type of a release group be chosen based on the concept or the size of the contained release(s)?
AIUI a collection of previously released singles (whose artwork clearly puts the focus on these singles) should have the types Single+Compilation and should not be classified as EP+Compilation or Album+Compilation solely based on the number of tracks.
I think this conflicts with the intent of the release and would appreciate more votes on Edit #73317132.
This statement is a false dichotomy in my opinion. There may be multiple nuanced factors that need to be considered when deciding what the primary type of a release group should be. It’s not either / or.
The “concept” flows from artist intent, which is communicated via the artwork / packaging or statements from the artists themselves. I can find none of these for the release in your linked edit. The fact that the artwork incorporates the covers of various singles justifies the use of the compilation for the secondary type, but has no bearing on the primary type.
That leaves us with various uncanonical factors, which includes things like the size of the contained releases and any general consensus on other sites such as Discogs and Wikipedia etc.
Actually, the cover has no bearing on the compilation type. It’s a compilation because it contains previously released material. The cover is possibly a hint at artist intent (or more likely the intent of the company that released it), but not definitive unless it happens to say “single” or “EP” etc on it.
I think there’s an underlying question here of whether Single and Compilation can even go together by definition. I feel like if they can, this case is as good as example as any, but I don’t have a strong opinion on it.
This point was in reference to the fact that the the cover art had been mentioned as one of the justifications for the setting the primary type to single. I didn’t intend to imply that it was the sole reason for setting the secondary type to compilation, it just provides some additional context.