http://musicbrainz.org/doc/How_to_Add_Cover_Art :)

Thanks, will have a proper look around later :D

The Picard changes will be done soon I think, but are not yet finished - or merged, or whatever. But yeah, it is active, and yes, you get the right impression, and you can use it from the Cover Art tab on releases.

OOOH!

So will it roll out with the next version of picard?

Can we upload art now? How?

That and the actual contents of the tracks themselves plus everything else you could think of that would be different. Even something as petty as the color of the disc label could be enough to justify a second release.

I would be happy to see the changes you suggest but I would like them to go further. Whilst information such as labels, catalogs, barcodes etc. is important and should be maintained, I find the current system can obscure those releases that are substantially different from those with only minor differences. That's why I think an extra level of categorisation would work.

I've seen snippets about this, is it fully active yet? I get the impression MB now has it's own cover art archive at archive.org. Does that mean we can finally tag our files with the correct artwork in picard?

Perhaps artwork would have to be considered but at the moment it is not directly supported in MB so not relevant for now.

It is now! :)

Perhaps artwork would have to be considered but at the moment it is not directly supported in MB so not relevant for now.

I suppose the general distinction I would like to see is between the 'material', i.e. information that goes onto the CD or whatever, and the 'package' which is the particular product/distribution of that material. Whilst distinctions in the latter should be maintained, I don't like the way that currently in an RG you have x number of releases that are musically and sonically the same thing, alongside those which are musically/sonically different. I think that separation should be clearer.

HibiscusKazeneko, by 'exactly the same' do you mean track list, catalog and barcode (possibly artwork, mastering)?

That and the actual contents of the tracks themselves plus everything else you could think of that would be different. Even something as petty as the color of the disc label could be enough to justify a second release.

I suppose the general distinction I would like to see is between the 'material', i.e. information that goes onto the CD or whatever, and the 'package' which is the particular product/distribution of that material. Whilst distinctions in the latter should be maintained, I don't like the way that currently in an RG you have x number of releases that are musically and sonically the same thing, alongside those which are musically/sonically different. I think that separation should be clearer.

HibiscusKazeneko, by 'exactly the same' do you mean track list, catalog and barcode (possibly artwork, mastering)?

Under the current schema, a 'release' is a unique configuration of medium, date, country, label, catalog, barcode and track list.

To my knowledge, the term 'release event' is not currently used in MB. I propose adding this as a sub category to each 'release', and redefining 'release' itself.

I would define as follows:

'Release': medium, track list, mastering

(Each 'release' would therefore contain what I consider to be unique 'material')

(Mastering is to some extent debatable. Technically, I would consider any edition of a release that has a different bit rate/replay gain level to the original is a remaster. Obviously evidence is difficult in the area, but I think it's still worthwhile considering. CERTAINLY, mastering such as The Beatles 2009 remasters would be allowed.)

'Release event': date, country, label, catalog, barcode

(These would be unique 'packages' as opposed to 'material')

This would tidy up RGs that have a lot of similar releases. The result would be that in an RG you could see how many formats a release has been made in, how many different versions of the track list there are (bonus tracks etc.) and how many different masters there are. I think this would be preferable to the current system, where RGs often contain 20+ versions of a release where most contain exactly the same 'material'.

It has been discussed elsewhere whether it should be possible to add multiple release countries to a particular release. This is where the track list, catalog and barcode match. I think there was a consensus that adding the capacity for multi-country releases will be implemented at some point in the future, although one issue I'm unsure about is wether multi-date releases would also be implemented. This is important as there is already some conflict amongst EU releases as different countries have released on different days.

Opinions?