Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

Lixobix, you can get it here: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/36376

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

Thanks, got it working now.

28

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

Lixobix wrote:

This could be done, providing you could distinguish between pressings. But even if you could, could you prove that all of a particular pressing have a particular glitch/distinguishing feature? This can be important with vinyl, but is it with CD? In theory, if each individual 'unit' is numbered you could document any discrepancies, but I don't see how this could warrant a separate release if there is no discrepancy in the design of the package. Perhaps an annotation to the affected release noting any discrepancies would be valid, but with the exception of certain know pressings there is hardly going to be enough available information to justify adding a whole new subcategory to the database structure.

Just for the records, current MB schema is exactly implementing this. A release in current schema shows the physical media that is distributed. So, if any property, like date, release country, medium type or even packaging of these releases are different you have to enter another release in the database, but good part is they can share TrackList objects. However, in the current web site, while entering a release, it does not use the same TrackList object even if they are same.

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

ym wrote:

Just for the records, current MB schema is exactly implementing this. A release in current schema shows the physical media that is distributed. So, if any property, like date, release country, medium type or even packaging of these releases are different you have to enter another release in the database, but good part is they can share TrackList objects.

Yes, if any of those things is different then it is a new release. But what I thought you were referring to earlier was adding releases for each individual pressing, where all the above are identical, which is not part of the current schema. Or did you mean something else?

ym wrote:

However, in the current web site, while entering a release, it does not use the same TrackList object even if they are same.

Yes, but two identical track lists can share recordings, which are be the same objects.

30 (edited by ym 2012-04-11 12:45:17)

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

Lixobix wrote:
ym wrote:

Just for the records, current MB schema is exactly implementing this. A release in current schema shows the physical media that is distributed. So, if any property, like date, release country, medium type or even packaging of these releases are different you have to enter another release in the database, but good part is they can share TrackList objects.

Yes, if any of those things is different then it is a new release. But what I thought you were referring to earlier was adding releases for each individual pressing, where all the above are identical, which is not part of the current schema. Or did you mean something else?

So what you say is some release might be pressed on x date and then distributed on y date? how can you even know something like that? Or why do you care something like that? I really don't understand you. or your reason posting under this topic.

Lixobix wrote:
ym wrote:

However, in the current web site, while entering a release, it does not use the same TrackList object even if they are same.

Yes, but two identical track lists can share recordings, which are be the same objects.

What is it to do with the recordings? They represent completely different things. Recordings might even not be published. How does a recording help on identifying same release?

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

ym wrote:
Lixobix wrote:
ym wrote:

Just for the records, current MB schema is exactly implementing this. A release in current schema shows the physical media that is distributed. So, if any property, like date, release country, medium type or even packaging of these releases are different you have to enter another release in the database, but good part is they can share TrackList objects.

Yes, if any of those things is different then it is a new release. But what I thought you were referring to earlier was adding releases for each individual pressing, where all the above are identical, which is not part of the current schema. Or did you mean something else?

So what you say is some release might be pressed on x date and then distributed on y date? how can you even know something like that? Or why do you care something like that? I really don't understand you. or your reason posting under this topic.

I think all releases are pressed on x date and distributed on y date. A physical release isn't distributed/released on the same day it is pressed. Moreover, subsequent pressings may be made after the initial release date.

I only mention this as you appeared to endorse the idea of distinguishing between pressings in MB at some point in the future, here:

ym wrote:
voiceinsideyou wrote:

If you wanted to go this far, you should be equally suspicious about different presses of the same CD (many CDs are repressed under same packaging and catalog number) which might have glitches - are you going to enforce creating new recordings for every press of a CD?

Hmm yummy ;) I thought the same things before. It would be really yummy, but also painful... The world is not "yet" ready for this :PP

...unless I'm mistaken and you meant something else. I don't see much point in this.

ym wrote:
Lixobix wrote:
ym wrote:

However, in the current web site, while entering a release, it does not use the same TrackList object even if they are same.

Yes, but two identical track lists can share recordings, which are be the same objects.

What is it to do with the recordings? They represent completely different things. Recordings might even not be published. How does a recording help on identifying same release?

A recording in MB can be linked to the track lists of several releases e.g. to both the UK and US release of an album. So you may have several releases that have exactly the same track list, linked to the same recordings. They are still distinct releases because they have different release dates/countries/labels/nos.

I mention this because I'm confused as to what you said here about "TrackList objects":

ym wrote:

Just for the records, current MB schema is exactly implementing this. A release in current schema shows the physical media that is distributed. So, if any property, like date, release country, medium type or even packaging of these releases are different you have to enter another release in the database, but good part is they can share TrackList objects. However, in the current web site, while entering a release, it does not use the same TrackList object even if they are same.

You contradict yourself by saying that several releases can share a TrackList object, then that entering a new release does not use the same TrackList object. What do you mean?

I presume that by "TrackList object" you mean the track list.

AFIK each release has it's own track list, even if it is identical to another track list in the database. Multiple releases do not link to a shared track list, even if they are identical.

On the other hand, the particular tracks on different releases can be linked to shared 'recordings'. That is why I mentioned them.

32 (edited by ym 2012-04-12 15:20:32)

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

Lixobix wrote:

I presume that by "TrackList object" you mean the track list.

AFIK each release has it's own track list, even if it is identical to another track list in the database. Multiple releases do not link to a shared track list, even if they are identical.

On the other hand, the particular tracks on different releases can be linked to shared 'recordings'. That is why I mentioned them.

check http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/tracklist for the definition of TrackList object. http://musicbrainz.org/tracklist/1085862 is an example how mediums can share same TrackList object. http://musicbrainz.org/tracklist/1046518 is another TrackList object that is the same as the other ones but it has different TrackList ID, which means it's different object.
BTW, I am confused with terminology used in MB because the implementation and the terminology pages are not completely same IMO. An example, http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/medium, states that

http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/medium wrote:

Mediums are always included in a release, and they have a format (audio disc, 12", cassette, etc.) and a position in the release (e.g. disc 1 or disc 2). They can have an optional title (e.g. disc 2: The Early Years).

. So, why aren't we adding the format to the medium but to the release?

edit: Oh wait, we do add them to the medium. I think the problem is not the database but how it is displayed on the web site. That is why I am confused. As I said before I will be waiting for some more (until I figure out the meanings of terminology) before editing anything.

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

ym wrote:

I think the problem is not the database but how it is displayed on the web site

What problem? I don't see any problem? It displays a summary of the mediums that are on that release - exactly what you want to see. 2 x CD, 1 x Digital Media etc

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

http://musicbrainz.org/tracklist/1085862

Interesting. Might there be support for linking releases to track lists in future, like you can link tracks to recordings now?

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

The sharing of a tracklists is supposed to be an implicit internal thing the database does for efficiency - they're not supposed to be editable entities in their own right.

Releases already are linked to tracklists via mediums; which are tracklists + format details, basically. Why would you need to link a release directly to a tracklist; it makes no sense when this is what a medium already is?

tracklist = "a set of 12 tracks"
medium = "a set of 12 tracks on a CD" or "a set of 12 tracks in digital media" etc

36

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

voiceinsideyou wrote:
ym wrote:

I think the problem is not the database but how it is displayed on the web site

What problem? I don't see any problem? It displays a summary of the mediums that are on that release - exactly what you want to see. 2 x CD, 1 x Digital Media etc

IMO, medium format is not a property of release so it shouldn't be displayed in the release-group page. When you enter to a specific release there should be the list of mediums with TrackLists.

37

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

voiceinsideyou wrote:

The sharing of a tracklists is supposed to be an implicit internal thing the database does for efficiency - they're not supposed to be editable entities in their own right.

Releases already are linked to tracklists via mediums; which are tracklists + format details, basically. Why would you need to link a release directly to a tracklist; it makes no sense when this is what a medium already is?

tracklist = "a set of 12 tracks"
medium = "a set of 12 tracks on a CD" or "a set of 12 tracks in digital media" etc

Yes, but when you need to make a change in all medium track lists, you have to make the same change on all of the objects. So, IMO there should be a way to select a specific TrackList object for the medium.

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

ym wrote:
voiceinsideyou wrote:
ym wrote:

I think the problem is not the database but how it is displayed on the web site

What problem? I don't see any problem? It displays a summary of the mediums that are on that release - exactly what you want to see. 2 x CD, 1 x Digital Media etc

IMO, medium format is not a property of release so it shouldn't be displayed in the release-group page. When you enter to a specific release there should be the list of mediums with TrackLists.

This is exactly what happens when you select a release. Why would you want to remove this information from the release group view?

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

voiceinsideyou wrote:

The sharing of a tracklists is supposed to be an implicit internal thing the database does for efficiency - they're not supposed to be editable entities in their own right.

Releases already are linked to tracklists via mediums; which are tracklists + format details, basically. Why would you need to link a release directly to a tracklist; it makes no sense when this is what a medium already is?

tracklist = "a set of 12 tracks"
medium = "a set of 12 tracks on a CD" or "a set of 12 tracks in digital media" etc

What I mean is that with recordings, you can click on one and it displays which releases it appears on. So I wondered whether you could do the same with track lists, i.e. see which releases have a particular track list. Helpful for finding out, say, whether a reissue has bonus tracks that weren't on the original. You can estimate this by checking the track count, but you currently have to view every release with x no. of tracks to see if there's a difference.

On a side note, I would be interested in having some way to sub categorise the releases which have identical contents, i.e. track list and mastering. So you could put releases in countries x, y and z into one group, whilst 'itunes bonus track' version, or remasters would be in others.

This would make it easier to see how many truly different versions of a release there have been. You could see how many variations there are, how many times an album has been remastered etc. This is not clear in the current release group view.

Also, there are situations such as: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/40 … 3c4dc7ab66

Here, there are several 10-track CD versions of the release, but one has a different track list to the others. It would be nice to be able to distinguish without having to manually view each release. Particularly useful for finding which releases contain unique bonus tracks.

Same problem here: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/9e … 92991b1266

40 (edited by ym 2012-04-12 19:20:00)

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

Lixobix wrote:
ym wrote:
voiceinsideyou wrote:

What problem? I don't see any problem? It displays a summary of the mediums that are on that release - exactly what you want to see. 2 x CD, 1 x Digital Media etc

IMO, medium format is not a property of release so it shouldn't be displayed in the release-group page. When you enter to a specific release there should be the list of mediums with TrackLists.

This is exactly what happens when you select a release. Why would you want to remove this information from the release group view?

Exactly same reasons you mentioned:

Lixobix wrote:

On a side note, I would be interested in having some way to sub categorise the releases which have identical contents, i.e. track list and mastering. So you could put releases in countries x, y and z into one group, whilst 'itunes bonus track' version, or remasters would be in others.

IMO, only Release Name and Year is enough in the Release Group view. After you enter any sub item, other details can be listed under (or over) the TrackLists.

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

ym wrote:
Lixobix wrote:
ym wrote:

IMO, medium format is not a property of release so it shouldn't be displayed in the release-group page. When you enter to a specific release there should be the list of mediums with TrackLists.

This is exactly what happens when you select a release. Why would you want to remove this information from the release group view?

Exactly same reasons you mentioned:

Lixobix wrote:

On a side note, I would be interested in having some way to sub categorise the releases which have identical contents, i.e. track list and mastering. So you could put releases in countries x, y and z into one group, whilst 'itunes bonus track' version, or remasters would be in others.

IMO, only Release Name and Year is enough in the Release Group view. After you enter any sub item, other details can be listed under (or over) the TrackLists.

I think it would still be worthwhile to distinguish between versions with different track lists and remastered versions, rather than just the name and year. I'd put reissues with no changes in the same group as the originals.

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

ym wrote:

IMO, only Release Name and Year is enough in the Release Group view. After you enter any sub item, other details can be listed under (or over) the TrackLists.

To be honest, I don't understand why you would suggest this. It's displayed so you can easily find the release you are looking for amongst potentially dozens of related releases. It's disambiguation that allows you to easily find digital media vs CD versions, bonus disc versions versus single disc versions etc.

Take for example

http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/7c … c90fd0a580

Without release format, you'd have to click through each release individually to find the one you're interested in which is painful? The RG is showing you a summary of the release.

43 (edited by ym 2012-04-13 07:20:45)

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

The discogs is doing something similar (http://www.discogs.com/artist/DJ+Ti%C3% … &v=med) to this and as you said after you enter a subitem things get messy. Example it says 2 versions in the album page and when you enter in it it shows a lot more. Dunno why.
If a RG can group similar items together and later page can use ajax to show mediums, it wouldn't get painful at all IMO.

edit: I think RG filters might solve this in a way.

Re: Problems with many Digital Media and iTunes releases

ym wrote:

The discogs is doing something similar (http://www.discogs.com/artist/DJ+Ti%C3% … &v=med) to this and as you said after you enter a subitem things get messy.

I don't understand. Discogs operates in pretty much the same way as MB, i.e. you have all the different albums etc. which you can the click on to view the different versions.

ym wrote:

Example it says 2 versions in the album page and when you enter in it it shows a lot more. Dunno why.

Can you give an example?

ym wrote:

If a RG can group similar items together and later page can use ajax to show mediums, it wouldn't get painful at all IMO.

edit: I think RG filters might solve this in a way.

Do you mean one page containing all the various release mediums of different releases?