MusicBrainz Database Updates

[paligap]

Does anyone know how and how often the MusicBrainz database gets updated? I've had a handful of albums over the past year or so where the new releases have not shown up, so when I try to use Picard to tag them, I have to either tag them with an older release's metadata or just cancel the attempt. I suppose I could try to manually enter the metadata with either MMH or Tagscanner, but either approach is not optimal.

Or is there another program/database that might have the missing albums?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Musicbrainz, like Discogs, is completely user-updated. If something is not in one of these databases, your only option is to manually tag.

 

[Cheezmo]

Musicbrainz, like Discogs, is completely user-updated. If something is not in one of these databases, your only option is to manually tag.

Or add them to MusicBrainz yourself. I've been editing there for years and frequently add new releases when I get something that isn't in there. There are plugins that will help you import from Discogs or add start a release from your existing tagged files, so it doesn't usually involve a lot of hand entry other than catalog/barcodes, etc.

Just for fun, here is a link to my collection... https://musicbrainz.org/collection/7fcabdc5-db77-4eb0-8f43-5be5d228892d

 

[splinter]

Or add them to MusicBrainz yourself.

That's definitely the way to go - support the community. Not only by adding new or missing releases, but there are also a lot of mistakes or unfinished releases that need correction.

 

[par4ken]

Does anyone know how and how often the MusicBrainz database gets updated? I've had a handful of albums over the past year or so where the new releases have not shown up, so when I try to use Picard to tag them, I have to either tag them with an older release's metadata or just cancel the attempt. I suppose I could try to manually enter the metadata with either MMH or Tagscanner, but either approach is not optimal.

Or is there another program/database that might have the missing albums?

You didn't say if you are ripping CD's but I assume that you are. I use Mp3tag to add data to all my files whether CD, vinyl ,Blu-ray etc. I like to get the data from Discogs just plug in the release code.

 

[paligap]

Or add them to MusicBrainz yourself. I've been editing there for years and frequently add new releases when I get something that isn't in there. There are plugins that will help you import from Discogs or add start a release from your existing tagged files, so it doesn't usually involve a lot of hand entry other than catalog/barcodes, etc.

Just for fun, here is a link to my collection... https://musicbrainz.org/collection/7fcabdc5-db77-4eb0-8f43-5be5d228892d

Thanks, I created an account. I'll review the documentation, but is the gist of the process that users add info from sites such as Discogs, and then that info is voted upon and, if approved, added to the database?

 

[paligap]

You didn't say if you are ripping CD's but I assume that you are. I use Mp3tag to add data to all my files whether CD, vinyl ,Blu-ray etc. I like to get the data from Discogs just plug in the release code.

I was referring to blu-rays and SACDs. Does Mp3tag add the same amount of metadata that Picard does?

 

[splinter]

then that info is voted upon and, if approved, added to the database

No, new additions and minor edits are auto-approved. Conflicting edits are auto-approved after 7 days if nobody voted against them. The latter can sometimes be annoying, as you may have to wait for the correction to show up in the DB. I usually edit the tags of my files manually then to already reflect what will be in the DB in one week.

 

[splinter]

is the gist of the process that users add info from sites such as Discogs

BTW, your main source of information should be the release itself. Of course it can help to use a Discogs entry as a start so that you do not have to enter everything again when you add a new release. There is a script available that allows copying Discogs entries to Musicbrainz (you need a browser plugin for the script to run).

But if you only want to add let's say the European release of an album that already has the US release in the MB DB, then you do not need Discogs. You can simply create a new release for this album, and most of the info will be pre-filled, including the track list.

 

[par4ken]

I'm not familiar with Picard. Mp3tag gets it's data from either Discogs or Musicbrainz. You just select the fields that you want to write to the tag. You can also set it up to rename the files in the manor that you prefer.

Using it I can tag and rename my files with a couple of clicks of the mouse.

You are not doing vinyl but for that purpose I have to first renumber the files from A1, A2.... to 1,2,3..... Still in the past I labeled everything manually, which involved a crazy amount of work!

 

[splinter]

I'm not familiar with Picard

Picard supports scripting in a specific scripting language, and with that you do and automate almost everything, although it has a steep learning curve. Still it is fully centered on MB and is not so well suited for making easy edits on already tagged files, because it always wants to relate to an MB album entry, and if you are not cautious might overwrite data with the one from the MB DB.

I use Picard for initial tagging and naming/moving files to the right places only. For fixes and small changes after that I use Kid3, which is a very "direct" tag editor. I looked at mp3tag as well, it seems more versed to automate stuff than Kid3, and is more generic than Picard.

 

[par4ken]

I use the tag editor in dBpoweramp to edit tags as/if required after the initial tagging via Mp3tag. It is also useful for CD ripping and file conversion.

 

[paligap]

I use dBpoweramp to rip CDs, DVD AE to rip DVDs, sacd_extract to rip SACDs, and MakeMKV and MMH to rip blu-rays. I'm pretty sure all of those do some level of tagging, but I always finish with Picard because the interface is easy; it seems to add more metadata (which may or may not be useful in my Kodi player); and it usually includes good cover art. Another thing I like about it is that it works with m4a files, as well as FLAC files.

Here's an example of the added metadata and better cover art it will add to a CD I just ripped:

The only problem is when the release is not in the database.

 

[Cheezmo]

I am a MusicBrainz auto-editor. If you have an edit that you would like to go through quickly, PM me, I might be able to help.

I am on a Mac, my process with a new CD is to use Picard to see if there is a match, check the artwork, etc. If it is a match I rip it with XLD and tag with Picard then import in to Apple Music.

I there isn't a match I scan the artwork, add a new release then rip and tag with Picard.

 

[barfle]

I haven’t used musicbrainz, although it’s something I expect to (eventually) look into. I do use discogs, and have put a bunch of my (apparently unpopular) collection on that database.

If I’m ripping CDs (and that’s all I rip these days), I use goldwave, which has their own database. It’s not spectacularly complete, but a lot of CDs are there. If they don’t have the data, goldwave’s GUI has ways you can add your own, including cover art.

 

[splinter]

I do use discogs, and have put a bunch of my (apparently unpopular) collection on that database.

Same here regarding one and the other unpopular release But most of the time I add new versions of already existing releases, like the newest pressing of release X with a different matrix than the previous entries...

While Discogs has the "one entry per different release" approach (and different - besides the obvious - means different matrix, smallest differences in the artwork/printed text etc.) I am not yet sure about the approach at MusicBrainz. I first thought (and hoped) that MB understands a "release" more from the record company point of view - so basically a different release for a different catalog number, different barcode etc. So when you have the (fictional) 2002 release of "Thriller", it remains one release in MB when that same release is being repressed by different manufacturers in 2005, 2011 and 2016. On Discogs, that might all be separate releases which can be identified by the matrix.

But sometimes (rarely) MB also has separate entries for this, with hints in the release notes. As you can also link to a Discogs entry from an MB entry and possibly even to a manufacturer (in the relations section), I am not sure what their aim is. If they want to primarily be a metadata provider regarding albums and recordings, it does not make much sense to copy Discogs in listing each and every different pressing. In general, the data quality at MB is lower than at Discogs, but on the other hand they have information that Discogs does not have (especially about same recordings on different releases) and which have quite the potential.

I am currently in the process of re-ripping my whole CD collection and using MB as the primary source of information, because my media server (LMS) supports differentiating by MB IDs. But that means I have a lot editing tasks in MB which I already did on Discogs...

 

[Cheezmo]

Same here regarding one and the other unpopular release But most of the time I add new versions of already existing releases, like the newest pressing of release X with a different matrix than the previous entries...

While Discogs has the "one entry per different release" approach (and different - besides the obvious - means different matrix, smallest differences in the artwork/printed text etc.) I am not yet sure about the approach at MusicBrainz. I first thought (and hoped) that MB understands a "release" more from the record company point of view - so basically a different release for a different catalog number, different barcode etc. So when you have the (fictional) 2002 release of "Thriller", it remains one release in MB when that same release is being repressed by different manufacturers in 2005, 2011 and 2016. On Discogs, that might all be separate releases which can be identified by the matrix.

But sometimes (rarely) MB also has separate entries for this, with hints in the release notes. As you can also link to a Discogs entry from an MB entry and possibly even to a manufacturer (in the relations section), I am not sure what their aim is. If they want to primarily be a metadata provider regarding albums and recordings, it does not make much sense to copy Discogs in listing each and every different pressing. In general, the data quality at MB is lower than at Discogs, but on the other hand they have information that Discogs does not have (especially about same recordings on different releases) and which have quite the potential.

The official MB style guideline is that any difference in artwork (on the medium or cover art) requires a separate release or any difference in content (early CD's with edit versions to keep length short, remastering, etc.), but matrix information is not considered. There are some editors out there that are starting to differentiate based on matrices, I'm not a fan. There are cases where it is appropriate because one specific matrix may have a subtle content difference that would be otherwise difficult to determine.

 

[barfle]

The official MB style guideline is that any difference in artwork (on the medium or cover art) requires a separate release or any difference in content (early CD's with edit versions to keep length short, remastering, etc.), but matrix information is not considered. There are some editors out there that are starting to differentiate based on matrices, I'm not a fan. There are cases where it is appropriate because one specific matrix may have a subtle content difference that would be otherwise difficult to determine.

I think it’s difficult to determine if a subtle difference between two albums means a separate “release.” I’ve seen a CD with a different barcode, but every other detail, including the “runout” codes are identical. (Got some pushback on that one.)

I usually didn’t pay any attention to runout information, but I see that a lot of people think it’s very important because they don't necessarily sound alike, although stampers wear out so even if the runout is the same, fidelity can be different. Gotta say, I’m not that picky.

 

[splinter]

stampers wear out so even if the runout is the same, fidelity can be different

Not with CDs, but maybe with vinyl. But it is a question of approach. Discogs comes from the "pressing" of an LP, so it makes sense to pull that through also for other types of releases. But MB is more about the release I guess, so barcodes and catalog numbers matter more for the question if two releases are different.

 

[atrocity]

Not with CDs, but maybe with vinyl.

When I ripped a friend's CD for him a few years ago, I found that he'd absent-mindedly bought a surprising number of duplicates. More than one set of those looked identical down to the bar codes (I don't think I checked the runouts) but the bits were very definitely not identical. Not only were the FLAC MD5SUMs not the same, but in many cases the ReplayGain values were different, albeit very subtly so. Struck me as exceptionally strange then and still does now.