Re: [mb-users] Remixes and recording-of relationships
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[email protected]> Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:10:03 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHSHD+VgoBrMPOsQAeQDWc0ApSeyhUN5-bhg3gtQFyEMfWhaLQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:36 AM, David Gasaway <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm working on a release with some remixes (which I don't usually work > with much), and could use some insight. I added some relationships like > this: > (1) <remix recording a><remix of><recording b> > (2) <recording b><recording of><work c> > I'm finding that with this setup, the UI doesn't show songwriting > information and picard doesn't even write a work id tag. Some other > remixes on the release had a pre-existing AR: > (3) <remix recording a><recording of><work c> > This solves the UI/picard problems, but after I added (1), (2) and (3) > seem redundant. Is it normal to have both (1) and (3) on a remix? If not, > I'll think about adding Picard/MBS tickets. It is. We don't have inheritance pretty much anywhere, since it's hard to get right - not all remixes are recordings of the same work for example. -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users