MusicBrainz

[acid2]

Hi,

 

Hopefully this won't come accross touchy, but I really want to speak to some RDB members about this. You guys, without a doubt have one of the most useful online databases, and have used the site a lot. I do my metadata editing with MusicBrainz though, because of more complex advanced relationships and it's more accessible for me to edit. Oh, and that I can tag my MP3s with it

 

Anyway, I'll cut the crap. Me and a few other people are dnb fanatics over there, and try our best to add as much DNB as we can, and relate to the real artists. I can't help but feel that we're working towards a common goal and was wondering if any one has any thoughts? At MusicBrainz I've tried pushing for a URL-relationship "has a RollDaBeats page at : rolldabeats.com/blah" - do you have any thoughts on relating back to MusicBrainz? We have a web service, so you could scrape any extra information from our database and display it on RDB.

 

Anyway, curious to hear your thoughts

[haste]

Have to admit I've never spent any time on MusciBrainz. Could you let me know what the site's all about?

 

If there's a link that can be built then I don't see any reason why not

[acid2]

Sure I suppose the easiest would be too see what the data actually looks like on our site: http://musicbrainz.org/release/797670f2-60...573ebbd6b5.html

 

The idea is to work like a closely monitored wiki (ish). Anyone is welcome to enter edits, which then enter a voting system. Most edits pass after a period of time if no one votes, or are instantly applied when they get approved by an auto-editor, or 3 unanimous yes votes (in most cases).

 

I suppose the nearest comparison is to Discogs, although (until recently, I believe) - our data has been far more open to the public. Any other questions, gimme a shout.

[geist]

Sure I suppose the easiest would be too see what the data actually looks like on our site: http://musicbrainz.org/release/797670f2-60...573ebbd6b5.html

 

The idea is to work like a closely monitored wiki (ish). Anyone is welcome to enter edits, which then enter a voting system. Most edits pass after a period of time if no one votes, or are instantly applied when they get approved by an auto-editor, or 3 unanimous yes votes (in most cases).

 

I suppose the nearest comparison is to Discogs, although (until recently, I believe) - our data has been far more open to the public. Any other questions, gimme a shout.

 

@acid2: A friend of mine recommended your site, which I did not know about until recently. I rip all my vinyl collection (as .wavs, so id3 tagging won't work), and now my growing mp3 collection, and am looking for a viable and accurate system that is also bound to become standardized for tagging files. I'm in no big rush, but python looks promising. I'm glad to hear there's some dnb headz at musicbrainz.

 

@rolldabeats crew: I think some kind of collaboration with a project like musicbrainz is a good idea. If the history of all releases related to dnb was catalogged (the rdb project), but then the catalogging also provided functional ways for people to name their files of music for ease of reference in portable devices + playback software (traktor, serato, etc), then the catalog would also be functional in a new kind of way.

 

the first logistical problem though, I'm guessing, is the disparity between the two catalogs and the error-correcting procedures that go with each system. Musicbrainz only has a small portion of the entries that rdb has, and the open/democratic way musicbrainz accepts corrections and revisions now also allows for a fair amount of mistakes, regardless of the good intentions of submitters, due to enthusiastic but perhaps misinformed opinion. I know that rdb plans to allow more open-ended user-modifications sometime in the future, but rdb basically owes a lot of its accuracy to somewhat hierarchal control by a handful of mods. Basically in rdb visitors can politely suggest changes, but we don't see the process by which changes are accepted or rejected, whereas other websites are more open about the process of revision... but with this 'openness' misinformation can spread, wiki-style, just on the sway of popular opinion. As long as rdb mods remain well-informed experts in what they do, which 95% of the time they are, this system works.... but I gather that rdb mods are also constantly overwhelmed and there is a sometimes-problem when suggestions get overlooked or unjustly rejected. So the issue, in a nutshell, is how to reconcile an open-source, democratic submissions process where all modifications are transparent to everyone, with a more centralized and tyranically controlled system that so far has been mostly accurate yet also burdens its rulers and currently offers no checks or balances. I'm not really knocking either system, I think there are weaknesses and strengths to each, but I think there is almost a deep-seated philosophical problem between different systems of how information is collected and accepted, and I don't see an easy way it could be permuted.

 

Nevertheless, I think this is something awesome that rdb should look into. Rdb is a great catalog for dnb - undoubtedly it is the most accurate, complete, and comprehensive catalog so far. But even kings get burned out, or slip up. A project like musicbrainz however also allows for people to make information about their music functional in a portable, everyday way. Rdb is in its current instantiation, metadata - a kind of "megalist".

 

By the way if it isn't clear, I'm not trying to rip on anyone's system/projects. Respect to rdb and musicbrainz in all that they do so far!