![]() ![]() To make life easier Discogs often has scans, which is actually the best source (after having something in hand) we could hope for. SongKong is available for MacOS, Windows, Linuxand Dockersupporting devices such as Synology Disk Stations, Qnap serversand unRaid Without a license SongKong runs in Litemode. Sorry to anyone I’ve enraged with that admission ![]() It’s not always perfect, but personally I want to spend 1-2 minutes importing a release, and if someone else has better information they’re free to fix it up later - the edit notes clearly show my source, so inconsistencies can be followed up. I have way too much to add (all the music), and because they’re a marketplace their users value specific data. It is a daunting idea to start adding all the releases you need to MusicBrainz, so I think it’s unrealistic to expect you to jump right in with your time (especially if you have a lot to add).īut if you are really passionate/interested in getting comprehensive tags and data, or would like flexible tags (eg if you’re spending a few weeks/months/years! perfectly tagging everything, I would highly recommend Picard so that you can add or change tags across the whole library with a few clicks in future), it should be worth your time and effort.Īlso, it might not be the ‘official’ stance, but I don’t always double check information from Discogs. Welcome unfortunately we don’t support tagging via Discogs, for the reasons Freso mentioned. So in addition to the technical reasons that Picard is not going to allow using Discogs in place of MusicBrainz, there’s also heavy political reasons that Picard supports the use of MusicBrainz over other data sources (and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future). Picard was and is written with MusicBrainz heavily in mind by developers involved with MusicBrainz’s development as well. Thus, for software digitally “talking about” music such as audio taggers like Picard, MusicBrainz is just a more expressive data source.įinally, Picard is hosted by the MetaBrainz Foundation, the same organisation behind MusicBrainz. release barcodes and artist birthdates.Īll of this makes Discogs inferior to MusicBrainz when it comes to digitally “talking about” music, as Discogs simply isn’t capable of the same level of detail that MusicBrainz is. Several fields that are direct entity properties on MusicBrainz are stored in generic text fields in Discogs (even if they do seem to have standardised how to present them), e.g. They also lack several concepts that MusicBrainz has ( works, recordings, events) and mosh a collection of others together into their “label” entity ( labels, series, places). Discogs does have an API and it is possible to query Discogs for help with tagging, but they don’t have any way to use, e.g., AcoustIDs to identify recordings or Disc IDs to look up releases/mediums. MusicBrainz is generally a lot more “machine friendly” than Discogs. Discogs have different guidelines than MusicBrainz, so even with the Discogs importer userscript you will often have to apply some manual clean up to the releases you’re importing (one of the reasons automatic imports are more often than not a bad idea). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |