Discogs Plugin to Id Discogs ID'd Music

[jiggity 22]

Hi,

This is a combo feature request and a bug report, maybe.

Here is what is happening, I have several singles, EP, LPs etc that by the title alone are the same thing, but with musicbrainz Emby can tell them apart.
Where this begins to fail is with items that do not have musicbrainz info, but only have discogs metadata.

While two items that are tagged with musicbrainz metadata can be told apart, two items tagged with discogs data cannot be told apart, and Emby will stack them, unless you manually edit the titles, or other means.

I would like to see the discogs plugin function like  musicbrainz in the integration, and have it differentiate items by the embedded metadata within the imported items.

I have experimented, and yes, you can force edit discogs artists tags onto audio files, it seems that Emby will read them, but still same issue. The Album tags are the major item to differentiate with. With Mp3Tag use DISCOGS_ARTIST_ID as the tag and the discogs artist info from the url just like you would for filling in the meta page in Emby.

TL;DR - If an item is tagged with Discogs metadata it should not stack with other Discogs tagged items; unless it is the same tag. Artists with Artist, album with album. 
 

[Luke 37106]

HI, can you please provide a specific example?

You are correct though about differences between Discogs and MusicBrainz in Emby Server. Both can be used to provide metadata, but currently only MusicBrainz is used for determining uniqueness.

[jiggity 22]

11 hours ago, Luke said:

HI, can you please provide a specific example?

You are correct though about differences between Discogs and MusicBrainz in Emby Server. Both can be used to provide metadata, but currently only MusicBrainz is used for determining uniqueness.

https://www.discogs.com/release/386046-The-Age-Of-Love-The-Age-Of-Love
https://www.discogs.com/release/87787-The-Age-Of-Love-The-Age-Of-Love

They both have no musicbrainz meta, and to keep them differentiated from each other, and other Age Of Love releases, I have to edit the catalog number to the title.

[jiggity 22]

Another minor, but semi pet peeve with the discogs plugin, is the way it pulls the metadata text. It will mark the hyperlinks with [I=text] other times it will include the discogs page code for what it is linking to.
While I much prefer the discogs meta, it is a minor annoyance.

here is an example  https://www.discogs.com/artist/94789

That will look like this when pulled to the artist page

[Luke 37106]

22 hours ago, jiggity said:

Another minor, but semi pet peeve with the discogs plugin, is the way it pulls the metadata text. It will mark the hyperlinks with [I=text] other times it will include the discogs page code for what it is linking to.
While I much prefer the discogs meta, it is a minor annoyance.

here is an example  https://www.discogs.com/artist/94789

That will look like this when pulled to the artist page

Hi, yes we try to strip those things out but we have to account for each of them individually.

[jiggity 22]

This is a bug, Emby is stacking things that have distinct info, Can we have Discogs ID be used as Identifying info please.

Edited December 26, 2023 by jiggity
ignored my text when images added

[Luke 37106]

3 hours ago, jiggity said:

This is a bug, Emby is stacking things that have distinct info, Can we have Discogs ID be used as Identifying info please.

HI, what do you mean by stacking? What exactly do you think is a bug? Can you please describe your issue in more detail? Thanks.

[jiggity 22]

1 hour ago, Luke said:

HI, what do you mean by stacking? What exactly do you think is a bug? Can you please describe your issue in more detail? Thanks.

by stacking I mean putting 2 releases that have metadata iding them as individual and separate things into a single release.
In the above example Emby put a single that has meta data id and had a date for 2011 and another single that had meta and a date for 2002 together as a single release.

If I just change one title, then they 'magically' get read correctly.  To me this is a bug.  If they have proper metadata, with dates and song ids, and individual tags like Discogs etc, but not musicbrainz, then emby should not be merging the entries.

I showed the file and folder naming above they are very distinct. IDK why this keeps happening.

[Luke 37106]

Quote

In the above example Emby put a single that has meta data id and had a date for 2011 and another single that had meta and a date for 2002 together as a single release.

hi, sorry, can you please spell out exactly what you mean by this? I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

If you're referring to song titles, those come from embedded information within the audio files, not discogs.

[jiggity 22]

not the song titles.

The albums themselves. 

The 2002 one has musicbrainz  & Discogs metadata embedded in the files.
The 2011 one had just Discogs Metadata

Emby placed both the 2002 and the 2011 album together and listed the data as if they were both the 2002 album, despite the embedded metadata. You see the above picture of the 'album', the tracks are listed as 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4. That is Emby merging 2 separate releases.
The pics of the metadata info for the 2 different track 1 show the distinct file/folder structure so they are not accidentally in the same location nor named the same so Emby is confused.

My best guess is either Emby did not read the embedded metadata when the files were ingested, or the metadata was ignored when the album structure was created.

Either are a bug from my perspective.

Is that clear enough?

[Luke 37106]

Do they both have the same album title and album artist?

[Junglejim 352]

I thought all the basic meta would come from the embedded tags first?? (track number/title, album/album cover pic/artist/album artist, year, genre, disc number/ ....)

I think the only thing I scrape meta would be the bio if the is one, then it's mainly artwork for the artist.

[Luke 37106]

7 minutes ago, Junglejim said:

I thought all the basic meta would come from the embedded tags first??

It does.

[Junglejim 352]

44 minutes ago, Luke said:

It does.

Well then that means @jiggityneeds to double check.. It could be just a rouge track or two.. If you load all the tracks/albums in you fave tag editor and sort the list to match the problem? Could work..

[Junglejim 352]

1 hour ago, Luke said:

Do they both have the same album title and album artist?

Just a guess, maybe album title??

[jiggity 22]

9 hours ago, Luke said:

Do they both have the same album title and album artist?

Yes.

Still not catching the problem though

Emby disregarded the Musicbrainz data and  stacked everything under the non musicbrainz album details.

Only once I changed the non-musicbrainz Metadata album title did Emby correctly read the metadata embedded in files.

See the above picture, see how everything is under a 2002 album.
The 2011 release has musizbrainz and discogs metadata
The 2002 release had just discogs Metadata

I would have expected Emby to shove everything under the 2011 album, but the metadata from that album was not read, not until i changed the title of the 2002 release.

This is what I am perceiving as  the bug, metadata not being read

Is that clear now?

IF MusicBrainz is used for Identification, why wasn't it? Why were two metadata identified releases stacked? Why Was the metadata embedded in the release ignored?

[Luke 37106]

Quote

I would have expected Emby to shove everything under the 2011 album, but the metadata from that album was not read, not until i changed the title of the 2002 release.

If they both have the same information then it really just depends on whichever one got scanned in first. The second one would just get lumped into that.

By musicbrainz info I'm assuming you mean the musicbrainz release id and release group id. If one album is missing that information then it will try to find a matching album in your server database using the name before creating a new one.

So basically, to have these grouped as different albums, you need one of the following:

• Different album titles embedded into the tracks
• Or different musicbrainz values (but not blank)

[jiggity 22]

2 hours ago, Luke said:

If they both have the same information then it really just depends on whichever one got scanned in first. The second one would just get lumped into that.

By musicbrainz info I'm assuming you mean the musicbrainz release id and release group id. If one album is missing that information then it will try to find a matching album in your server database using the name before creating a new one.

So basically, to have these grouped as different albums, you need one of the following:

• Different album titles embedded into the tracks
• Or different musicbrainz values (but not blank)

I use the Musicbrainz ALBUMARTISTID, ALBUMID, and for mixed CD/Compilations I use ARTISTID
For Discogs Meta i use the DISCOGS_RELEASE_ID
I Use the ALBUMARTIST, ARTIST, TITLE, TRACK, YEAR, TITLE, TRACK, and PUBLISHER for additional info. I use other meta tags, but Emby doesn't read things like BPM, Key, valence etc.

I write all/most of the info with MP3 tag.  I already insert ALBUMARTISTID tags sometimes to keep the ALBUMARTIST and how Emby connects tagging cleaner on the front end.

I want to make sure I am reading you correctly. I can make fake MUSICBRAINZ_ALBUMID tags for things that don't have any musicbrainz metadata to help tell emby to not merge things?

[Luke 37106]

Quote

I can make fake MUSICBRAINZ_ALBUMID tags for things that don't have any musicbrainz metadata to help tell emby to not merge things?

Yes if you don't want to change the album title, then this will work as the next best way.

[jiggity 22]

Let's reboot this request given new info

1. MBZ plugin writes the discogs ID in the metadata manager, that IS is generally wrong
2. The Discogs Plug doesn't read/write the embedded tags in the files, this is absolutely wrong
3. The Written MBZ discogs tags generate errors for being the wrong discogs info.
4. A correctly written DISCOGS_RELEASE_ID tag is unique and could be used as another identifier, alongside the already used 3 ones.
5. As I have shown Discogs can have more versions of a single release than Musicbrainz does, this can help with multiple version identification

Included pic showing wrong discogs data written to files in Emby, not using the embedded tags