> On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Jim Duke <james.enoch.d...@gmail.com > <mailto:james.enoch.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm very likely to be wrong). I've > poured over the style guide and couldn't find a style guild pertaining to > Cover Art. I can find how-to's. I can find advice. But not in the official > style guide. That seems to leave the rules for Cover Art somewhat vague.
We don’t really have a style guide for cover art. We do have http://musicbrainz.org/doc/How_to_Add_Cover_Art <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/How_to_Add_Cover_Art> which contains a few recommendations (e.g. scanning around 300 dpi; this is mostly for practicality reasons). > Sure, most releases don't have booklet art. If you mean digital releases, then yes. Most of the physical media I have have some sort of booklet. > But of those that do, there seems to be two camps. One camp has one image > for each page. And another camp captures two pages at once (except for the > front and back). I suppose that I could detect it by examining the height vs > width ratio. I can’t speak for every case, but a lot of times that has to do with the thickness of the booklet. On most CD releases the booklet is thin enough that you can scan 2 pages at once and the image will be readable, but some are so thick that if you try to scan 2 pages at once (especially on the first and last pages) the center of the image will be blurry and distorted. > > But in any case, we should have a discussion on which way is preferred, or if > both is allowed, or if we need to enhance the schema to better indicate the > kind of image it is. It seems, however, that the results of this discussion > should be captured in the style guide. > > Has this been discussed before? I've tried searching the archives; but > "Cover Art" sweeps in far too many items that have nothing to do with Cover > Art. I’m not aware of it being discussed in mb-style before. It has been brought up in IRC and in the forums (namely this thread: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=4308 <http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=4308>) > > Also - not that I want to change it just to change it - just making an > observation. It seems that "Cover Art" is somewhat too narrow a description. > "Artwork" would seem to be a better label for the category in general; or > even "Imagery”. The term is a holdover from when music was mostly distributed on physical media. Now with digital distribution the sense of a physical “cover” has been lost but accompanying images are still a thing. “Artwork” might be good in this sense. I’ve added releases with accompanying wallpapers, sketches and stuff; these would not traditionally be deemed “cover art” but they were packaged with the audio nonetheless. > > From the ranks of terribly-confused-but-trying-to-help. > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > <mailto:MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
