Make a track's artwork be used from the associated release with the earliest release date

  • 2
  • Idea
  • Updated 11 months ago
An enduring problem that I've talk about before, but I just had an idea that might help as a work around.

To avoid tracks (usually singles) having their associated artwork being from an artist's greatest hits album or, worse, a random compilation such as an entry from the Now That's What I Call Music series, the artwork could be selected from the associated album that was chronologically released first.

In case you're unclear about what I mean, here's an image I mocked up for that other thread I linked above. This image I made was intended to back up my request to use the artwork from the album I had personally scrobbled the track from, but I realise this would require a far greater amount of site-wide computation for each user. As such, I would settle for this second-best of a track using its original single release artwork or the associated studio album. This strikes me as needing a similar amount of computation as the current system of simply selecting the most popular associated release, as it's just looking for a different characteristic from the same list of associated releases, but would have the upside of causing far fewer artwork errors.

Photo of Elliot Robinson

Elliot Robinson

  • 883 Posts
  • 2150 Reply Likes

Posted 12 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Elliot Robinson

Elliot Robinson

  • 883 Posts
  • 2150 Reply Likes
Thoughts?
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 326 Posts
  • 349 Reply Likes
Good idea. I would add to that to allow single covers upload on the track page. Not all tracks have an album release, single covers would solve this. Single covers should also be prioritized over any album covers.
Photo of Tom Stephen

Tom Stephen

  • 461 Posts
  • 678 Reply Likes
It's good in theory, but imagine, many bands release singles first, then album - especially today. So I guess this option could make similar mess as it is now.

My idea would be much more complicated, but could be used better way: give albums additional field, being description for "LP / EP / single / compilation / mixtape / whatever".
And then, we could use hierarchy, when LP would be first used cover art - when compilation would be the last one. Just an idea, because I think it should be too much work on it to give it a fair chance.
(Edited)
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 326 Posts
  • 349 Reply Likes
Who do you propose would fill in that additional field? What about releases such as remixes, archival, live, archival live, dj mix, bootlegs, promos,.... ? .What's the logic in using album artwork on a track when the track specifically could have its own cover if it's a single release?
Music catalog sites such as allmusic, discogs, rateyourmuisc, they all have the respective single covers on their singles track pages, not album images from which the single originates.

Example Michael Jackson - Black or White

-Discogs
-RYM

-Allmusic

But last.fm not, single is from his compilation HiStory so that's the cover:
https://www.last.fm/music/Michael+Jackson/_/Black+or+White

Just do what the music catalogs are doing. They are user contributed as well just like last.fm.
Release types are good, but that's a separate thing, it shouldn't the determining factor considering with all types or release that exist this could add an unneeded extra layer of complexity imho.
Photo of G.G.B.

G.G.B.

  • 417 Posts
  • 273 Reply Likes
My idea would be much more complicated, but could be used better way: give albums additional field, being description for "LP / EP / single / compilation / mixtape / whatever".
I have already made that suggestion to use more metadata and custom tags for scrobbling, it would be a solution to distinguish all the different recordings and versions of a song. But Last.fm apparently doesn't have the capacity to save additional tags. To put it another way, they would have to buy more expensive servers. Although one additional tag would be enough to call all the useful informations: The MBID, MusicBrainz Identifier.
Photo of Tom Stephen

Tom Stephen

  • 461 Posts
  • 678 Reply Likes
I wasn't saying about metadata, as almost nobody would fill type of release in their ID3 tags.. I was just saying about the additional field, like date of release for albums.
Of course, since there's no way to dinstinguish albums (artists, songs, etc.), some "doubled" records will have broken "type of release" field - like, for simplest example, we have here:
https://www.discogs.com/Rosetta-Stone-An-Eye-For-The-Main-Chance/release/1735745
https://www.discogs.com/Rosetta-Stone-An-Eye-For-The-Main-Chance/master/34692
Who knows how Last.fm would label such albums, in my way of solving this library problem.
Photo of G.G.B.

G.G.B.

  • 417 Posts
  • 273 Reply Likes
If the single release has its own cover, Last.fm should display the single cover. But if the scrobbler doesn't send the album tag (e.g. the name of the single release), it would make sense to use the cover of the first official album release.
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 326 Posts
  • 349 Reply Likes
Singles release doesn't need to be based on album tag. Why should it? It should be based on title.
Photo of G.G.B.

G.G.B.

  • 417 Posts
  • 273 Reply Likes
A single can contain more than one track, therefore I would scrobble the name of the single release as "album". A loose track is a different story.
Photo of Elliot Robinson

Elliot Robinson

  • 883 Posts
  • 2150 Reply Likes
This kind of highlights a problem/flaw with the system, because one can scrobble orphan tracks (i.e. with no containing album, single, EP, etc) from SoundCloud, YouTube, etc, which don't actually have artwork associated with them - and one could argue, nor should they. However, they still get listed under our libraries with the unappealing "no artwork" icon.

This is a more complicated issue to resolve, which relates to, but is not actually the problem I was referring to.