RFC: Release Groups guideline
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 | Next > |
 |
RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Nikolai Prokoschenko
::
Rate this Message:
Dear fellow Brainerz, it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works better than me. So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , please comment! Thank you. Nikolai. -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/RFC%3A-Release-Groups-guideline-tp3079029p3079029.html Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by bogdanb
::
Rate this Message:
Question: If we have a box like “The Singles Collection”, which
contains a lot of singles (or albums, live releases, etc), is the release group of type “single” or “compilation”? A similar case: a box called “The [label name|date interval] Era”, which contains releases (of one or several types) with a certain common property. Is that release group's type “compilation” or one of the contained types? The second case seems to better match our definition of “compilation” as we use on releases (i.e., there's a common criteria for selection), which the first case doesn't. However, even in the first case it does seem logical, according to the normal sense of the word “compilation”, to use that release group type. The main problem I see is that under the first definition, most box sets RGs will be of type compilation; if we don't use that definition, however, we'd be going against the instinct of a lot of editors, I think. (I've already seen an edit according to the first case, on a singles box set.) -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Sami Sundell-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 15.6.2009, at 19.27, Bogdan Butnaru wrote: > Question: If we have a box like “The Singles Collection”, which > contains a lot of singles (or albums, live releases, etc), is the > release group of type “single” or “compilation”? Neither, just add a new release event into the existing releases (http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Box_Set_Name_Style , first point) ;) Yeah, I know there are lots of box sets with duplicated albums / singles / something else. So far I have found no good reason for those, and as the page mentions, "Duplicating releases has its own problems". -- Sami Sundell ssundell@... _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by bogdanb
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Sami Sundell<ssundell@...> wrote:
> On 15.6.2009, at 19.27, Bogdan Butnaru wrote: >> Question: If we have a box like “The Singles Collection”, which >> contains a lot of singles (or albums, live releases, etc), is the >> release group of type “single” or “compilation”? > > Neither, just add a new release event into the existing releases (http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Box_Set_Name_Style > , first point) ;) > > Yeah, I know there are lots of box sets with duplicated albums / > singles / something else. So far I have found no good reason for > those, and as the page mentions, "Duplicating releases has its own > problems". Still, there may be cases where the discs in the box set are different from those released previously. For instance, “The Early Period” box set of some band may include six discs, one for each of the bands first six albums; however, each disc may include “not previously released” bonus tracks. According to the guidelines, these would be: (a) separate releases, (b) of type “album”, (c) with later-release-of ARs toward the originals, (d) in a separate “The Early Period” release group. What's the release group's type? -- Bogdan Butnaru _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Sami Sundell <ssundell@...> wrote:
Rather than rehash all those reasons, I'd refer back to the last time we discussed this: http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04821.html (and the acompanying discussion in that thread) for just some of the reasons why we could have these duplicated (apart from the title being different, due to inclusion in a box set) releases. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Sami Sundell-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 15.6.2009, at 19.49, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > Rather than rehash all those reasons, I'd refer back to the last > time we discussed this: http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04821.html > (and the acompanying discussion in that thread) for just some of > the reasons why we could have these duplicated (apart from the title > being different, due to inclusion in a box set) releases. So, to summarize it, the reason would be "Because", but not important enough "Because" for anyone to even make a suggestion to change the current, official guide line? Yeah, there are valid reasons for adding box sets, but in many cases it's just a buttload of duplicated releases. -- Sami Sundell ssundell@... _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Sami Sundell-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 15.6.2009, at 19.49, Bogdan Butnaru wrote: > Still, there may be cases where the discs in the box set are different > from those released previously. For instance, “The Early Period” box > set of some band may include six discs, one for each of the bands > first six albums; however, each disc may include “not previously > released” bonus tracks. According to the guidelines, these would be: > (a) separate releases, (b) of type “album”, (c) with later-release-of > ARs toward the originals, (d) in a separate “The Early Period” release > group. What's the release group's type? Hmm. I'd probably use Compilation, but then again, I might be completely wrong :P If the "Box Set" is combined into a release group, it's a compilation, even if the individual releases have their own release type. -- Sami Sundell ssundell@... _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Sami Sundell <ssundell@...> wrote:
Actually, there was quite a long debate over changing the guideline, it just never resolved into anything we could agree to do. There was an agreement, however, to not merge away (or vote down) box set releases which, apart from the box set bit, would be duplicates of non-box set releases. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Gecks
::
Rate this Message:
i don't recall that agreement! BoxSetNameStyle was never changed
2009/6/15 Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...>: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Sami Sundell <ssundell@...> wrote: >> >> On 15.6.2009, at 19.49, Brian Schweitzer wrote: >> >> > Rather than rehash all those reasons, I'd refer back to the last >> > time we discussed this: >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04821.html >> > (and the acompanying discussion in that thread) for just some of >> > the reasons why we could have these duplicated (apart from the title >> > being different, due to inclusion in a box set) releases. >> >> >> So, to summarize it, the reason would be "Because", but not important >> enough "Because" for anyone to even make a suggestion to change the >> current, official guide line? >> >> Yeah, there are valid reasons for adding box sets, but in many cases >> it's just a buttload of duplicated releases. >> > > Actually, there was quite a long debate over changing the guideline, it just > never resolved into anything we could agree to do. There was an agreement, > however, to not merge away (or vote down) box set releases which, apart from > the box set bit, would be duplicates of non-box set releases. > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@... > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Chris B <chris@...> wrote: Some agreement:i don't recall that agreement! BoxSetNameStyle was never changed http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04837.html http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04842.html and the RFC which I stalled to wait until we had a better situation under NGS: http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg05456.html If this is not the current working case, and people are still merging box set discs away, or renaming/merging non-box set discs into box set releases, then the problem which specifically had led to that whole discussion is back. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Gecks
::
Rate this Message:
2009/6/16 Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...>:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Chris B <chris@...> wrote: >> >> i don't recall that agreement! BoxSetNameStyle was never changed >> > Some agreement: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04837.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04842.html some disagreement http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg05388.html > and the RFC which I stalled to wait until we had a better situation under > NGS: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg05456.html right; NGS changes everything, but NGS isn't here yet. > If this is not the current working case, and people are still merging box > set discs away, or renaming/merging non-box set discs into box set releases, > then the problem which specifically had led to that whole discussion is > back. the guidelines stipulate we need to merge away box sets, under certain circumstances. we also merge away country releases and vinyl releases under certain circumstances. as a collector i see equal value in all, but that's why we're doing NGS :) lets no go down this route again - there is nothing new to add. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Sami Sundell-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 16.6.2009, at 6.44, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > Some agreement: > http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04837.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04842.html That's not agreement, that's two people talking on a mailing list. > If this is not the current working case, and people are still > merging box set discs away, or renaming/merging non-box set discs > into box set releases, then the problem which specifically had led > to that whole discussion is back. As Chris said, the guideline was never changed. I'm reasonably sure not all people follow the style list, nor do they think a couple of comments revert the official style guide. Personally, even though I get style list, I pass pretty much everything that says "CSG" in the title, because nothing good will ever come out of those :P So that was the first time I saw the discussion. I bet I'm not the only one. -- Sami Sundell ssundell@... _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Sami Sundell <ssundell@...> wrote:
People may ignore the CSG posts, but hopefully the entire discussion about that RFC - and the discussion here, and in IRC, in which there was agreement to - for the moment, until NGS - let them both coexist... let's hope that isn't being ignored. Otherwise, speaking as just one person who has worked hard to enter large box sets, I would be rather upset, were I to find that someone were merging / renaming box sets away again, just because disc 37 of some box happened to also have been separately released at some other point in time. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Gecks
::
Rate this Message:
2009/6/17 Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...>:
> Otherwise, speaking as just one person who has worked > hard to enter large box sets, I would be rather upset, were I to find that > someone were merging / renaming box sets away again, just because disc 37 of > some box happened to also have been separately released at some other point > in time. that would be against the current guidelines - http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BoxSetNameStyle and http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/What_Defines_A_Unique_Release#What_about_BoxSets.3F merging is only accept if *all* the discs in the boxset are available separately. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Sami Sundell-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 17.6.2009, at 15.38, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > People may ignore the CSG posts, but hopefully the entire discussion > about that RFC - and the discussion here, and in IRC, in which there > was agreement to - for the moment, until NGS - let them both > coexist... let's As I tried to say, discussion is meaningless if it's only left as discussion. In this case, there's a valid, official guide about how to handle Box Sets, and no amount of discussion in IRC or mailing list will magically revert that if there's no action to change that guideline. People shouldn't be expected to follow discussions, but they can be pointed towards style guide. > sets, I would be rather upset, were I to find that someone were > merging / renaming box sets away again, just because disc 37 of some > box happened to also have been separately released at some other > point in time. I bet you would be, but we aren't talking about boxes that have unique content, we're talking about boxes that are re-releases of existing releases. Guess what the current guidelines say about boxes with unique content? -- Sami Sundell ssundell@... _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Sami Sundell <ssundell@...> wrote:
To be honest, this entire debate already took place, with exactly this case as one of the discussed situations. I really would rather not rehash the entire discussion all over again, when it can just as easily be read in the archives already. Specifically with reference to the type of case you mention, that would be where the distinctions we discussed back then, with regards to how the box is packaged (a "true box" vs "tied together with string") would come into play, in my opinion. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Aurélien Mino
::
Rate this Message:
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> Dear fellow Brainerz, > > it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I > won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works > better than me. So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! > (long, long) "discussion" about merging different bootlegs recording of a live show: http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10956897 This goes against the proposed guideline, but I would like to propose that this particular point being changed. My main argument is that the purpose of release-groups, as far as I understand it, is to present a general overview of discography of an artist, and not a detailed view as we have with releases. Thus separating different recordings (audience, soundboard, ...) of the same live show seems to go against that purpose. - Aurélien // murdos _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Aurélien Mino
::
Rate this Message:
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> Dear fellow Brainerz, > > it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I > won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works > better than me. So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! > > "The title of a release group should usually be the title of its individual releases, removing Extra Title Information <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Extra_Title_Information> added due to Disc Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Disc_Number_Style>, Volume Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Volume_Number_Style> etc" Could we remove the reference to Volume Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Volume_Number_Style>? This is in contradiction with the section "When Not to Group Releases together", where it's said that "A Series <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series> of different volumes" should not be grouped (and thus there's no reason to not have the volume number in release-group title). - Aurélien _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Pavan Chander
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Aurélien Mino <a.mino@...> wrote:
+1 Makes sense to me.
Pavan Chander // navap _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Aurélien Mino <a.mino@...> wrote:
Well, no surprise, I object. True, the guideline first defines that a release group is "used to group several different releases into a single logical entity." However, it doesn't stop there. It then specifies the main problem with the conceptual grouping you suggest, namely: "Every release belongs to one, and only one release group." This limitation makes perfect sense when we're talking about different versions of the same album. However, the conceptual grouping suggested seems to have as a goal only the "decluttering" of artist listings. It groups together releases based not on the audio content, but on something outside of the recorded audio. It no longer is "basically the same release", but now becomes "they both are recordings of the same 'something'". This edit isn't the only place this is being attempted. Grouping because they're the "same concert": http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10956897 Grouped simply because they were readings of the "same book": http://musicbrainz.org/artist/569c0d90-28dd-413b-83e4-aaa7c27e667b.html (I can't find some of the others, but we've seen "same movie", etc being used as rationale.) The problem is, "variation of the same album" is pretty much a situation where there's a 1:1 relationship between a release and a group consisting of other variations on that same release. This is not the case for these conceptual groupings. They all are n:1 - there's no *one* correct "sameness" that applies... and, once we get into grouping for subjective, rather than objective, reasons, why should we expect anything different? Why do we want to group different versions of an album together, even if one has bonus tracks, or one has a bonus disc? At heart, they're still essentially the same audio, even if there is more audio (via extra tracks, etc) on some versions. We group stero and mono versions together, but that's still the *same* audio, just (relatively minorly) different mixes of it. As pbryan pointed out in that edit, we *don't* group together an album and a remix release based on that album. There's clearly some sufficient "different-enough-ness" there that we're respecting. I agree, soundtracks are really a messy point, but luckily, that's outside of this particular debate. However, I think audiobooks and live concerts both have the same type of different-enough-ness here that we should stick to grouping on an objective, not subjective, basis. As the essential "sameness" of an album is that it is a distinct recording, I've suggested we be consistent, and apply that same standard to live bootlegs (and audiobooks). If two+ concert bootlegs stem from the same recording, group them. If they don't, don't group them. If two+ audiobooks are versions of the same release (say a digital download version and a CD version), merge them. If they're two entirely separate readings (and often even different languages being spoken), keep them separate. After all, are we trying to achieve clean-looking artist listings, or are we actually trying to acurately document audio release groups, using some consistent standard? On this basis, (to copy from my note in edit 10956896), I've suggested edit http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10989727 and the following guideline for RG merging with respect to live concert recordings, be they official or bootleg. (murdos, you can consider this my proposed alternate to your proposal): ---------------------------------------------- For official live releases, and bootleg live / studio releases: Keep the wording in the draft just as it is: "When Not to Group Releases together: ... Different bootleg ****recordings**** of a live show, e.g. bootleg 1 and bootleg 2 of a 1970 Pink Floyd concert in San Francisco. ..." (Emphasis added) Then, for live concert recording RG titles: 1. Use "yyyy-mm-dd: location" as the title. 2. If there are multiple recording sources for the same bootleg, a separate RG should be used for each recording source. Then use "yyyy-mm-dd: location (source)" as the title. 3. If there is an official release, using the same recording source as a bootleg, then the title of the official release should be used for the RG title. So, the resulting RG titles: 1995-09-20 Wed: Toronto, ON, Canada - #1 applies 2009-07-07 Tue: Le Zenith, Paris, France - #1 applies 2008-12-12 Fri: Arco Arena, Sacramento, CA, USA (AUD) - #2 applies 2008-12-12 Fri: Arco Arena, Sacramento, CA, USA (PRO) - #2 applies 1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AMT1b) - #2 applies 1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AUD1) - #2 applies 1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AUD2b) - #2 applies MTV Unplugged: Live in New York - #3 applies This keeps "same recording" together, keeps the artist listing comprehensible (rather than simply three visually identical RG "1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK" listings), avoids the problem of multiple bootleg titles using the same recording source, yet official releases remain simple to find. We won't always know the lineage; esp with bootlegs, our data about lineages isn't all that great. However, it gives us something clean to work towards, and the number of cases where we have not one, but 2+ listings for the same concert, yet don't have known lineage for at least one of the two recordings, is pretty much a statistical blip, and as we get better data, those would get dealt with. Re: "AUD", "PRO", "AMT", "SBD", "Matrix", etc, there's not too many of them, and for anyone who would care about these releases, those are meaningful terms. In accordance with the decision in the other edit to not include this (source) info in the release titles, this removes the bootleg title, while adding the source info, but only in the RG title. LiveBootlegStyle, as is, would still be used for release titles. ----------------------------------------------- Brian PS: My apologies. I know my response is long. However, I feel very strongly about this. This change in guideline, as I see it, doesn't just change some minor point, but rather, it changes the entire RG concept, making it a totally subjective concept, rather than a defined objective concept. And, if that change were to be made, not only do I see it as weakening the utility of RGs, but I also see it as *requring* a change to the ngs schema, such that a release could be a member of multiple RGs (n:1), rather than just one (1:1), as otherwise we're simply letting some majority (via vote) decide what they consider, on a case by case basis, to be the most preferred subjective grouping. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
