« Return to Thread: Clarification needed on remastered releases.
Re: Clarification needed on remastered releases.
by Gecks
::
Rate this Message:
On 02/07/06, Don Redman <donredman@...> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 05:11:30 +0200, doidy wrote:
>
> > I guess my question is: is the wiki right or are these mods right? I
> > have
> > heard the Rough Trade release and the Ryko release of "Today" and the
> > remastering is evident. By what I have researched, these should be
> > separate
> > releases. Supposing they were merged as one release with two different
> > dates, could I add an Advanced Relationship RemasterRelationshipType
> > between
> > the 11 track MB release and the original 9 track version? After all, I
> > would be saying that this entire release was a remaster of the earlier
> > version, which would actually not be true, since the hypothetical two
> > release dates for the one record actually denote fundamentally different
> > releases.
> >
> > If the consensus is that this is okay and remasters and original masters
> > should have the same MB release, can this information be removed from the
> > wiki?
> >
> > Thanks for the consideration. I certainly don't want to be argumentative
> > and I just want to conform to the rules and avoid making mods like this
> > that people will have good reason to vote 'no' on.
>
> Steve,
>
> you have hit a delicate problem here. I think th eproblem is that there is
> no consensus. Currently MusicBrainz is moving from a policy according to
> which releases were merged as much as possible to a policy according to
> which releases are kept separate if they differ by some substantial detail.
> What that substantial detail is is a controversial matter.
>
> I think I will raise this issue on the style mailing list, but this might
> spark some lengthy debate.
>
> In the meantime, I suggest you enter the album as a separate one. It is
> clear that on the long run such albums will be separated and I think we
> are loosing information if we merge them now.
i don't agree. what info are we losing? the tracklist is the same, it
is just another release event (release date). you can state that it
was remastered in the annotation. another full release is only worth
entering if the tracklist is different.
as i stated in the boxsetnamestyle discussion on the style list,
listing by 'product' is not a direction i want to see MBz going in,
and i believe that a lot of other users will think the same once/if
that becomes a real possibility. i think listing such releases
seperately now is really jumping the gun, and doesn't make sense when
we've got different pressings/country releases/formats (vinyl etc)
listed under the same 'release' (not that i think we should have those
seperately either!).
for the record, none of my 100+ subscribed artists has a single
unmerged remaster. nor indeed has any got any mention of that fact in
the annotation. it's just outside of MBz scope IMO.
> E.g. if you have both albums, you can generate PUIDs for all tracks. Those
> will be different (since the audio is different). If these get merged into
> one release, then people will tag their files against the wrong track with
> PUID lookups.
i'm not so sure this is true. a remaster may not change the audio to
the extent that PUIDs would be different. at least with TRMs i was
under the impression that the granularity of fingerprint was not
enough to make the distinction. i realise PUIDs have increased
granularity, but perhaps not enough?
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 05:11:30 +0200, doidy wrote:
>
> > I guess my question is: is the wiki right or are these mods right? I
> > have
> > heard the Rough Trade release and the Ryko release of "Today" and the
> > remastering is evident. By what I have researched, these should be
> > separate
> > releases. Supposing they were merged as one release with two different
> > dates, could I add an Advanced Relationship RemasterRelationshipType
> > between
> > the 11 track MB release and the original 9 track version? After all, I
> > would be saying that this entire release was a remaster of the earlier
> > version, which would actually not be true, since the hypothetical two
> > release dates for the one record actually denote fundamentally different
> > releases.
> >
> > If the consensus is that this is okay and remasters and original masters
> > should have the same MB release, can this information be removed from the
> > wiki?
> >
> > Thanks for the consideration. I certainly don't want to be argumentative
> > and I just want to conform to the rules and avoid making mods like this
> > that people will have good reason to vote 'no' on.
>
> Steve,
>
> you have hit a delicate problem here. I think th eproblem is that there is
> no consensus. Currently MusicBrainz is moving from a policy according to
> which releases were merged as much as possible to a policy according to
> which releases are kept separate if they differ by some substantial detail.
> What that substantial detail is is a controversial matter.
>
> I think I will raise this issue on the style mailing list, but this might
> spark some lengthy debate.
>
> In the meantime, I suggest you enter the album as a separate one. It is
> clear that on the long run such albums will be separated and I think we
> are loosing information if we merge them now.
i don't agree. what info are we losing? the tracklist is the same, it
is just another release event (release date). you can state that it
was remastered in the annotation. another full release is only worth
entering if the tracklist is different.
as i stated in the boxsetnamestyle discussion on the style list,
listing by 'product' is not a direction i want to see MBz going in,
and i believe that a lot of other users will think the same once/if
that becomes a real possibility. i think listing such releases
seperately now is really jumping the gun, and doesn't make sense when
we've got different pressings/country releases/formats (vinyl etc)
listed under the same 'release' (not that i think we should have those
seperately either!).
for the record, none of my 100+ subscribed artists has a single
unmerged remaster. nor indeed has any got any mention of that fact in
the annotation. it's just outside of MBz scope IMO.
> E.g. if you have both albums, you can generate PUIDs for all tracks. Those
> will be different (since the audio is different). If these get merged into
> one release, then people will tag their files against the wrong track with
> PUID lookups.
i'm not so sure this is true. a remaster may not change the audio to
the extent that PUIDs would be different. at least with TRMs i was
under the impression that the granularity of fingerprint was not
enough to make the distinction. i realise PUIDs have increased
granularity, but perhaps not enough?
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
« Return to Thread: Clarification needed on remastered releases.
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
